I recommend following: - strategy outlets (geostrategy/geopolicy news) like the Strategic Studies Institute, papers out of foreign policy academics, Washington

I recommend following: - strategy outlets (geostrategy/geopolicy news) like the Strategic Studies Institute, papers out of foreign policy academics, Washington Security Thinktansk. - leaked documents (Wikileaks). When a leaked document or audio clips are mentioned in the news, track them down and listen to the entire thing. Take note of what was said in the article and what was glossed over. - International reporting from other countries. Understand who owns those companies. If you read from al Jazera on Syria recognize that that outlet is controlled by the government of Qatar and that Qatar is at war with Syria. SANA is the name of the Syria news outlet. Check out Der Speigel from Germany, Guardian from UK, RT from Russia, etc. All of it is propaganda, so recognize that when you read and associate the stories that get told with 'who told you'. - Foreign reporting from inside the US (foreign affairs, foreign policy, CNN international, etc). Pull from a lot of sources here. All of it is propaganda, so recognize that when you read and associate the stories that get told with 'who told you'. - Follow press sources. Many news outlets have the same exact information when they report (I won't go here into who controls that information...). So look up press breifings from the State Department and White House and look up the news wire service. It will contain the basic stories without it being 'sexed up' by good looking talking heads and computer generated graphics. - Read history books, particularly military history. Be very careful getting reviews and understanding the reputations of the books and the authors. In general if it's something they could teach a university course with it is probably good. If it's something that is supposed to be 'entertaining' or a quick read it probably isn't. - Read historical documents; like the Downing Street Memos, the 27 pages, the 'raw' version of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Pentagon Papers. - Learn to read between the lines. Politicians use doublespeak. Things like 'enhanced interrogation' meaning 'torture' or 'communication' and 'information' being terms for propaganda, and 'humanitarian aid' often meaning 'military aid'. This is one of the core skills of politicking. If you don't want to get snared by the wrong impression, you have to be an active and practiced listener. - Read wikipedia! Despite being highly edited for National Security concerns, it still has basic grainy picture of conflicts and events. Traditional encyclopedias are also very good, if not difficult to come by. - Listen to what scholars on a region ("Professor Emeritus of Southeast Asia Studies") have to say about the dynamics of their region of study. - Read the output of strategic thinkers, like Mearsheimer and Brzezinski, and take them seriously. - Be on guard for narratives that are trying to manipulate you. Movies and films and music that makes you want to cry or feel a certain way. Sexy newscasters who state the opinion from their teleprompter but obviously don't have a clue what they are talking about. Sober and somber sounding politicians who talk about a little girl who lost her parents in Conflict Area A. The human interest stuff is great and all, but it's much more useful to understand how to feel than it is to understand what's going on. You don't want to let someone else tell you how to feel. - Remember things! The most insane thing about following modern events is that within single years the story can change and contradict prior versions of itself several times. Most people simply accept this and very readily forget the 'popular consensus' from just a few months back. Keeping notes and comparing them is a decent way to do this. - Insist on consistency. This is a tool to discovering perspective. It's like interrogating a crime scene. You just simply can't talk to one person and make that your report. You NEED to understand how everyone at the scene thinks of it. You need to understand what everyone at the scene has for a motivation. Any individual country is going to condemn the other for bombing a civilian center and justify civilian deaths with "they are being used as human shields!" Insist that every power that makes an accusation/defense like that holds themselves to that criteria (hint, nobody does). This helps to defend against propagandistic exceptionalism from countries who want to motivate you to agree with their perspective and discount others before hearing and understanding them. - I'm sure there's more but I've run out for now.