Who Can You Trust? Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #4

Hi I’m John Green and this is Crash Course
Navigating Digital Information. So here at Crash Course, we work hard to bring
you entertaining and educational videos on everything from science to literature, but
how do you know that we’re like telling you the truth? And is our work invalidated by the fact we
sometimes make mistakes? I would say often. The thing is, unless you’re an expert in
every subject we make videos about, you don’t know. And that is precisely what makes it so easy
to be misled, both online and off. None of us has the time or the talent to become
an expert in everything. I made this helpful Venn Diagram of people
who could debunk myths about climate change, myths about victorian literature, and conspiracy
theories about the illuminati, and as you can see there is nobody who can do all three. So we have to trust information from outside
of ourselves. We have to find a way to accredit and trust
experts, even though they will be wrong some of the time. So today, we’re going to think about how
to do that especially online. INTRO
So whenever you open an app or a website, you see information and content that was made
somewhere by someone. With lateral reading — or, leaving a site
to find out what others say about it — you can learn who that someone or group of someones
is. But when we try to learn more about a person
or organization, what should we be looking for? Well, before putting your trust in a source,
you need to explore two more things: The authority of the person or organization
presenting the information And their perspective. When I say “authority” I mean one’s
recognized knowledge or expertise on a topic. Famed primatologist Jane Goodall is an authority
on chimpanzees. Dwayne The Rock Johnson is an authority when
it comes to lifting heavy objects repetitively, and also he is the greatest actor of his generation. Slight sidenote, I once met Dwayne The Rock
Johnson and I know he looks ripped in movies and stuff but in real life he is so ripped! What were we talking about? Right authority. If you want to tell if a source is an authority
on a topic you need to leave the source. Because nobody is going to be like, “I am
not an authority on this topic. Here. Listen to me bloviate.” Look you’re going to hear me say that a
lot during this series. You need to leave sites to understand them. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but it’s
always a good idea to leave a source to understand if it is a good source. Vertically reading a website or article only
gives you the information that the source wants you to see. As we talked about in our last episode, it’s
really easy to make a website or social media account look authoritative. While using lateral reading techniques to
investigate a source’s authority, you want to consider several factors:
The author or authors’ professional background The process they used to produce that information
And the systems that are in place to catch mistakes and correct them
An author’s professional or educational background can indicate whether they are actually
qualified to speak knowledgeably about a topic. Generally speaking, those who work professionally
in a field or have done lots of work within it, are better equipped than you know random
people off the street. That doesn’t mean that experts are always
right of course but they are more likely to be right than the random people off the street. So, a scientist who has published studies
on climate change in prominent journals is a much more reliable source on climate change
than a blogger with no formal science training. My neighbor who has been gardening for 40
years definitely knows more about growing plants than I do, as they like to remind me
every time they see me toiling in ignorance in my new vegetable garden. And an agriculturalist who has spent years
studying the growth of plants will know even more than my neighbor. I don’t want to go on a rant here. But failure to believe in and trust expertise
is a big problem on the internet. Also, probably off the Internet, but I live
here. Another good indicator of whether a source
is reputable is the process that source used to produce or gather information. If you’re reading an article on, like, my
favorite celebrity becoming the first pop star to sing on the moon and there are no
sources listed — yeah, no, that’s just fan fiction I’m writing. And also you can’t read it yet it’s not
done. Actually, you can read it, but it’s really
rough so just be gentle. ANYWAY, the process a source used to gather
information is often right there in their work. A reporter might attend a protest and talk
to some protesters, and then describe those conversations in a story. Or a professor might explain in their new
study that they asked 5,000 people whether they liked chocolate or vanilla best. An Instagrammer tagging the person they’ve
re-grammed is also citing their process. Some news organizations even publish their
journalistic ethics, philosophies and methodologies for the public. The New York Time, Wall Street Journal, and
Washington Post all have their lengthy handbooks on editorial standards, which are available
