The problem is the average adult has a miniscule attention span. Giving a bunch of data and a path to a conclusion, or even contrasting viewpoints, isn't going to solve the problem.

One of two things will happen: 1) They want a summary, and denied that, will lose interest. 2) They will look for the summary that reaffirms their viewpoint and discard the rest (echo chamber/bias).

> That's a lovely idea, but said requirement isn't in our election laws, and it's quite clear that plenty of voters lack even basic critical thinking skills.

I mean, sounds to me like you're both saying roughly the same thing. The question is what is the solution to the problem of an electorate which is unable or unwilling to think critically?

> The question is what is the solution to the problem of an electorate which is unable or unwilling to think critically?

I'm of the opinion that fact checks from reputable sources are beneficial when tackling moderate/undecided voters. No, hard-core "Sandy Hook was a false flag" folks are never going to be convinced, but they're not the audience for sane coverage anyways.

> That's a lovely idea, but said requirement isn't in our election laws, and it's quite clear that plenty of voters lack even basic critical thinking skills.

The problem is beyond repair then.

> It's fundamentally responsible for news media to take a subject like vaccines or "was Obama president during Hurricane Katrina?" and give a solid, well-sourced answer instead of "well one side says X and the other says Y".

The first amendment has no such exceptions.

EDIT: (hn throttling limits kicked in)

> I said "it's fundamentally responsible", not "they should be legally compelled by the government".

If your policy doesn't exist in law, it doesn't exist; it's an unfunded mandate with no teeth. We might as well wish for unicorns that bring us gold.

> The first amendment has no such exceptions.

That's silly. I said "it's fundamentally responsible", not "they should be legally compelled by the government".