I always find this interesting when one person or group takes a broad swipe, especially for politics to say what I did set the election. No, there is and always has been false and misleading news since before printed news. Typically, the party after 2 terms, 8 years, in the White House looses. That is nearly historical. People were tired of many Obama and split congress issues and leaned right. Technically there are more Red voting states so due to the electoral college, the probability has a slight advantage to the right by a small margin. Statistically speaking solely based on actual history, not polls or predictions. I believe it is 27 Red leaning and 23 blue.

I am glad to have read this. I never knew what it was called for something I chose to start doing a few years ago. I read many views of news, even opposing views to see if I am understanding something wrong or being misled from just one source. But when the story does not stick with me or is a topic that will just do no help to anything, I just scroll on by. I had no idea there was a name for it, in topics, I feel I could not change or would change my mind or yours. The best example is almost any argument about the statement "defund the police" it immediately tiggers any one but very opposing meanings exist. I immediately said well that's a terrible phrase. Its catchy, but misleading and devisive and almost every story is factually wrong at some point in that topic. It rallied people, but not for the good, and both political sides have had to walk back statements. It was a marketing genius move, but terrible for society. I critically ignore any news story with those words.

This comment alone is fascinating. Students are taught to think critically. While being told by both sides of American news media the other side is wrong, people turn away from fully believing main stream media immediately. They look at smaller resources, such as who they follow on social media. Then small news agencies - with much resources are not considered reliable enough, they are too small. But confirmation Bias builds as someone shares something on social media with zero vetting, looking for community engagement to support their shared story.

The trend of younger people avoiding news is not new. In the 1960s and 1970s younger people demonstrated against the war. Same how many did not follow news of Enron or 2008. They trust news less because news does not tell a full story in 3 minutes. News also finds the most radical one off to make an example which people may believe the story, but also know that is not necessairly the truth most places.

When I read this it does not make me immediately think negatively of one age group or another. It does make me think of people in older generations who used their preferred news source. I will add, taking news from a 3rd party in entertainment form is not reliable, from any source tictok or tv programming. TV shows are for profit and tend to skew news. Online personalities aim for engagement to sell their platform for popularity and profit. Very few places are clear and transparent about affiliations , donations and backers. Just because of a program has increased 5 fold, sounds like a lot, that measurement can still be low in totality. It also does not mean they believe everything, it just means that's where it originates from.