> In each case one side is telling stories for political advantage
This is an argument to moderation, though. Hypothetically, "both sides" may not have been doing any research at all, but making up their positions from whole cloth in order to encourage effects that benefit them personally. You might end up either always thinking that the truth was somewhere in between, or that one was right half of the time, and the other was right the other half, when actually the relationship between your sources and the truth was entirely arbitrary.
Especially 1) because you can commonly both be telling the truth and telling a story for political advantage, and 2) because "both sides" might actually only be one entity, with the intention of defining the range of acceptable opinion.
> Hypothetically, "both sides" may not have been doing any research at all, but making up their positions from whole cloth in order to encourage effects that benefit them personally.
In practice there is a strong probability that if true facts advance the position of one side, that side will present those facts -- and, of course, that the other side won't.
What this means is that you need two things. The first is to listen to a variety of sources, and the second is to evaluate things they say for yourself to try to ascertain who is telling the truth about what.
And sometimes they're both telling the truth. There are a lot of situations where the government can take $100 from Peter and use it in a way that creates a $105 benefit for Paul. Then Paul argues that they should do it because it's creating a $5 surplus and Peter argues that they shouldn't because it's clearly inequitable. Both of which are true and accurate assessments of the situation, but you still have to make a decision. Better that it be an informed one, one way or another.
> because "both sides" might actually only be one entity, with the intention of defining the range of acceptable opinion.
Sure, absolutely. The whole concept of "sides" is an artificial frame created by the two party system and there are plenty of external actors (corporations, foreign governments) who are quite adept at playing one side against the other for their own benefit.
The answer is to go beyond "both sides" and find the outlets (often foreign or subversive) that provide sides three, four, five and six. Then apply the same tools to evaluate their narratives that you use for anything. A lot of what they're saying will be bunkum, but so is a lot of what CNN or Fox says.
You could even go so far as to listen to the likes of Alex Jones once in a while -- for entertainment value if nothing else, like watching Alias or X-Files. Give yourself critical thinking practice to evaluate the flaws in some reporting that you have strong reason to suspect is in fact flawed. But watch out -- it turns out even he gets some things right:
Being able to debunk lies is a much more important skill than being able to find publishers who never lie about or omit anything, the latter of which is surely impossible.
This is an argument to moderation, though. Hypothetically, "both sides" may not have been doing any research at all, but making up their positions from whole cloth in order to encourage effects that benefit them personally. You might end up either always thinking that the truth was somewhere in between, or that one was right half of the time, and the other was right the other half, when actually the relationship between your sources and the truth was entirely arbitrary.
Especially 1) because you can commonly both be telling the truth and telling a story for political advantage, and 2) because "both sides" might actually only be one entity, with the intention of defining the range of acceptable opinion.