Depth of understanding communicates itself — and not just one’s protestations that they are “objective” when they are obviously not.
In the new age of understanding, we have to look beyond what someone is telling us is the truth — into their understanding of what is the truth, as their basis of credibility and integrity, and then there is some validity in relying on that source for information. But if everything that person says is untrustworthy, we need to locate sources that are trustworthy — rather than engaging in futile and frustrating arguments about what is truth — when they obviously have no idea what that is about while their whole objective is to convince you of whatever they tell you — as their ego/power-trip in life.
That’s what is being taught in the media and journalism schools — just as the education schools teach how one is to “appear” credible rather than truly having a mastery of a subject matter, which is far more important than a person claiming to be fair and impartial while having no understanding of what they are really talking about. So one needs to have that depth of understanding and insight that communicates itself — rather than merely pretending to be a credible source — that is contradicted with everything they say, and everything they reveal, is arbitrary with no substantiation or connection to any other reality.
That is uniquely the problem of “mediated” reality — in a world of increasing authenticity.
I agree that today’s media is largely failing in the task we need them to do. But that doesn’t obviate the need for that task to be done.
However, it’s been so long since it was done correctly that most people have lost the ability to believe it COULD be done. So when they are confronted with a truth they don’t like, they simply dismiss the message by dismissing the messenger.