IME if the issue is controversial it's best to trust no one, but seek to triangulate and look for two+ different perspectives.
Also, look for familiar patterns. Hoaxes & lies especially tend to be built up along standard structures. Truth can be a lot weirder & surprising.
One pattern though is that some people/sources always seem to lie, others seem to have honest intent. A few even have wisdom + honesty. Usually those are the ones who get the most abuse directed at them.
I don't think news sources work like compasses where you can take a couple of readings and get an aggregate.
It's very possible to select 4 incorrect sources and one decent one and conclude that the incorrect ones have it.
I agree that hoaxes and lies can fall into patterns, but that's not always the case, either. And just because something is weird and surprising doesn't mean it's true.
And I definitely don't agree that getting the most abuse indicates honestly and wisdom -- sites that traffic in transgression are likely to get abuse (and want it. And deserve it) for that reason alone.
Better than nothingLooking at multiple sites is better than looking at one. Looking for patterns that indicate dishonesty is better than being oblivious to them. Placing some trust (a little?) sites with a good history of fidelity is better than treating sites with a history of lying equal to ones mostly proven true.
But I don't think that -- alone -- they'll get you to The Matrix
Seeing the MatrixHow do you choose which sites to triangulate with?
How do you distinguish between a pattern that looks like a lie from one that's actually a lie?
When the topic isn't news (e.g. "what happened") but something factual about the world, where do you go? Who do you trust to tell you how many stars there are in the sky, or whether climate change is driven largely by humans?
Cheers,
-E.