Deciding What and How to Read

To me, the issue of "authority" or how to filter who you're reading is based on two things. First, each "field" tends to have people that are recognized as having some authority. And those voices tend to be very easily identifiable with any modest effort. For example, I don't think it would take someone wanting to learn more about economics to figure out that Paul Krugman's blog is an important source of information that often shapes the conversation on a party topic. Identifying those "authorities" is pretty easy (or so it seems to me). The harder part is, to me, keeping my reading loyalty. And for me, the bedrock principle as to whether I keep reading is whether, after I have invested in reading a piece, do I understand the complexities of the issue better as a result of it? So, for example, while I recognize that Paul Krugman is an authoritative voice on some topics, I don't really read him often because I find he too frequently veers into snarkisms, & generally tends to assume the bad faith of the other side as a starting point. On the other hand, I almost always feel like I genuinely understand more of the issue - even of the arguments of those I disagree with - after I read someone like Ross Douthat, Ezra Klein, EJ Dionne, Bill Galston. Frankly, I think the "younger" voices like Douthat, Salam, Klein (and there are others) have really remade journalism into some more interesting.

I find the subject of religion and spirituality to be fascinating, so I have a lot of books. I have found many favorites through the recommendations of friends or from a reference in an article or blog. I am more interested in spirituality than in formal religion. The older I get, the more off-putting I find organized religion to be. The SBNRs are not all young! I am a "dissenter" and believe that it has very often been the dissenting theological voices in the church who have been the prophetic voices that have pushed the church into, hmmm, "developing" doctrine. The bishops as a group are anything but prophetic, spiritual or insightful. They are good company men, loyal to the boss in Rome - politicians and administrators. Looking to them for spiritual or moral guidance is a waste of time. Sorry. The internet is a wonder. But, as you say, young people need to develop some techniques. The danger of being overwhelmed by TMI is all too real. I do a lot of research for my work, and Wiki and mainstream news sources are a good starting point for kids - emphasis on starting point. I assume they know that Wiki articles alone cannot be trusted, but those articles usually provide citations. So they should go to the citations and begin following the threads. Footnotes in books and journal articles can be used the same way - to lead them to other reliable sources.They can explore the collections of colleges and universities almost everywhere - online. They can retrieve an unbelievable amount of solid raw information and data from government agencies and international agencies. Most colleges and universities have treasure troves of source data available online. In my professional work, I use source documents as often as possible. If, for example, a news article reports that a study indicates that more and more people support legalizing gay marriage, they should find the study and read it themselves. They should be taught to proactively seek out opposing views - from legitimate sources. It's the "legitimate" that gets tricky, but for academic research, it's pretty easy to filter. For general news coverage of politics, economics, etc, I would recommend The Economist for your students. It is well researched, well written, presents an international perspective on many world issues, and often has more in-depth coverage than newspapers (even those like the NYT). Blogs are a real minefield. Some are written by nationally known names, known authorities, and are affiliated with legitimate sites (such as America or the New York Times) but most are just mom and pop stores. The students should learn to check credentials and affiliations and not simply assume the blogger knows what he/she is talking about. They can easily do that by googling the name of the author and looking for information about them - education, professional associations, etc. They should not assume that what the blogger puts out about themselves is the "whole truth". If the blogger does not provide information about him/herself, they should skip it all together as far as reliability goes. When they read something that just doesn't "sound" right, they should check it out. I imagine they all know about Snopes! I agree with Josh DeCuir that it's not too hard to differentiate, and agree with him also on the limitations of relying on newsfeeds. The self-selection bias is built in.