online. The system in place to catch mistakes is just
as important as the process a source uses to collect information. As I’ve mentioned in previous videos, news
publications often employ fact checkers and professional journalists and editors also
take part in fact-checking efforts during the process of writing articles. And sometimes another force steps in to help
point out mistakes: the public. They might write a letter to the editor or
leave a comment. They’ll definitely tell you when you’re
wrong. But you already know that, you’re on YouTube. Hello commenters! It’s me John Green. I’d like to thank all 3.7 million of you
who’ve pointed out the Nile River flows North in that Crash Course World History video. We know! That’s why we published the correction in
the annotations, which I guess you didn’t read! But actually, seriously, thank you for pointing
out that mistake. In response, we issued a correction. We work hard not to make mistakes or spread
inaccuracies, but we don’t always succeed, and corrections are a way for trustworthy
institutions to acknowledge their failures. Now they aren’t perfect, because of course
by the time the correction has been posted the misinformation has already spread, but
what are you going to do? We’re human. When very serious corrections are made, sometimes
a publication’s editor in chief, public editor, or ombudsman will step in to explain
what went wrong. Here at Crash Course when those situations
arise, we sometimes make separate videos devoted to the mistake or mistakes and how they came
to happen. Let’s head to the Thought Bubble for some
news gathering and corrections. In 2018 the Drudge Report,
a right-wing news aggregation site with a lot of followers, tweeted, “REPORT: OBAMA PLEADS WITH JAY-Z
The tweet linked to InfoWars, a website known for spreading conspiracy theories that has been banned from social media sites[1]
for using hate speech. And the InfoWars story was based on one Twitter
user’s tweet, which claimed sources said that Obama and
Jay Z were discussing this. But that user is not a journalist, and though they said the story was “developing,” they never provided any other evidence for
this claim. But regardless, InfoWars wrote an article
about it and Drudge Tweeted it. But the report did nothing to explain how
or if InfoWars had confirmed the story. In fact, the only evidence they gave was that
Donald Trump Jr. had liked the tweet in question. What I’ve just described is not a reliable
or responsible news gathering process. Nonetheless, At the time we filmed this video the article was still up on InfoWars with
no corrections issued. For comparison, consider this ProPublica report. ProPublica is a respected nonprofit newsroom
that focuses on investigative journalism. They published a story in 2017 that said CIA
officer Gina Haspel oversaw the secret base where a suspected Al-Qaeda leader was subject
to waterboarding. That was wrong. When the publication discovered this mistake,
they issued a correction. In nearly 1,000 words, they explained the
error, how it was made, and how they got their initial information. That was added to the top of the incorrect
story, ensuring that anyone who found that page would see it. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So obviously ProPublica made a big mistake
with that article and that mistake did lead to lots of people being misinformed, some
of whom will unfortunately never see the correction. That’s why it is so important to only try
to share verified information. But the issuing of the correction, and the
exploration of how the mistake came to be made, does allow readers not only to understand
that the reporting was wrong, but also how it came to happen and what changes are being
made internally to decrease the likelihood of such mistakes. So in addition to varying backgrounds and
processes for gathering information, every source also has its own perspective or point
of view. You’ll notice I am not using the word “bias”. These days we tend to associate bias with
anyone we disagree with. Like if a sports writer named Steph Curry
the best NBA player instead of LeBron James, a fan might say “She’s so biased against
LeBron because he’s so popular.” But bias means favoring something in a way
that’s unfair. I don’t think everyone unfairly preferences
some things over others. But everyone does wake up each morning with
a particular perspective on the world due to their lived experiences. Rather than dismiss a source because their
background might make them supposedly biased, use the knowledge you learn about them to
understand their perspective. Consider their reason for sharing that information. How might their perspective influence what
they’re sharing, and how they do it? Basically, I am proposing a radical idea for
the Internet called empathy. Like take for instance the American Enterprise
Institute and the Center for American Progress. They’re think tanks, or groups of experts
that provide analysis and research on various topics and policies. Slight sidenote, the term think tank does
come from actual tanks. It originates from military jargon used in
WWII to denote a safe place to talk about strategy. But right, the American Enterprise Institute
