> when that happens, the rational conclusion is that you're in the wrong.
No it isn't. The news media has a bias like anything else. They have traditionally been against all sorts of groups and topics that they are now in favour of.
> But in fact it virtually never happens,
If it sometimes happens, and if you can take the inside view of a particular topics, then you can determine if it is one such instance.
> if there's any validity at all to the claim that it's misinformation and that it is being pushed by "one side" then it necessarily follows that there's another side that is your source
Your source may not be considered valid by wikipedia, for reasons that are fundamental to wikipedia as an institution, but incidental to an individual trying to determine the truth. One particular example is where an individual can reference primary sources (including personal experience) which are not covered or referenced by "reliable" (wikipedia term of art) secondary sources.
No it isn't. The news media has a bias like anything else. They have traditionally been against all sorts of groups and topics that they are now in favour of.
> But in fact it virtually never happens,
If it sometimes happens, and if you can take the inside view of a particular topics, then you can determine if it is one such instance.
> if there's any validity at all to the claim that it's misinformation and that it is being pushed by "one side" then it necessarily follows that there's another side that is your source
Your source may not be considered valid by wikipedia, for reasons that are fundamental to wikipedia as an institution, but incidental to an individual trying to determine the truth. One particular example is where an individual can reference primary sources (including personal experience) which are not covered or referenced by "reliable" (wikipedia term of art) secondary sources.