The notion that we have to research the news to find the news that's factual is pretty telling.
And "fake" is am extreme term. I would use the phrase "convenient". Most major media still put out real news (with obvious bias). It's the stories that become major stories that are being manipulated or used. We have multiple channels that offer news, and none of them hide which way their bias swings. That's nice for those of us still needing that guidance and want to be affiliated with one party.
We've been asking people for decades to research the news and find what's factual. Tabloids, e-mags and radical journalism have existed almost as long as journalism has. This again goes back to the idea or notion that media bias is somehow a relatively new construct. The truth is simple - media bias has existed almost as long as this country.
Yes, it has.
But with information as readily available as it is today, it becomes harder and harder to sift through the crap to find the factual information without strong bias.It's not impossible though and can be done relatively easily if something is that important to you to look up.
I see what you're saying but I personally don't believe it's that difficult. Part of that is because I come from a media background professionally and studied it in college, so I have a pretty intricate understanding of journalism's history and the process modern day journalists go through to create content.
I think what it boils down to is what you said in your second line - deciding if it's important enough to look up. I think it's easier now than ever to access information, but it's also easier to ignore the stuff we don't want to see. People rationalize that it's easier to post and forget rather than to read and research.
The world would be a much better place if we cut the amount of time aimlessly trolling through social media in half and then used that time to read and research what's happening around us.
