Asklemmy

I find it's very difficult to tell what the truth is at the time of reporting. As you point out, there are many different perspective, sometimes facts are omitted, or presented in a way that creates biases, and so on. Seeing many different perspectives can help find the ground truth because you can see what facts are being consistently reported across the spectrum.

However, what the actual truth is tends to clear up over time, and this is why I find that it's really useful to look back and see how close the reporting from different sources was compared to what we now know with relative confidence to be true. This is how I evaluate what sources I tend to put more weight on compared to others. I also find it tends to be useful to follow the analysis along with the facts being reported. If somebody provides analysis that's proven correct more often than not, then it's an indicator that their reasoning on the subject is well informed.

As an example, a lot of people like Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer were dismissed at the start of the war because what they said didn't align with the narrative. Now that the fog of propaganda is starting to clear, we can see that they were largely correct.