>If there were a way to objectively quantify a news outlet or newsperson’s track record with accuracy, that might be a start.
The problem with this sort of "fact checking" is that its keepers are biased as well. So you need a "fact check" on a "fact check" which might lead to stack overflow eventually. Unless you can objectively judge the accuracy yourself. And track record means nothing if say a reputable news outlet is purchased by a billionaire with a political agenda.
I think many people break through the walls of their echo chambers when they stumble upon some basic inconsistency and discover they are being lied to by seeing e.g. raw footage of an event vs. its media interpretation.
For many people however finding the truth is not interesting or important enough. I guess echo chambers are for those who deserve them.
The problem with this sort of "fact checking" is that its keepers are biased as well. So you need a "fact check" on a "fact check" which might lead to stack overflow eventually. Unless you can objectively judge the accuracy yourself. And track record means nothing if say a reputable news outlet is purchased by a billionaire with a political agenda.
I think many people break through the walls of their echo chambers when they stumble upon some basic inconsistency and discover they are being lied to by seeing e.g. raw footage of an event vs. its media interpretation.
For many people however finding the truth is not interesting or important enough. I guess echo chambers are for those who deserve them.