“The full glare of journalism was turned on this legislation, its impact and motives, but that didn’t matter to those who had the power to go ahead anyway.”

The reason these corrupt players can operate with perceived immunity, in spite of countless journalists putting the truth out there, is they have peddlers of false information supporting whatever agenda needs promotion. And a Machiavellian party whose ends justify their means.

It seems the only thing redeeming our government is the system of checks and balances between the branches (as impotent as it feels at this moment). How do we de-politicize the perception of facts, to invite readers with polarized views to consume information with an open mind? Is it possible for Journalists, and the field itself, to create a visible system of checks and balances? A rating system and seal of approval for articles, with points given for fact verification and best practices (beyond likes and shares)? Is something like this a new element of Journalism education? Like a grading system displayed on the paper?

Arguably, the name of the media co/publisher/news outlet is that stamp of approval now (like a university conferring a micro degree), but as long as it’s Fox News and Breitbart vs almost everyone else, you aren’t going to see many readers jumping between the ships. Does a recognized system of rating (with a spectrum ranging from 100% truthiness all the way to verified fake news) improve the situation? Or is it irrelevant to the readers who have already shown a marked lack of concern about the validity of their facts?