If I am interpreting your question - and its intended implications - properly, you are saying, "Hey goobster, you believe what you believe because of the slant of the media outlet you consumed the information through." Which is wrong, in general, and specifically in this case. The media is an interpretive layer between you and the actual information. They contextualize and package information, and present it via their publishing methods. The (reputable) media doesn't make things up. They see a situation, a report, a NOUN of some sort, and then they interpret that person/place/thing and package it to make it into a story. But the same data that reporter reported on is available to you to scrutinize yourself and make your own decisions about. Their information sources are not proprietary. (And when they have proprietary sources (see: Snowden), they aren't proprietary once the information comes out. Others will pick up that information and report on it using their own story frameworks and interpretations.) It honestly frightens me that you are ignorant of, and clearly do not use, original sources, and instead suck at the teat of media. What the media provide is not information. It is story. A packaged product that delivers on specifically defined goals. If you are unaware of this, and truly believe the supposition you made above that my information comes solely from media sources, then we really don't have anything else to talk about. That's just willful ignorance of the topic on your part, and leaves us no space for conversation on the actual issue at hand. This has nothing to do with the media.
how did you come upon this information?
you're totally right - I'm speaking of the entire scope of media and it's strength relative to the position it held as it was represented hundreds of years ago in the constitution. I'm interpreting the trends, not extrapolating my opinion off of media sources. Thanks for your feedback. I'm clearly not going to entertain the idea of sharing more of what I think with you.