is a conservative think tank. Many of its leaders are well known conservative
figures. The Center for American progress on the other
hand is a liberal think tank. Its similarly tied to well-known liberal figures. They both clearly have different political
perspectives. But that doesn’t mean we should immediately
reject any report or research they release. We just have to take the perspectives into
account when we receive their information, and consider how it might influence the content
they produce. Perspective extends to other sources too,
like news organizations. Opinion pieces are typically written with
a specific perspective by people outside a news organization. And when reading an opinion, we should carefully
consider that author’s perspective while examining their arguments. But one can’t confuse the opinion pages
of a newspaper with its reporting, even though that is really difficult online, because there
are no physical “sections” of a newspaper. But if a piece is marked “Opinion, or “Analysis,”
or “Perspective,” or “Viewpoint,” it is meant to be persuasive, not just informative. When the New York Times or the Wall Street
Journal publishes an opinion piece that is not their reporting, it’s an opinion. News articles don’t have that same explicit
perspective, but some news websites do have varying political orientations. If we’re familiar with an organization’s
political tendencies, we can take those into account when thinking about their work. For example, take a look at The Daily Kos
and the Daily Wire. The Daily Kos is a hyper-partisan left-leaning
website. How do we know? If we head to the Masthead page, which lists
their staffers, you’ll find they call themselves a progressive community site. Also, their founder has written a book explicitly
about “fighting” President Trump. Plus, their coverage often asks readers to
take action via signing a petition or protesting against particular causes, usually in favor
of liberal policies. This tells us their perspective is strong,
and it will almost certainly influence how they present the news. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the
Daily Wire, is a hyper-partisan right-leaning site. It describes itself as an “irreverent news
and commentary site for a new generation of conservatives.” On his YouTube channel, founder Ben Shapiro
calls himself a conservative political pundit and his podcast is described as “savagely
irreverent conservative.” They may not ask their audience to take direct
action as frequently, but they’re very clear on their political bent. This tells us that their perspective is also
strong, and and it will also almost certainly influence how they present news. When reading articles from either website,
we must take their views into account and remember they may be presenting information
in a way that aligns with their political beliefs. And if you think about it, considering other
people’s perspectives should not feel like revolutionary because you do it all the time
in real life. When a new Mountain Goats album comes out
and I call my brother to tell him that the most important piece of music in human history
has just been released, he knows I am speaking to him from a particular perspective… a
correct one. He’s not going to dismiss my enthusiasm
for the mountain goats’ brilliant lyrics or artful musical storytelling, but he will
dial it back to what a normal person might think–and maybe even check to see what reviewers
thought of the album. As if Pitchfork knows anything about the Mountain
Goats. I am the world’s leading Mountain Goats
expert… is a good example of how not to act. That’s what this is all about. There’s so much information online, both
good and bad, that in order to sort through it all we need to stop, think, and look around. We read laterally to find out who is behind
information. And then, we seek out specific information
about those sources, their authority, and their perspective. And each bit of information we get about a
source is like a piece of stained glass. Once it’s all put together, it becomes a
lens through which we view their claims and arguments. That makes us better at understanding what
information is reliable and what information in turn we should pass on. Not only to the people who are here now, but
to the people who will come after us. It’s also makes your life more colorful. We’re going to be diving into a very colorful
place next time on Crash Course Navigating Digital Information… well figuratively colorful… literally it’s quite black and white — Wikipedia. I’ll see you then. For this series, Crash Course has teamed up
with MediaWise, a project out of the Poynter Institute that was created with support from
Google. The Poynter Institute is a non-profit journalism
school. The goal of MediaWise is to teach students
how to assess the accuracy of information they encounter online. The MediaWise curriculum was developed by
the Stanford History Education Group based on civic online reasoning research that they
began in 2015. If you’re interested in learning more about
MediaWise and fact-checking, you can visit @mediawise on Instagram. ________________


