There's this report I noticed today....Stanford University did a research project, and came to some startling but not surprising conclusion.
They took roughly 7,000 students (high school and university)....across the whole US (urban and rural)....and they asked them to evaluate news items which came from social media.
What they came to realize is that the bulk of these kids would accept some caption on a photo that declared some disaster, or event, or terrible woes.....and that was the acceptance of the item....whether it was true or fake.
They were unable to identify real stories from fake stories.
Of course, I looked at the story and then wondered....why limit this to students? Why not go ahead with a second study and just look at 21-year-olds to 60-year-olds.....and see if they have the same issue.
My humble guess? Yeah, they'd fail as miserably as the punk kids.
The problem is that you have some many misleading and carefully crafted stories from literally hundreds of sources....the odds are that you only have thirty to sixty minutes a day to absorb and grasp what the story is about. You don't have time to ask why CNN built some interview into a story which was worthless, or why the BBC showed you misleading images, or why the Washington Post wrote a fairly long story with only three simple facts taking up nine lines of a 140-line summary.
The amusing thing is that Stanford researchers will sit there and poke into things which will upset a number of journalists and news organizations because it's obvious....there is very little difference between real journalism and fake journalism.
More research? It would be of interest if they'd go and study adults....thus proving this whole fake reality of life today. But if you did prove that virtually everything has an element of false nature to it....then what?