Because they are "local" or because they confirm their biases. The other day on FB a friend shared a photoshopped Nancy Pelosi tweet (For international folks, she's a US Congress Person). Their comment on the shared photo "Did she really say that?".
We live in the age of primary sources, we can easily go to their twitter to confirm. (Wasn't there)
We also have great tools that help keep our American Politicians accountable: https://projects.propublica.org/politwoops/ (Wasn't deleted either)
In the time it took me to confirm that (~15 minutes) 3 people commented agreeing that she was insane for saying it.
Unless the tweet has been deleted (which it often will have been if it's damning)
Beyond that, the point still stands, I believe we should always try and corroborate multiple sources (unless you have a primary source), we, the people aren't doing that and just confirming our biases.
Social media democratizes this. But if I post crazy things all the time, I'll lose balanced followers and will probably pick up biased followers.
The national media has little other governance. CNN ran amok for years-- it's time some balance was imposed.
Facts can be simply omitted, emphasized or underplayed, interpreted in both a positive or a negative way. Not to mention facts are only as good as the sources.
I find the notion that the media can be trusted as being responsible to be inconsistent with my observations. The media is made up of people. They fall along a spectrum of responsible and irresponsible.
Remember, the public doesn't have social media editorial guidelines. Professional media does. Professional media reporters confirm facts with multiple sources, which is why they are more trustworthy. The public is simply allowed to lie on social media.
This is why you should trust professional media over the public, since the public is irresponsible.
Why would anyone trust a social media person that simply lies instead of a professional media organization that confirms facts with multiple sources?