  1. actuatedgear

    January 31, 2019 at 6:18 am

    You okay John? You getting enough sleep? People care about you, man.

  2. John Vance

    January 31, 2019 at 6:53 am

    The Mountain Goats are amazing

  3. Paul Kirschner

    January 31, 2019 at 7:09 am

    Nice, but please explain to people that being an expert in one area (e.g. solid-state electronics or theater) doesn't mean that you're an expert in other areas (e.g., education). This I call the "expertise generalisation syndrome".

  4. Maggie Laverge

    January 31, 2019 at 8:21 am

    I have to admit, I found it strange that this course is very vocal about use of Wikipedia and even has the Wikipedia logo in the background. Don’t get me wrong, I love Wikipedia and use it all the time, but it just made me suspicious. So I tried out some lateral reading!

    First, I found out that Wikipedia is supported by donation and the Wikimedia Foundation. They are generally non-profit (from what I understand.)

    Then I looked up the Poynter Institute and the Stanford group listed during the video and in the description. They are non profit also, and work towards education against misinformation.

    Then I looked around on the internet to see if there was any link between the foundations or any glaring issues. So far, I’ve found nothing. Is there anything that I’ve missed? Anything I should try differently? I’m new to lateral reading and would love feedback.
    (Sorry for the long comment, but I thought it was important.)

  5. kylerm18

    January 31, 2019 at 8:27 am

    I find it difficult to differentiate between news and propaganda. This hasn't really helped, unfortunately, but I love the series.

  6. Gary McKay

    January 31, 2019 at 10:48 am

    Please bring back crash course mythology.😭😭

  7. Kaylee Dork

    January 31, 2019 at 2:52 pm

    Hi John Green!!!!😁

  8. Jasmin Nyack

    January 31, 2019 at 4:58 pm

    As someone who has been working a lot with Victorian Literature and Climate Change for various college projects, I was very impulsively drawn to learning to things about the Illuminati just so I could be the only person in that Ven Diagram, and now I need to really think about my desires in life because that was weird.

  9. moodist 1er

    January 31, 2019 at 6:03 pm

    No one. You can only trust the observation of patterns.

  10. Gary Brees

    January 31, 2019 at 6:48 pm

    When you use the NYTimes as an example of research based journalism, you expose yourself as a person who doesn’t perform lateral reading. The NY Times and the Washington Post may have journalistic guidelines, but they are worthless if the ombudsman doesn’t clamp down on reporters like Maggie Haberman. Go ahead, do some “lateral” reading re Howard Schultz, Covington or the viability of Kamala’s Medicare for all. The times reporters have exposed themselves as partisans…laterally read their tweets.

  11. Colin Graham

    January 31, 2019 at 7:38 pm

    He just said president Trump. How respectful and unbiased.

  12. EatDatPuhh 445

    January 31, 2019 at 8:31 pm

    You speak fast !!!!

  13. Juan Sebastian Dueñas Salamanca

    January 31, 2019 at 8:32 pm

    I need the source that backs that claim in order to trust it 0:33

  14. Ernie Llerena

    January 31, 2019 at 8:32 pm

    Mainstream media have been reporting news like that for years now.

  15. Ernie Llerena

    January 31, 2019 at 8:52 pm

    The mountain goats is one of your favorite bands too! Whaaaaa..t!? Me too! I mean the actual me too not the other. We are on Common Ground when it comes to music.

  16. Jake Weston

    January 31, 2019 at 10:00 pm

    Ole John Green seemed a little tired in this video. Didn't have the energy or even the chutzpah he has displayed in the past.

  17. Matthew Stidham

    January 31, 2019 at 10:21 pm

    It is so easy to make a website look good, and it is also so, so easy to do it wrong.

  18. Eve Kohley

    January 31, 2019 at 11:07 pm

    I don't like the use of the word empathy. Some disabilities impair that skill & the disabled get hell for it. This is even though compassion & sympathy tend to be more pro-social anyways & sociopaths have empathy too.

    I think perspective & background is better word choices. It's like also trying to figure out reasoning processes. Also talking about recognizing people having different tastes would be suitable too.

  19. Larry Grimaldi

    January 31, 2019 at 11:10 pm

    Both the Times and the WSJ publish corrections regularly, but in tiny little paragraphs on an inside page.  About bias, it has been my experience that everybody is biased and most people don't realize it, having been brainwashed since toddlerhood… which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that I must be biased also.

