How to Read the News
A media literacy guide.
The news is not broken because journalists are liars. It is broken because the business model, ownership structures, and political incentives that shape modern media produce coverage that serves the powerful more than the public. This guide gives you the tools to see through it.
The 5 Questions to Ask Every Story
Before you accept any story as truth, run it through these five filters. They take less than two minutes and will fundamentally change how you process news.
Who wrote it?
Every article has an author — and every author has a perspective. Check the byline. Look up the reporter. Have they covered this beat before? Do they have known affiliations? A defense industry reporter who previously worked at a defense contractor brings a different lens than an independent investigative journalist.
Search the author's name and look at their previous work, affiliations, and any disclosed conflicts of interest.
Who owns the outlet?
Most major news outlets are owned by larger corporations with financial interests far beyond journalism. A media company owned by a defense contractor covers military spending differently than an independent outlet. A newspaper owned by a tech billionaire covers tech regulation differently. Ownership does not have to mean direct editorial control — financial incentives create structural bias.
Look up the outlet's parent company and major shareholders. Check their other business interests against the topic being covered.
Who benefits from this story?
Every story serves someone's interests, even if unintentionally. A story about a 'crisis' at the border benefits politicians running on immigration. A story about a 'booming economy' benefits the incumbent. A story about a 'dangerous new threat' benefits defense contractors and security agencies. Ask who gains power, funding, or public support from the narrative being presented.
After reading the story, list three entities that benefit from the public believing this narrative. Then check if any of them are connected to the outlet or its sources.
What is missing?
The most powerful form of media manipulation is not what outlets tell you — it is what they leave out. Missing context, omitted perspectives, excluded data, and absent historical background all shape how a story is understood. A story about a conflict that omits the preceding decades of history is not informing you — it is limiting your understanding.
After reading any story, search for the same event on outlets with different ownership and political orientation. Note what each includes that the others leave out.
What language is being used?
The words a journalist chooses are editorial decisions. 'Terrorist' vs 'militant.' 'Regime' vs 'government.' 'Claims' vs 'reveals.' 'Flooding' vs 'arriving.' Language is not neutral — it carries judgments, frames narratives, and triggers emotional responses. Outlets use loaded language so consistently that readers often do not notice it.
Read the headline and first paragraph. Replace emotional words with neutral synonyms. If the story feels different, the original language was doing propaganda work.
How to Spot Bias
Bias in media is not always obvious. It does not announce itself. Here are the four primary signals that reveal editorial bias in any news article.
Framing
What the story emphasizes and what it minimizes. Lead paragraphs and headlines reveal what the editors consider most important — which is itself an editorial judgment.
Omission
What relevant information is left out. Financial connections, historical context, opposing perspectives, and inconvenient data points that would change the story's meaning.
Loaded Language
Emotionally charged words that tell you how to feel before you have evaluated the facts. Adjectives that carry judgment, verbs that imply guilt or innocence, metaphors that dehumanize.
Source Selection
Who is quoted, in what order, and how often. Three government officials and one critic creates a 3:1 ratio that makes the government position appear dominant regardless of public opinion.
The most effective way to spot bias is to compare coverage of the same event across outlets with different ownership and political orientation. What one outlet emphasizes, another omits — and vice versa. The truth is usually in the overlap.
How to Verify Claims
Trust, but verify. These five steps will help you evaluate whether a story's claims hold up under scrutiny.
Cross-reference across outlets
Check at least three outlets with different ownership structures covering the same story. Note where they agree (likely factual) and where they diverge (likely editorial).
Check the original source
If a story cites a report, study, or document, find and read the original. Headlines routinely misrepresent findings. A study that says 'may be associated with' becomes 'causes' in the headline.
Look for primary documents
Court filings, FEC records, congressional voting records, SEC filings, and public government databases are primary sources that cannot be spun. Go to the data before trusting anyone's interpretation of it.
Verify quotes in context
Find the full speech, interview, or document a quote came from. Quotes taken out of context can mean the opposite of what the speaker intended. If only a fragment is quoted, ask what was cut.
Check the date and relevance
Old stories resurface as if they are new. Check publication dates, confirm that cited data is current, and verify that the story has not been debunked since its original publication.
Understanding Propaganda Scores
Every story analyzed by Gen Us receives a Propaganda Score from 0 to 100 — a numerical measure of how many manipulation techniques are present and how aggressively they are deployed.
What the Score Measures
- •Loaded language — emotionally charged words designed to trigger rather than inform
- •Narrative framing — what the story emphasizes, what it omits, who the framing serves
- •Source diversity — single-perspective reporting vs multiple viewpoints
- •Ownership connections — financial relationships between the outlet and the story's subjects
- •Missing context — relevant information the article left out
- •Beneficiary alignment — who gains power, funding, or support from the narrative
Straightforward reporting with little detectable spin
Minor framing issues or slight omissions
Notable loaded language, missing context, or ownership bias
Significant propaganda techniques across multiple dimensions
Heavy manipulation — loaded language, omissions, and clear beneficiary alignment
The score measures propaganda technique density, not political alignment — outlets on both the left and right can score high or low. Most mainstream articles fall in the 20-60 range.
Read our full methodology →