The fact that this obvious fake news story is real makes me wonder how I'm supposed to filter out the fake made-up stuff from real news. ..... This really bothers me. A lot.
This is more than a fair question about the media industry and how functional media optics works. At some point, I may start a top level thread talking about some of this stuff in more detail.
Some light points though for now
1)
The closer you are to the ground, the cleaner the news tends to be. For example, while the activist complicit left leaning radical MSM operates a certain way, it's much harder to exert that kind of pressure on a small local news channel/outlet.
Getting ratings for "opinion" based programming is monumentally difficult. I know some people don't like Rush Limbaugh, sometimes I also found him exhausting, but to be able to do what Limbaugh or David Letterman does and did, hold an audience with just a desk and a microphone, is insanely complicated and nuanced.
Up the food chain, you get access to filtered through talent and can make this work, like Fox's The Five or Rachel Maddow. Down the chain, the competitive logistics of the environment creates a much different culture/functionality
2)
"Clean" news is like slop in a bowl. Like the "Tasty Wheat" in The Matrix. It has everything you need in the most technical sense nutrient wise, but it's tasteless and a type of mental attrition.
For example, lots of people don't like my posts, they don't like how they are structured, the length, the formatting, the personal viewpoints I have, in fact lots of people here clearly want me silenced for good, but the material is never boring. Making complex topics into layman's terms that flows and paces well isn't a natural skill.
This is why politics in the MSM almost operates like a "team sport"
3)
The monetization/marketing shifts in the media industry has made a very "top heavy" environment. The ranks of the lower levels of the news industry has been purged and downsized beyond measure. That's not good for helping the average American understand what's happening on the ground. Someone like Andy Ngo is basically treated like an outcast terrorist in today's media world. Actual journalism in today's media market is essentially an act of rebellion at this stage.
There would be more practical "clean" information passed around if that kind of participation/discussion/talk/engagement was generally rewarded. But it's not. Look here in the PSF, high value posting behavior is not rewarded at all. Which is why so many good quality posters likely left in all the years I was gone. I don't even look at my PMs anymore really because I get some pretty ugly messages left for me over my politics. In lockstep, social media does not reward quality discussion.
The same reason that Bill Simmon's Grantland failed and the complexity behind it is also sort of a test case why high level political discussion doesn't happen in most public scenarios.
You've brought up a pretty interesting complex topic. I might start a top level thread on it at some point, or you can do so yourself. Just be clear about the reality of it, the closer you get to the truth, the more you will be attacked and some people will want to silence you.
The best media optics people in the industry all have one simple thing in common -
They understand that their feelings don't need to be validated. Donald Trump doesn't win 2016 POTUS without Mark Burnett behind the scenes. Burnett doesn't care about how he feels about Trump personally and he doesn't care about what he might want people to feel or not feel about Trump. Feelings get turned off. All that matters is the reality on the ground. As a lawyer, I only have one client - myself. But for all other lawyers here, the initial game is the same. You tell your client to tell you the deal upfront. Don't leave something out that is going to surprise me later because you are ashamed to reveal it. If I know right now, I can work the situation. If I get blindsided, I can't control the spin down the road after I've tried to set a certain path/narrative.
The FBG analyst I admire and respect the most is
@Jene Bramel The guy is a stone cold professional. There isn't a more valuable asset in any place online that deals with professional sports in any context. What I really admire about Bramel is he always separates his own individual fandom versus his obligation to help people win their leagues ( i.e. IIRC he's a Bengals fan and he always cites his own potential bias in his ratings, i.e. "I like this guy a lot but I'm a personal fan and that might sway me, but you have to do what's right for your team to win, etc") I also laugh when he rolls out a STEM type joke "Be Patiently Aggressive, everyone...." But I'm a mathematics guy at heart so I get that. Bramel knows when to turn off how he feels for a greater overall purpose and obligation. This is what makes him one of the best analysts. I call everyone out. When people do something bad, I say it. When people do things excellent like Bramel, I say that too.
If you want to understand, as an individual, how to filter through signal to noise, you have to learn to turn off your own feelings, your own biases, your own habits, your own life experiences, everything that puts you in front of yourself.