Alternative media.
It's like alternative medicine: It's bullshit for those that can't face the truth.
Right. Because if it's big it must be credible.
CNN, MSNBC Fox, all have been caught red handed lying.
No one has a Monopoly on the truth and it certainly doesn't follow that the largest, most well funded news organizations are somehow more credible.
You can be lazy and have your infotainment soon free to you, it you can exercise your critical thinking skills and dig deeper.
No news outlet is 100% right all the time. Most of them have a bias, some more than others; Rachel Maddow, for instance, is unabashedly anti Russian in her coverage. Some of her stories have gone too far.
Some outlets absolutely masquerade as news but are really just propaganda outlets. But which ones? Why is it okay for Facebook and Google to decide which news sources are credible? What assurances do We the People have that they will act impartially, considering that they have exactly no obligation under current law to do anything of the sort? Why should we assume they aren't out to maximise their own influence?
I'm not going to pick winners or losers, that's for the reader to decide for themselves.
One thing is for certain; it is indeed to the advantage of many to deliberately confuse and obscure the truth, to create doubt, to sow confusion. In the resulting environment of uncertainty, it's much easier to advance propaganda that advances one's own aims and be believed by more people. The current administration is just one prominent example of what can happen in such an environment.
Caveat emptor.
