I'm wanting to inform myself. So be specific - which "righty" news sources should I consume regularly so I can someday know as much as you?
There is no need to look specifically for "righty" news. The idea here is to avoid being limited to one specific partisan bias when gathering information with which you will be forming your perception of the political landscape. One never needs to look for lefty biased media, since it is everywhere, but one needs to actually go looking for media that is not.
In order to become well informed from a broad menu of media, one must be able to separate from his confirmation bias. This is very difficult to do, since you will still be trying to objectively view media through your own built in subjective lens, but it can be done. If you are lefty for example, and you "know" that all things Trump are bad, wrong, lies, whatever, you would want to consume media that proves otherwise. It would be natural to search for media that proves what you already "know", but this is the confirmation bias problem. Step away from your confirmation bias and hypothetically place yourself as being employed to find out how Trump is nothing but right, good, and honest, even though your heart tells you otherwise. What you are doing, is finding a plausible path that your political opponent is right and you are wrong, even if you know that you really are right.
Some folks may already know that I am in several political forums under the name that I use here, but what a lot of folks do not know, is that I am also on a couple political forums as a lefty, using a different screen name and identity. I actively debate with righties like myself, and am able to stand my ground as a progressive liberal. When I post on the forums where I am a lefty, I get under the skin of righties just as much as I do the lefties on this thread. Being a lefty on a couple sites means that I am arguing on behalf of my political opposition, but it also teaches me that there are parts of leftyism that have merit, things I would not have known if I had not argued against my own confirmation bias.
Again, what is the "rest of the news" that I don't think is credible. You keep talking in generalities and baseless assertions, so it's actually impossible to debate.
Glad you asked. You picked up that I specified "the rest of the news", which includes more than simply "righty news". The rest of the news just means news from all the rest of the partisan biases. We saw during the election cycle, the usual Democrat biased news, but the Republican biased news was broken into two parts. Establishment Repub news was a different bias than anti establishment Repub news, and one could easily get locked into one or the other, the way lefties got locked onto lefty only news. The idea here is to find a plausible path that each partisan view is the correct one, and not just find news that proves your own confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is why lefties can't see outside of the lefty media box, so confirmation bias needs to be checked.
Just for example it is false that "NONE" of the news is "worth a hoot." I suppose in some way it's all "biased" because perfect objectivity is not possible, but there are trustworthy writers and outlets who faithfully report facts and do an honest job analyzing the data. Doesn't mean their analysis is the only one, or correct, but that's not what you're saying. Essentially you're asserting if I want to know about economic matters, for example, then I should treat writings by economists and those with a track record of success and those who couldn't pass Econ 101 as equally important in my daily readings so I can "triangulate" the "truth."
I am specifically discussing the media and how it relates to the political landscape, and not economics. Triangulating mathematic or scientific data is nothing like triangulating political truth. Triangulating political truth may require education in history and government, but it also requires some very human things like life experience, discretion, and understanding of emotions. Other than that, you seem to be getting what I am talking about. The media can easily assemble non relevant, yet true facts, to form whatever narrative they want to. In this case, a media story can be "fact checked" and all of the facts to be true, but the story could still be very misleading. There is almost always a bias behind a media story, but the most dangerous bias is one's own confirmation bias.