A quick survey here.
Most people are rational, at least some of the time. Their perception of the universe is largely formed by the stream of information they receive and what they see as being in their best-interest.
Most people can accept that "triangulating a solution" benefits from two or three observation points that are not identical. In fact, the greater the distance between the observation posts, the more errors-of-measurement are diluted.
We are entering the Holiday season where we will be elbow-to-elbow with people we love but sometimes disagree with. One strategy to consider is to suggest that they expand the number of news sources they monitor to get wider triangulation.
They will likely say, "Fox sucks." or "No way in Hades will I visit Horn News."
In their view, those sites are hopelessly polluted by partisan politics.
What non-US sites do you visit on a daily or weekly basis? For the sake of simplicity, consider sites based in California, New York and Atlanta to be US based.
Times of India?
The Straits Times (Singapore)?
Canadian National Post or Toronto Sun?
From the comments:
The Jerusalem Post h/t Ed Bonderenka
The Sun (UK) h/t Ed
Epoch Times (US but strong Asian coverage) h/t George True
Canadian Freepress h/t George True
Al Jazeera (Middle East NOT Israel) h/t John Galt
Back to the blog post...
The benefit of using at least one non-US news source is that the non-US source is not invested in packaging the event to fit a particular narrative. Rather than leaving information out or arranging them to fit within a particular picture frame, foreign media is more likely to just report the facts and let the reader decide.
Suggesting that your much-loved family member expand their information sources may be the best way to break off the conversation...for this year.
The question on the table is: Which sources?