Our culture is falling prey to the notion that pronouncing something right or wrong, true or false is sufficient for belief or disbelief. Facts, where they may exist, are too often selected only to prove our pre-existing convictions, rarely to evaluate their validity.
Journalism’s role is to gather news and present it woven together in a narrative tapestry about the principle experiences we face together. We expect these stories to be factual. But our Founding Fathers left us, the people, free to draw our own conclusions from among many accounts and viewpoints.
This right to free speech and freedom of information depends on our responsibility to think for ourselves. In seeking objectivity, most reporters look for the “other” side, even when that other side is flimsy or non-existent. Yet pronouncing news as complete and accurate doesn’t make it so; that determination remains with us.
It’s human nature to seek affirmation, and we prefer news that ratifies our views. After all, if we’re wrong, we’d have to change our thinking and behavior. We abhor this.
Our responsibility is to seek the facts and continually adjust our beliefs to accommodate them—not to limit our facts to those compatible with what we already believe. As Samuel Johnson famously noted, to fail in this task is to expect “the triumph of hope over experience.”
When we fail at this, we enable success for those who would manipulate us for power. Respecting differences and listening civilly is often the source of innovation. So when we suspend curiosity in favor of dogma, we deny ourselves creative freedom. And we make it difficult to condemn those who deny education in order to subjugate a gender or race or religion.
Freedom is a concept logically and inevitably linked to responsibility. When freedom becomes license, we’re no longer free. When talk shows pronounce a young college student a whore for suggesting that birth control be covered by her insurance plan, it’s neither a policy discourse nor a discussion of principles. It’s pejorative name-calling that simply derails the dialogue.
By slurring the source, we swallow the lie.
High Streams: Sorting fact from belief 
Well said! Sadly, too many of our media outlets rush to scoop, neither vetting their information nor looking for the other point of view. It saddens and disturbs me to listen to a political speech and then be subjected to a talking head spinning what was said. I’m fully capable of understanding and evaluating the content of the speech and drawing my own conclusions.
Having said that, I do enjoy a lively discussion among knowledgeable people on multiple sides regarding the subject matter of the speech. I often learn from that. On the other hand, when the knowledgeable people at the table also happen to be elected representatives, I find that I rarely get more than the patented party line. Phtooy.