Despite all the evidence to the contrary so many people still seem to hang on to the idea that there are trustworthy sources out there, that some media outlets, public personas or institutions are somehow trustworthy because they enjoy a certain reputability in the minds of the masses, partly because those "trustworthy sources" back each other up all the time, woven into a net of persuasion that has been mind-bamboozling the populations on Earth. Likely for millenia... and is still ongoing.
Most governments are seen as trustworthy sources of information nevermind the countless scandals that have been uncovered in the past centuries that would point to the opposite. Whether it is international governing bodies like the UN, huge corporations that dabble in political matters or just the average "news outlet" demonizing and ostracizing people who ask legitimate questions, as long as an institution exists it seems it is taken for granted that it somehow is sworn to report the truth.
But when we think about it, we can't really ever know the truth unless we have witnessed it ourselves.
The very fact that subjective experience is entirely discarded as reputable source of insight and truth-discernment in mainstream society should give us a hint that we do not live in a civilization based on love for truth but rather inside a quasi-religious cult trained to believe its priests - and laugh at their human brothers and sisters for whatever they claim - provided it isn't completely in line with the authority-sanctioned narratives that seep out of every source out there by varying degrees.
It boggles the mind to see how many times "reputable sources" have been caught fabricating stories, lying to their readers and manipulating on a large scale just to fulfill some shadowy obligation - and then to witness people who still cite it as some sort of reliable source of information years after the fact.
It's almost as if the naiveté is so great that people seem to automatically assume "if any outlet I like wasn't truthful it would have long been closed down by now". But because it's still in operation "it can't be unreliable, otherwise people would have long seen through it..." Other people. But who, if you can't see through it?
The fact that other people can't see through it is precisely the reason that outlet still operates and is trusted by the onlooker in question.
It's like the dimension of deception is too grand and elaborate to even be imagined by most people and so they automatically opt for their most "plausible" conclusion: That the source in question must be reliable.
People also forget that things we consider false and notoriously out of date today have at some point enjoyed high prestige. Things that were once seen as true by everyone, especially by the "experts" of the day.
It was all true and obvious until it eventually wasn't, and people now scoff at the very ideas their ancestors once held in high regard.
What makes us think today would be any different?
The "church of progress" as it is sometimes called could be likened to a religion really, because in all the claims and conventions of our day and age there is also the inherent presence of superstition. Superstition because we think we are being rational and evidence-based when we have in fact never bothered to check things out for ourselves. We trust the priests of our day with the vigor once reserved to clergymen and we do not doubt the majority of what we are being presented with through allegedly "trustworthy sources". We are naive children, trusting the basis of the matrix with our consent.
And so the dogmas of our era and the unrecognized assumptions of our age have crept into our awareness, overshadowing it by such intense degrees that most people are blinded by them. We just don't call it "devoutness" or "piety" today, we call it being a "realist" or "well-informed" when really all we're doing is becoming a toy of the gang that has subverted not only the trusted and relied upon institutions in the human realm, but also our very ability to even consider that the notion of the existence of trustworthy sources was part of the plan all along - to fake an appearance of neutrality and loyalty to truth-finding when the actuality of the narratives presented in our broader cultures suggests the exact opposite: Deception on the grand scale.
Listen to widely available sources for their take if you must, but never mistake it for actuality. They are widely available for a reason. A reason that has nothing to do with being reliable or accurate, but everything to do with being loyal of the matrix' narratives. License-sources, if you will.
They have been licensed by those granting and revoking licenses for specific reasons. Towing the line. Supporting the artificial worldview that has been carefully crafted, and still is, every time a human being willingly takes it into his awareness.
All players have their own interests. But we generally neglect to recognize and realize that most players are not separate players at all in reality, just arms of the same octopus pretending to have no connection.
A gang of con men to rob you of your ability to see the forest for the trees, under the guise of always keeping you "up to date with the latest". Don't fall for it. Dare to think big and don't let anyone tell you you are overstepping a line. If there was a line it would not only have been drawn carefully for an important reason but it also needs to be stepped over in order to see the big picture. The line is only in our minds. Because we believe the basic assumptions about how the media operates and what it allegedly represents when it does nothing of the sort but instead binds us to the grand spell of faked viewpoint-plurality with evergrowing conviction.