i would say look into who is doing the reporting and if the site is just quoting another site. often news media will use other news media as a source so it can be important to track down the original because it might have no sources at all (or have sources that are tools of US gov’t)

for china specifically, it is important to get your news from people who actually know what is happening there. if you cannot read chinese, there is plenty of news media that comes out of china in english. here’s two sites:

• global times

• cgtn

I wrote in another comment that:

There’s no such thing as free or unbiased journalism… at best what you can do is read the article and evaluate each and every claim – what they say, why they say it, what they are not saying, which words they’re using, etc.

On top of that, examining stories is important. What these journalists rely on is important. If for example a journalist praises Yeon Mi Park and her bravery or whatever, in an article that is about the DPRK, then you can safely dismiss everything they have to say. If they were serious about studying the DPRK to write about it, then they would not validate Yeon’s stories.

Capitalism will try to confuse you, and it’s important not to be confused. You may make mistakes if you take the wrong stance, but you will not make anything at all if you are confused. Capitalism likes to keep you inert and useless, because then you’re not a threat to anything.

One thing news outlets will do is quote each other infinitely. You can read a story on five different sites and think “hey if five sites are talking about it then it must be true” but 4 of them are quoting a single source and the fifth is quoting one of the other four. That doesn’t mean the story is wrong, just that you fell for the fallacy of the majority.

I also usually believe news outlets when they praise communism, because it goes against their interest.

Then at some point you will require original research (usually I just wait for comrades to do it and then read what they have to say). For example the famous “maps of Uyghur concentration camps” that turn out to be factories or municipal buildings – someone has to read the article, find these buildings again on the map and then get the information out there. That’s original research to set the record straight.

Edit: also you’ll learn which sources you can outright dismiss. RFA (Radio Free Asia) and RFE (Radio Free Europe, now Radio Liberty I think) are literally owned and operated by the CIA… and the geniuses on raddle are citing them lol. Their M.O. is to cite an “anonymous source” and make it say whatever they want, since the source doesn’t actually exist. So if any article starts quoting RFA, you can close the tab and move on.

A lot of it is going with your wit at times.

But you definitely have to “take a stand” against certain outlets and say “no, this is wrong and I won’t refer to it.” For example, if the media outlet uses mostly mainstream media sources, that’s a good sign that something is off, in my book.