> what replaces it as arbiter of truth? Why wouldn’t they tell the truth? Why do we need someone else to be arbiter of truth? Take feminism. Why do we still h

> what replaces it as arbiter of truth? Why wouldn’t they tell the truth? Why do we need someone else to be arbiter of truth? Take feminism. Why do we still hear this deceit statistic that women earn .73 cents on the dollar, without any list of the assumptions built into those very gross average? Barring that, why do journalists never put it into perspective? Barring that, why do journalists never interview counterpoints on this topic, when they would always have a feminist on panel if a man gets interviewed? Hence, what does anyone mean with “arbiter of truth”? They are not seeking truth in appearance, let alone in depth. I understand that this is about power, but, when even a layman can study the underlying science and prove the journalists are blatantly “forgetting to say the big hypothesis that makes the statement a blatant lie”, then your question becomes: “What can replace media as an arbiter of lies? Who would be capable of misleading more than they do?” (For the record, media is now trusted even less than congresspeople, with less than 21% Americans trusting them)