I for one think it used to be very different. That is, there used to be some pretty universal, trusted sources of information. Encyclopedia Brittanica, for one

I for one think it used to be very different. That is, there used to be some pretty universal, trusted sources of information. Encyclopedia Brittanica, for one simple example. And I'm not saying these sources never had errors or they didn't embed some of the societal biases in their reports, but they clearly had an institutional desire to report facts correctly, and pretty much nobody questioned that intent, regardless of political leanings. The ease with which anyone can publish anything on the Internet is a double-edged sword. It makes it more possible to challenge the status quo, but it also means that some crackpot can produce a slick video that, to many people, is just as valid as some well-researched documentary that at least attempts to be unbiased.