Asklemmy

Go with people who are willing to use their real name, a lot of times it'll be in the channel description, or sometimes in a channel trailer or intro video. Sometimes in an interview some other outlet/creator has done on the content creator. Then google that real name and check their work history and education credentials. You can usually find a LinkedIn. If they're a proper academic, their university will usually have a brief page on them on the official university website. If they're an alumni, they can sometimes be found in an alumni list, various class lists, or publicly accessible projects they worked on, though not always. Work history often cannot be as easily verified, but sometimes can be if you dig a little. Depends on field.

It's not too different from what you'd do if you wanted to hire someone to work for you in a small business or something.

Once you have a significant knowledge base yourself, you can start to use the sniff test, though that's always far from perfect. Less time consuming though.

I highly disagree with looking for the widest set of opinions. Some opinions are stupid and/or baseless and just muddy the conversation (that’s part of how you get screaming talking heads on cable news shows).

Personally I look for those with expertise who speak to their expertise. Just because someone has an advanced degree in one field does not mean their opinions in other fields are worth listening to. Also, I do a gut check. If is smells like BS, such as unfounded blanket statements or it seems like they’re pushing/selling something, I look into their qualifications a bit more or find someone else.

Finding a trustworthy source is the hardest part. I generally avoid anyone speaking too loudly of the subject. Someone who’s knowledgeable and confident, most times, can present calmly with context that’s accessible to most people.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a good example. He’s a good place to start for a broad range of topics. Then if I want more details I can dig deeper on my own. A lot of times, his commentary requires digging deeper because he speaks too broadly.

I always check the source of a report or article; if there is no source, I don’t trust it. The source is usually a good place to ‘bookmark’ for further research.

Edit: a few days later and I’ve come across the perfect example. Here Tyson explains “the tide doesn’t come in and out”. What I think he should more clearly say is there’s no “high tide” and “low tide”. To me, and I could be an idiot, I thought he was going to explain the action of the waves coming in and out at the cost line every 30 seconds or so. It’s not that he’s wrong but sometimes his choice of words isn’t super on point. Here’s more info about Tidal Range https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tides.html

Well u need to know enough about sonthing before you cant tell if your being bullshit or not. Generally i just try get every single perspective i can and make my own decision. I assume everyone has a slant but by watching everyone u can cancel that out.