  20. Dac85

    February 1, 2019 at 12:28 am

    This series' topic is probably the most important in the information age.

  21. Sean Lesesesst

    February 1, 2019 at 1:08 am

    TL;DR: Like the vid, keep it up, I'm (skeptically) hopeful this course will help the way it has the potential too.

    Long follower of your channel, and I need to say that I really loved this video. Very entertaining, and important (, reliable :p) information to get out. I wish all of North America would follow this course. I personally was happy to find out that I already practice a number of these skills outlined while reading news online, and it surprises me that many don't. This idea of paying attention to how you observe the world (or absorb information) seems so obvious yet it certainly feels like it's an under utilized skill these days.
    I think you hit the nail this week when you mentioned how, I'm paraphrasing, taking information into context (or perspective) online shouldn't really be a new idea. This is the reason for the Scientific Method; to provide a structure to generate truthful information, something which is taught to all (in Canada at least). I'm not saying this system can't be abused, just that barriers are put in place allowing a content consumer to offload the burden of evaluating trustworthiness to the "system". This is seen in other areas as well, such as Media (through corrections and journalistic integrity) and I'd argue the evolutionary(flames begin here…) development of Empathy itself. It's conceivable that the reasons these systems were implemented in the first place boils down to the public susceptibility to well orchestrated misinformation.
    I think the true problem at hand is that no such system has been put in place online. The skills taught in this course are important to have, however, I think, will only help some (likely only those in the "knowledge bubble" already…:p). I guess I hope that this course will at least scare/rally others by showcasing the effort required to actually consume content. Potentially get a ball rolling towards implementing such a structure online as well? I'm not sure what this solution may look like look like, (I do think one could exist) But I certainly am sure that there will always be gullible people out there. At least, every individual will always be gullible occasionally. Greedy people willing to take advantage of this aren't going away either. And since the internet has become the public's primary source of information, I think we should start considering the communication of it's information along the lines of journalistic integrity and the Scientific Method.
    That said this is an opinion from the mind of a Quality Control Engineer in training… so add that to your perspective while contemplating. ;p

  22. Killian Experience

    February 1, 2019 at 1:09 am

    Man, compared to the older series like World History, John Green sounds really tired and bored by what he's doing currently.

  23. Daniel Kirt

    February 1, 2019 at 3:05 am

    Whats the godwins law for tree octopi on an evaluating sources series

  24. hardoise667

    February 1, 2019 at 5:22 am

    Nietzsche say, Each time we hear something, even in the mind, we have to ask WHO is speaking?

  25. Will Boente

    February 1, 2019 at 1:47 pm

    Where are the english subtitles from the video?

  26. Pēteris Krišjānis

    February 1, 2019 at 1:49 pm

    Very well done episode, thanks John! All stuff that has been said, but told in very good way.

  27. Rose Hopkins

    February 1, 2019 at 4:12 pm

    Are you okay, John?

  28. Todd Crabtree

    February 2, 2019 at 12:53 am

    The most important question I have after watching this video: John Green is writing fanfiction about Hank having a pop concert on the moon?

  29. Joel Crow

    February 2, 2019 at 3:53 am

    Thank you crash course! This is an invaluable civil service, teaching us skills to circumvent the mind control attempts of fake news and social media that is literally being used (like a weapon) to brainwash and control people. Education like this empowers us to be independent thinking citizens, who question (and verify) before we react.

  30. Connor Stinnett

    February 2, 2019 at 6:36 am


    Only someone I shouldn't trust would give me advice on who to trust😌

  31. DerStolzeRitter

    February 2, 2019 at 9:38 am

    Please remember that Annotations are not available in mobile versions of YouTube, and also annotations are nearing it's demise.

  32. Mando Man

    February 2, 2019 at 11:20 am

    Nice vid, except the low blows to infowars, liked it alot

  33. Jayesh Y

    February 2, 2019 at 2:54 pm

    Why isn't THIS the most subscribed channel on youtube?

