Those questions are irrelevant to your first question. You asked what is the difference between the guy in the story and the Onion. That answer doesn't depend

Those questions are irrelevant to your first question. You asked what is the difference between the guy in the story and the Onion. That answer doesn't depend on people being cautious or rational about what they chose to believe. It only depends on the intent of the writers. In one case, you have the intent of humor, not at all immoral by itself, though perhaps tasteless from time to time. The other case you have the intent to deceive, to fake reality with the goal of changing people actions: deeply immoral. And for the record: I never heard the Clinton story before this... I find most the news is written for emotional engagement and actually doesn't help to inform me in any important way, so why stress myself out with it? I read very little news... haven't watched a local news broadcast in decades. The recent election was the perfect display of this deficiency. For the Onion, there are documented instances of people taking it seriously... but what can I say? There are documented instances of people doing and believing just about everything. I don't bother with them anymore than I do with "the news".