Watching the "new"s

It occurred to me today that, very often, the reason I read content from news sites, pundits' blogs, and even Wikipedia is not to broaden my perspective, but rather to deepen a belief I already hold. It would be nice to think I always use information to refine, change, or even abandon my existing beliefs under the guiding principle of rationality -- and indeed I do do this sometimes -- but while reading I also often (perhaps unconsciously, perhaps not) find a particular interpretation to support the perspective I already hold. Hence, the information does not serve as a "check" on the conviction of my beliefs, but rather only strengthens it.

Inability to verify anything

The phenomenon I described above is made all the more severe due to the crippling inability on my part (and anyone else's part) to personally and completely verify anything that anyone tells me that I did not personally witness. One news site says an event was caused by X; another news site it was caused by Y. One website says X happened; another website says Y happened. One website says X was the main tragedy; another website says Y was much more important or prevalent. Each side X warns its readership not to believe the propaganda of side Y.

I read a fair number of different news sources (CNN, NPR, Fox, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Mail & Guardian (South Africa), Al Jazeera), but I'm still not satisfied I know what the hell is really happening anywhere in the world.