  34. Harlan Garrett

    February 2, 2019 at 2:57 pm

    I miss when John was the only one doing episodes

  35. Allan Song

    February 3, 2019 at 5:08 am

    It's funny that YouTube's algorithm seems to slow and suppress my ability to see this series when it comes to my sub feed…

  36. Miks Bandera

    February 3, 2019 at 10:42 am

    In John Green we trust.

  37. Maisa B

    February 3, 2019 at 5:48 pm

    Amazing course! I can't seem to find a playlist with all the episodes, though…

  38. IG laggmania

    February 3, 2019 at 8:49 pm

    Is he depressed or sick?

  39. AG

    February 4, 2019 at 3:06 am

    Thank you like really, thank you!

  40. Andrew BoddySpargo

    February 4, 2019 at 3:54 am

    I guess I’ll have to listen to some Mountain Goats now. 🙂

  41. Andrew BoddySpargo

    February 4, 2019 at 3:54 am

    I guess I’ll have to listen to some Mountain Goats now. 🙂

  42. mark thompson

    February 4, 2019 at 6:55 am

    ANYTHING ever mentioned on Crash Course should be based 100% on fact. Otherwise it is just opinion. If you are not providing facts then you are a part of the problem.
    No longer a help to society.

  43. none of your concern

    February 4, 2019 at 8:17 am

    There are things that are verifiable, those are called Facts, the perspective someone telling you a Fact, is not important and does not need to be taken into consideration.

  44. Eric Pomeroy

    February 4, 2019 at 8:07 pm

    This is helping me teach my students that all important skill of "how to think". Thank you for doing this series, and this episode in particular.

  45. Jared Tweed

    February 5, 2019 at 12:46 am

    I love this series!

  46. edi

    February 5, 2019 at 5:57 pm

    I agree, but sometimes people know a lot about a topic, but still know nothing about practical application and then an amateur makes an observation he cannot explain, but has a practical value to it. Knowledge is really a difficult topic and no-one is objective.

  47. A1

    February 5, 2019 at 7:52 pm

    Can you activate the closed captions, please? This Crash Course must be fully comprehensible to everybody around the world. Thank you and great job! 🙂

  48. jet687

    February 6, 2019 at 1:35 am

    Media Wise logo looks like the logo for Miss World. Hahahaha

    It takes some effort for me to ignore that.

  49. Luis Marin

    February 6, 2019 at 1:46 am

    If this course was part of the education system we could rid ourselves of the modern plauges of fake news, conspiracy theories and disillusionment

  50. TheMegaMrMe

    February 6, 2019 at 11:46 am

    this is the most important series you have ever produced. Thank you.

  51. Amna Farooq

    February 7, 2019 at 10:26 am

    Oh man i hope health is good. Ur enthusiastic voice is some how missed. Stay safe .

  52. Thiane Ceconi

    February 7, 2019 at 3:00 pm

    please publish CCs so the community can start translating!!!

  53. Adam Last

    February 8, 2019 at 6:27 am

    Dwayne "The Rock" is the greatest actor of his generation? You lost all credibility at that point….

  54. Bye Felicia

    February 9, 2019 at 1:35 am

    Idk, I think might be shuffling to the centre of that Venn diagram thanks to my Wikipedia/internet addiction…

    (also, I'm a long-time Crash Course fan, and this particular series is timely and AWESOME)

  55. Phil Robichaud

    February 11, 2019 at 5:10 pm

    Perspective explained by Star Wars = "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

  56. JarcoPolo

    February 11, 2019 at 11:10 pm

    Please, add subtitles ;(

  57. Dazed Dandelion

    February 13, 2019 at 9:27 am

    He said The Mountain Goats doe!! <3

  58. Hector Diaz Gonzalez

    February 13, 2019 at 11:50 pm

    You know the Nile flows north, right?
    Yours truly, Mr. 3,700,001.

  59. Nerdcoresteve1

    February 14, 2019 at 1:49 am

    Ben Shapiro should never be taken seriously by anyone he's a hateful bigoted little troll. I can't believe you'd put him or anything he's associated with anything worth consuming.

    Surely there's some reasonable conservative outlet that you could mention. Back when I was a libertarian Reason Magazine seemed ok, for example.

