"So, who's supposed to deliver on the truth?"
Not "the truth" but "current events", media is supposed to report what happens in a way that is an extension of our senses in an as objective way possible.
"Newspapers... in my opinion still the most trustworthy source tbh. They take the most time for research, the have widest spectrum of reported news and common bias is known to the educated public. They are most of time at least one day late tho."
I agree, "most trusthworthy" compared to alternatives. That means we need many outlets that have their biases on display so that it's not, easily, mistaken for "the truth".
The current status of official, established and mostly well regulated big-old media in Scandinavia is, still, very good.
The problem I have with them is the trend of it getting worse, and that it is very easy to change that by dropping the PC/feminist/virtue-signaling slant that's spreading and report what the population would most likely want/need to know to make informed decisions.
For example:
The attacks in Kalmar, Sweden, was reported as committed by "men", this is over-simplifying it too far. The often correct prejudice that cultural heritage(morals, political stance etc.) can be correlated to skin tone/facial structure is, IMO wrongfully, dismissed as "everyday racist outlook"
There is a correlation there and since it is clearly visible it is a useful tool to discriminate by, of course there will be false positives, but that is nothing compared to the false negatives that would occur by not discriminating at all or discriminating based on biological-sex only.
The points about social media:
"I only follow members of my echo-chamber" attitude is a clear and present danger, a better word for it is "intellectual sectarianism".
If I would self-assess my social media browsing it would look something like this:
10% I frequently/always disagree with
50% 50/50 Agree/disagree
20% I frequently/always agree with
20% Raw facts(science stuff etc.)
