Unfortunately, in US journalism it is considered neutral to spread a lie, but it is considered "biased" to call out a lie. So, there is a structural asymmetry that rewards colorful lies with virality.

But that would mean reporters weren’t just complicit stenographers working for the same people who got him elected. We don’t have any such journalists.

them how to vote, they complain about guv’mint all the time, yet they lack even the most basic critical thinking to connect the dots between their own voting choices and the shitty outcomes they’ve caused. They take no responsibility for anything.

Iowa’s voters are idiots. I know them. They follow no factual political news - especially from their own counties and states, they only vote for the R, they believe they’re good Christians, and they are racist as FUCK but would always tell you they aren’t. They let their employers and churches tell

That’s the point and the GOP makes no secret of it. They openly state their intentions to tear down public education and the morons (the majority of whom send their kids to public schools) keep voting for them.

As well as the ubiquitous phenomenon of white flight

The Times adjusted it's headlines, but not until after other media started reporting the links as factual using the Times.

How comfortable should editors be with headlines that amplify the claims of an unverified claim, not subject to peer review, by a known vaccine skeptic?