when I get media reports, I generally consider them 90% as true when talking vanguard reporting sites (NYT, WaPo, LATimes, WSJ, etc.). Editors are notorious for

when I get media reports, I generally consider them 90% as true when talking vanguard reporting sites (NYT, WaPo, LATimes, WSJ, etc.). Editors are notorious for drilling down and not wanting to print unless they’re fairly confident. While papers have an incentive to publish “riviting” stories, journalists (and their editors) have a much larger incentive not to get caught with egg on their face. Take for example the reaction a few years ago from This American Life’s reaction to a false story they got (and more importantly the length of repsone they went into to correct it). To put into context, I usually take peer reviewed reports as 95% as true (academic standards are even higher). Use those benchmarks as you will to adjust your priors.