A low-effort way to keep a personal “sources list”
For news and analysis, with trust notes and bias flags.
They’re dug up from the bone yard, pieced together in the dark when the rest of the world is asleep. They cost something to tell.
If you want to keep the lights on in this place, if these words are worth more to you than a cheap cup of coffee, then step up. Don’t just be a ghost passing through. Become a member. Keep the ink flowing.
You don’t forget facts, not at first. You forget where they came from. Then the next headline shows up, dressed like certainty, and your brain nods like it knows the guy.
That’s how the fog wins.
A personal news source tracker is a small habit with sharp teeth. Not a grand project. Not a “system.” Just a living list of where you read, what you trust, what you don’t, and why. With quick notes, a few bias flags, and a score that keeps you honest when you’re tired.
Why a personal sources list works when your memory doesn’t
Your mind is a bad archive. It stores vibes, not receipts. It remembers the punchline, not the footnotes. A sources list fixes that with one cheap move: you write down your relationship to each source.
Low-effort is the point. You’re not building a museum. You’re keeping a street map.
Here’s the rule that keeps it light: capture only what future-you can’t reconstruct.
That usually means:
- What it’s good for: breaking news, slow analysis, local reporting, niche expertise.
- What it does when stressed: sensational, calm, smug, careful, sloppy.
- Your trust notes: patterns you’ve seen, not theories about motives.
- Bias flags: a few labels so you can balance your inputs on purpose.
Keep it in whatever you already open every day. A notes app. A spreadsheet. A plain text file. If you’re on Linux and you like your data close, a Markdown file in a folder works fine.
If you ever plan to share screenshots of your tracker, or store it in a cloud folder, keep the sensitive stuff out. If you still want encryption, make it easy on yourself and use something you can do in seconds, like secure file encryption with GPG on Linux.
One more thing: don’t track articles. Track sources. Articles are weather. Sources are the climate.
A simple bias-flag scheme and trust score (1–5) you can stick to
Bias is a fact of being human. The lie is pretending you don’t have any, or that your favorite outlet is pure. Your tracker doesn’t “solve” bias. It just turns it from a hidden influence into a visible variable.
The bias-flag scheme (three quick tags)
Use three tags per source. Short. Boring. Useful.
- Political framing:
L(left),C(center),R(right)
This isn’t a moral score. It’s a steering wheel. You’re noting the usual framing. - Origin:
INST(institutional),IND(independent)
Institutional can mean standards and resources. It can also mean access pressure. Independent can mean candor. It can also mean loose editing. You’re just labeling the shape of the shop. - Intent:
REP(reporting),ANL(analysis),ADV(advocacy)
Advocacy isn’t automatically “bad.” It’s just honest about its goals. The mistake is confusing it with straight reporting.
So a label might look like: C / INST / REP or L / IND / ANL.
If you want an outside reference point, treat bias charts like a flashlight, not a judge. Poynter has a grounded piece on the limits and use of these tools; see Poynter’s take on media bias charts. For quick comparisons, you can glance at Ad Fontes Media’s bias and reliability chart or the AllSides Media Bias Chart. Cross-check, then write your own note based on what you’ve seen.
The trust score (1–5) with clear criteria
Keep the scoring dumb enough to survive a busy week. One number. Five meanings.
| Score | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| 5 | Repeatedly accurate, transparent sourcing, corrections are clear and easy to find. |
| 4 | Mostly solid, occasional errors, corrections happen without theatrics. |
| 3 | Mixed, good on some beats, shaky on others, headlines may oversell. |
| 2 | Pattern of weak sourcing, heavy spin, corrections are rare or vague. |
| 1 | Repeated falsehoods, anonymous claims with no support, sensationalism as a business model. |
How do you decide fast? Use a short trigger list in your head:
- Sources named or documents linked: trust goes up.
- Corrections posted clearly: trust goes up.
- Clickbait tone, constant outrage: trust goes down.
- Claims you can’t verify anywhere else: trust goes down until confirmed.
If you use aggregators, read how they rate outlets before you lean on their labels. Ground News explains its approach in the Ground News rating system methodology.
A ready-to-copy sources list template
Plus example entries and a 5-minute routine
You’re not collecting trading cards. You’re building a working file. Here’s a template you can paste into a spreadsheet or a notes page.
Sources list template (copy this)
| Source | What you use it for | Bias flags | Trust (1–5) | Trust notes (keep it blunt) | Corrections habit | Last check |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Example entries (neutral, non-partisan)
| Source | What you use it for | Bias flags | Trust (1–5) | Trust notes (keep it blunt) | Corrections habit | Last check |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local newspaper (your city) | City hall, courts, schools | C / INST / REP | 4 | Strong on local facts, thin on national context | Corrections page exists, updates are dated | 2026-01 |
| Public broadcaster (national) | Daily reporting, interviews | C / INST / REP | 4 | Careful language, sometimes slow to break news | Corrections posted, usually visible | 2026-01 |
| International wire service | Fast facts, market-moving events | C / INST / REP | 5 | Dry, consistent, less opinion bleed | Quick updates, transparent revisions | 2026-01 |
| Industry trade press (your field) | Niche details, product changes | C / INST / REP | 4 | Great domain info, sometimes too close to advertisers | Corrections vary, watch sponsorship labels | 2026-01 |
| Independent analyst newsletter | Long-form analysis | L / IND / ANL | 3 | Sharp ideas, evidence quality varies by topic | Corrections happen, but not standardized | 2026-01 |
| Advocacy group press releases | Stated goals and claims | R / IND / ADV | 2 | Useful as a “what they want” signal, verify facts elsewhere | Rare corrections, framing is the point | 2026-01 |
Notice what’s missing: moral theater. You’re not awarding medals. You’re tracking risk.
A maintenance routine that takes under 5 minutes a week
Pick one day. Same day, every week. A tiny ritual. No drama.
- Scan three sources you used most this week.
- Adjust one field if reality changed (trust score, notes, or intent tag).
- Add one sentence you wish you’d remembered last month.
- Set “Last check” to today for the sources you touched.
That’s it. You’re not polishing. You’re keeping the file alive.
Quick checklist when to update a source
Update your entry when you see:
- Major factual errors that aren’t clearly corrected
- Repeated sensationalism (the same panic tone, story after story)
- Transparent corrections (reward this, bump trust when it’s earned)
- Ownership or leadership changes that shift editorial behavior
- A pattern of weak sourcing (anonymous claims, no documents, no specifics)
- A sudden pivot in intent (reporting becomes advocacy, or analysis starts posing as reporting)
Treat patterns like fingerprints. One smudge is nothing. Five smudges is a person.
Safety and privacy
Don’t store sensitive personal data in your tracker. No private names, no workplaces, no “here’s where I’ll be on Tuesday.” Keep it about sources, not targets.
If you share the tracker, share a cleaned version. Remove anything that could paint a map of your routines or beliefs in a way you didn’t mean. The internet loves a loose thread.
Conclusion
The world isn’t short on information. It’s short on memory with standards. Your news source tracker is a small act of resistance to being led by the nose.
Keep it low-effort. Keep it honest. Update it when the facts change, not when your mood does.
And the next time a headline tries to hypnotize you, you’ll have something better than a gut feeling. You’ll have your own record.