[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

Since journalists have very little general knowledge of the world; their education consisting of being competent sentence writers (and not too great at that!), their reports on a subject are ALWAYS corrupted. They don't know sh!t from shinola, so how can they be expected to know when someone is feeding them pure BS?

The internet however, is filled with millions of well-educated individuals, many of whom are experts in their fields. When they read a news report on a internet site, they will oftentimes comment on the article; frequently enriching its worth, and giving other readers better understanding.

(Of course, the internet also has folks like myself!)

[Still Thinking]

They don't know sh!t from shinola, so how can they be expected to know when someone is feeding them pure BS?

Well, they could seek out people with opposing beliefs. Ask them to poke holes in the statement from the first source. If the result isn't convincing, that helps validate the first source. If the answer IS convincing, go back to the first source and ask them to defend their statements and poke holes in the objections of the denier.

Pretty soon, the guy with weak arguments starts to hem and haw, and call you an idiot. Then you know who's lying. You don't even have to understand the science to have a working bull$hit gauge. People ask me why I don't believe in AGW, and I do have scientific objections, but mostly my skepticism is based on the behavior of the believers. If they're acting like liars act, there's a pretty good chance they're liars.

[Wonder Warthog]

"....their reports on a subject are ALWAYS corrupted. They don't know sh!t from shinola, so how can they be expected to know when someone is feeding them pure BS?"

Boy, ain't THAT the truth. I was in my twenties when I figured out that EVERY news article on pretty much any topic in which I was well-acquainted with the subject, had one or more MAJOR errors. EVERY article.