In article
Boron Elgar writes:

Indeed. Most folks will not take the extra step that is needed these
days to verify what they see online.

It is sometimes easy to assume that the author is fairly representing
the referenced work. Listing the reference is almost a bluff.

I got slightly taken by a less loony example of this recently. I
caught an article talking about how Forbes magazine had trashed
Boehner about some recent events. I had the intended reaction --
"Forbes leans so far to the right that it only tans on one side,
and *they* bashed Boehner?"

Then I read the actual Forbes piece. Instead of Forbes staff, it
was written by an occasional contributor who is sort of a token
liberal. ("Liberal Bashes Boehner" is pretty much a "Dog Bites
Man" story.) And the alleged crushing was (to me) pretty mild, and
only appeared in the last third of the piece.

But 90+% of the people who read the first article I saw probably
believed that something amazing had happened.

Sigh. I used to think that full access to knowledge and verifiable
facts online would create in informed citizenry.

Boy was I wrong. All it has done is give a stage to fools, liars and
snake-oil purveyors.

The same prediction was made for cable TV, and television in general
before that. It may have even been made for radio. Unfortunately,
we keep letting human nature in.

--
Drew Lawson | If dreams were thunder,
| and lightning was desire,
| This old house would have burnt down
| a long time ago