> But breathless media coverage trying to impugn people on a personal level makes me emotionally more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure I'

> But breathless media coverage trying to impugn people on a personal level makes me emotionally more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way, and I'm not sure it's a good thing. I don't disagree with you on principle; I generally hate being told what to think (I'm stubborn, so it tends to push me the other way), but, as you point out, when the bias is clear, it's at least easier to work around. I'll note that Vice is probably not the place to go for dispassionate, neutral commentary. Furthermore, my experience in the past decade or so is that the media tries to give "equal time" to both reasoned discourse that at least TRIES to air multiple sides of an issue (even if there is a bias in such reporting), and, frankly, utter and complete claptrap that doesn't even try to be factually correct. And thanks to the midpoint fallacy, people end up believing left-leaning NPR, which describes conservative views on a matter (if only as a foil) has the same news value as utter and complete trash that some idiot/troll/paid propagandist has produced. And, not surprisingly, the midpoint has shifted much closer to utter and complete trash over time. Where we all used to roll our collective eyes at "conspiracy theories" like the faked moon landing, now its what "the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear" and you have to "think for yourself" by researching random youtube videos.. even when it's being widely covered in the same media.