The bolded never was or will be my thing. I can kinda see where you're coming from. Just having a hard time taking funny book news to serious to call it a thing that is actually going to affect minorities, women, and those in need. Buy yeah. In the end, I get you..
But that's what I'm getting at. People got used to consuming information in this way because it
wasn't serious when it started. It was just entertainment bullshit. For a lot of people, a lot of this political shit still
is just entertainment to them. It's sports. Its a storyline like on their favorite Netflix show. They got used to consuming legitimate information about real people and real lives in the exact same way they ate up whatever stupid fucking rumors about some Batman set pics.
A lot of news outlets have devalued the practice of vetting their information because they discovered a lot of their readers
don't give a shit, because they're not really
reading. Both sides learned to roll in that direction via the rise in online reporting in the late 90s/early 2000s, when people who didn't know shit about shit carried just as much weight, if not more, than people who knew how to actually do the work
correctly.
I'm just as complicit as anyone, by the way. I've practiced some of this bullshit myself, on both the reading and the writing side. Which is shitty.
But I'm not equating Batmans to Inauguration Protests or anything - I'm saying the mechanisms that have led to our lazy-ass media servicing confirmation biased readers are not only the same as in the entertainment media field, I'm saying they more or less
started there, and filtered outwards to other branches. (Gamergate is a particularly relevant example)
It's hard to complain about how shitty the news is when you reward shitty news with repeated views of their lazy, irresponsible reporting, or even worse, when you carry the water for those irresponsible outlets as if they're worth time and eyeballs.
It's not much of a leap sideways from one terrible aggregator to another.