  60. Ishi 123

    February 14, 2019 at 9:30 am

    Funny how you mentioned the three American publications that are probably the least trustworthy in the entire country

  61. Ailithic

    February 14, 2019 at 12:07 pm

    Hell yeah man!!.. and I trust you to xD. Aww man.. was he jail ripped or just enthusiast ripped hehe

  62. Dmytro O'Hope

    February 15, 2019 at 9:59 am

    Guys, l love your amazing content, but BRING BACK SUBTITLES PLEASE!!!

  63. Kimberley Bryan

    February 17, 2019 at 7:29 am

    Can Crash Course put captions on this video? I am a deaf individual and I love that Crash Course has them usually, however they are not on this video. please and thanks in advance 🙂

  64. Osxkarallmyfriendsaredead

    February 18, 2019 at 12:04 am


  65. Timothy Morse

    February 18, 2019 at 10:39 pm

    I always thought it was Daily Chaos (KOS) ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  66. alex hood

    February 21, 2019 at 8:02 pm

    When you used basketball players examples to differentiate between bias and perspective it seems you try to differentiate it not really because they mean different things but because people used bias to distrust someone authority simply because of their demographic and psychographic groups they are part of?

  67. Parth Agarwal

    February 22, 2019 at 12:06 pm

    Confirmation bias plays an important role when trying to search. One must not find the information that they 'want to see' but rather 'see what it is.'

  68. Manuel Garnica

    February 26, 2019 at 11:34 pm

    Why there isn't CC my English isn't good enough to understand without CC?

  69. Raptor07 26

    February 28, 2019 at 12:32 pm

    I know everyone else is saying this, or at least the comments so far, but Thank you so much for making this video. I'm so glad that your teaching people how to fact check, since you have fake news bigger than ever, with things such as, liberal, and conservative news outlets that are more interested in spreading their views, and presenting them as fact, rather than opinion. It is important that we have accurate sources to rely on rather then talk shows or news channels such CNN or MSNBC, and especially Fox news, or louder with crowder or sometimes Vox, or the ones that you just mentioned, the daily wire, and the daily kos. Anyways keep up the good work;)

  70. MethosOhio

    March 17, 2019 at 6:49 pm

    John, about that Venn Diagram. It shows exactly what you said it doesn't show. Since the 3 circles overlap there IS someone who can do all 3. That's what that diagram means. If you wanted it to show what you said it shows, you should have drawn the 3 circles to that they don't overlap in the middle.

  71. SuperJV4x

    March 17, 2019 at 8:05 pm

    many many experts have been bought or have a political agenda, such as the climate alarmist scientists – the government grant money goes ONLY to the scientists willing to say global warming is man made. So their opinion is meaningless

  72. Daniel E

    March 24, 2019 at 12:10 pm

    So how do we proceed, when authority organizations/individuals have become biased, or corrupt? i.e. fact checkers

  73. Vaibhav Tripathi

    April 10, 2019 at 9:23 am

    I love green brothers.

  74. Heather Daugherty

    April 12, 2019 at 3:49 am

    Can closed captioning be added to this course? All the other videos in the series have it, except this one…please help!

  75. acerba

    April 14, 2019 at 12:01 am

    If the Tuskegee syphilis experiment has taught me anything, you can't trust government health programs.

  76. ntt

    April 14, 2019 at 7:21 pm

    annotations are gone so you're probably gonna get more comments from the people and also people like me telling you that annotations are gone so now nobody will know which way the Nile river flows

  77. SteepDescent

    April 23, 2019 at 12:05 pm

    The infowars article literally says "While the story remains unconfirmed". Man, you picked such a bad and leftist-biased example of fake news. How ironic.

  78. Katy Wheeler

    April 26, 2019 at 7:57 pm

    "Whom" Can You Trust?

  79. Cuckoo Phendula

    April 27, 2019 at 2:49 am

    John Green seems a bit more tired in this video more than usual. I'm just imagining him and the team working tirelessly with little sleep making sure to make this video as unbiased and trustworthy as possible from every side.

