And they’ve caused it themselves.
I’m with Earle in that I reject the insane notion that whether news is “fake” or not depends on whether I like it. The problem is they’ve so obviously grinded so many axes that mere suspicion undercuts their credibility.
In regards to Paterno.....there’s some debate (if we are honest about it) regarding what he knew when, and I don’t know if we’ll ever know the full story. However, there’s NO question that a guy of his stature - a guy who practically ran the campus and protected players from admin discipline - could have gotten Sandusky removed in two seconds if he wanted. When his family argues his only obligation was to tell admin and he did, they’re arguing legality, not morality.
I'm not sure how you inferred that I was implying that fake news depends on whether one likes it or not. I simply referred to a poll that reflects the low confidence that people have in newspapers and TV. I would assume this is representative of all media. IMO, the lack of confidence is well deserved. I wasn't directly addressing the matter of fake news at all. I don't even think I know precisely what "fake news" is. I've heard of it, but I don't follow the news
(I didn't know that Billy Graham has gone to be with the Lord until yesterday or today and it was quite by accident. Normally I would still be unaware.). I assume it has a little different meaning or at least more specific meaning than what the words "fake" and "news" mean. If so, I don't know what that is. I certainly agree that the truth has nothing to do with whether I like it or not.
As far as Paterno, I wasn't addressing that issue at all. As far as I know, the media did a fair job. I don't know what happened and haven't studied the investigative reports to have an opinion. I assume the general consensus is correct, but I don't know.
But to expand, IMO, the news media can't be trusted. Not that they tell bald face lies about everything all of the time, but their past behavior has shown that they at least shade the truth enough of the time that one cannot rely on them, especially regarding certain types of issues. Many factors are involved: laziness, incompetence, the bias inherent in human nature, the difficulty of obtaining enough genuine facts, the impossibility of knowing human motivation and knowing their thoughts and intents, social and political agendas, the desire to gain viewers/listeners/clicks, time limits both in preparation and presentation, etc. Truly accurate communication is difficult in the best of circumstances because of both presenter and receiver shortcomings. When you add bias and agendas it is impossible. I've known a handful of situations in detail that were covered by local or national media, and not in one case was the portrayal accurate. These were not highly charged social issues that tend to distort the presenter's and receiver's judgment, they were just general events that were of interest to the media. Just look in sports, the relatively meaningless toy dept of life, at how Bama and Saban have been covered over the years. Sometimes complete distortion of the truth - and I'm not speaking as a fan. When we hear of things about others we tend to take the media at face value and understandably so because they are there and we are not and our inclination has been to trust others; and if it is about the kinds of things that often make it into the media, e.g., Auburn cheating at x, we want to believe it or at best we don't care if they are wrongly portrayed. But when we know the facts in some detail, the media frequently comes up short. Like I said earlier, first of all because accurately conveying the truth under their constraints is very difficult to begin with and more so with certain types of issues that bring bias and agendas into play.
