Sadly though any thing that comes from a political figure favoured by media is reported as true — or if it is sold by the government as in the interests of patriotism when there isn’t a war.
Classic example — russia responsible for Clinton email hack. You say the media is careful — but it isn’t.
Then there is investigative reporting — to help resolve such stories as 9/11. There is so much meat there and mainstream doesn’t show anyone so they can make up their own minds from impartial information.
Example of this — recently I think it was nat.geo. did a short on UFOs — there are many scientists who say they don’t exist but equally there are many who are and conducting valid scientific research on the subject. The producers however decided to present it as a joke and patronised the audience. This isn’t impartial.
At the end of the day — at some point mainstream media decided it was down to them to indoctrinate people into a reality that I have no doubt someone is paying for.
Example — about a month ago the Sunday Times ran a big piece about alternative therapies for veterans and ptsd. In this article it names 2 therapies — NLP and cranial therapy — saying they are big con and ripping people off. I have, as have many seen the power of these alternative therapies and they really work. So one is left to assume that a pharmaceutical pays the Times to run articles against alternative therapies. Why can’t a proper job be done show the statistics compare with pharmaceutical solutions so the public can decide?
What you have written above is just an excuse- if you want to gain trust you have to embrace the real problems