  80. Callum McInnes

    April 27, 2019 at 4:45 pm

    i learned this and it gave me depression lmao

  81. palak jadwani

    April 29, 2019 at 9:43 pm

    In india the media manipulates the public all the time that now no news channel or paper can be trusted.

  82. MrShmanckles

    May 6, 2019 at 2:43 pm

    Go to sleep sheep. Just trust and obey your authority figures because they don't do evil things or have political motives. They are there for "YOU". Inherently people are going to do what is best for them, we know this because we are smart not idiots. People are devious don't blindly trust an authority just because they are an authority.

  83. Korbin Tanguay

    May 8, 2019 at 5:31 pm

    this was a good video

  84. andres fajardo2

    May 21, 2019 at 3:44 pm

    are you telling the truth in all your other cources ? including world& us histories

  85. nfseskimo

    June 5, 2019 at 8:28 pm

    damn you look old

  86. Diesel Techie

    June 20, 2019 at 6:39 am

    Dwane 'The Rock' Johnson the best actor of our generation? I'll take that as an opinion piece with strong perspective. When news sites are far right or left leaning is it not normal to mistrust everything from a perspective of never ending bias? You start to think this person might be an expert in this topic but ultimately they have to be paid by someone who has an agenda. An example is where enviromental scientists who discovered climate change were paid by the oil companies who didn't like the findings and thus asked it be kept quiet. What are the consequences of mistakes versus cherry picking data for results or outright fabrications? The courts keep proceedures for getting rid of terrible lawyers called disbarment and terrible witnesses called perjury and contempt. Do we have anything to keep journalism in check besides independent fact checkers and some loss of reputation? It still feels like the wild west when it comes to accountability.

  87. TrumpsRight

    July 22, 2019 at 9:43 pm

    This subject needs to be taught in elementary school. Imagine how much false information we had before the internet. They could literally write whatever they wanted with no way to disprove.

  88. Marcus

    July 23, 2019 at 4:36 am

    Nice, Now do all of the mistakes done by CNN, New York TImes and Washington post please! Thank you

  89. psulionz87

    July 29, 2019 at 6:03 pm

    Cough Trump voters Cough Cough

  90. Derek Holcomb

    August 5, 2019 at 6:33 am

    Don’t trust CNN, RT, Al Jazeera or Wikipedia and you should be fine.

  91. Andrew Hughes

    August 5, 2019 at 8:08 am

    the crazy part is…all of us learned that about the nile in"SCHOOL"!!!!!!!!!!

  92. Andrew Hughes

    August 5, 2019 at 8:15 am


  93. Meg Eaton

    September 5, 2019 at 4:17 am

    Don't know if anybody will see this from my school but this will help you with your tracker. Question 1 and 2's answer: 1:29. Then Question 3 is 2:20

  94. MEDlC

    September 12, 2019 at 11:11 pm

    How do you feel about Information from a source that credits their opposition or criticises themselves. Say liberal finding positives in conservative or conservative addressing their own issues and vice versa. I find myself 100% invested in listening to whats being said.

  95. Unlocking ADHD

    September 19, 2019 at 5:06 pm

    y u make my life harder 😡😡🤬🤬😡🤬

  96. Get Lasting Results

    September 26, 2019 at 7:25 pm

    Often new ideas and radical changes are generated by people who are not experts in a field. They come to a situation with fresh eyes and no baggage. People who have skin in the game, stop looking to disprove what they believe and start looking to confirm it, and this stops them searching for truth.They also don't want to appear foolish by believing something for a long time that turns out to be false/incorrect. So experts are likely to be even more flawed, biased and faulty as newcomers, unless they take a strictly scientific approach. If someone is passionate about something, they have invested themselves into it and are less likely to be looking for truth.

  97. joe dem elfie

    October 17, 2019 at 4:18 pm

    thank you for your hard work sir. I respect and trust your show and believe you guys do outstanding work. keep it up. my parents use your work in their teaching classes and agree.

  98. joe dem elfie

    October 17, 2019 at 4:19 pm

    this video should have as many views as their are people on the earth who have access to the Internet and are under 70.


    October 23, 2019 at 12:57 pm

    subscribe to t series

Leave a Reply