Do people not still believe that the best way to get a rounded perspective is to read widely? If you suspect the sources you are reading are biased you may very

Do people not still believe that the best way to get a rounded perspective is to read widely? If you suspect the sources you are reading are biased you may very well add yet more sources to that list to try and compensate for the lack of integrity of those you are also reading. Of course that only gets you so far when all of them are just reporting from the same source, which itself is a false story. There is a technology example I often consider - the release of the 3900 series processors from Intel. I and many others read all the reviews from all the reputable (and non reputable sources) and all of them concluded confidently on release day the 3930k would overclock to 4.9+Ghz. It didn't however, in retail they topped out at 4.6 and more frequently 4.4Ghz. Intel had sent out golden samples of a stepping they never sold. Did reading widely help those purchasers make an informed decison? It didn't. Did the journalists report unfairly?! Well maybe. What shocked me was that they themselves never broke the story of the steppings, just random people buying CPUs organised on a forum worked it all out from CPU-Z and their own overclocking results. I don't have a solution, I don't think there can ever be one when humans are so willing to lie to make money or just attributation.