Haha, I've seen enough of the human psyche over the past few years to share your doubt. But I stand by this, with an important caveat: most people are "good enough" to understand context and nuance if you sit with them and hold their hands through the thought process. If you answer their questions and speak to them with respect and acknowledge their concerns.

The problem, of course, is that you can't do this with every single person. And you'd drive yourself literally insane if you tried. Again, I speak from experience.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to. We'd have news organisations that cared more about the truth than about pushing agendas. They'd give people the facts, they'd explain where the grey areas were, they'd present statistics and quotes with full context.

But sadly, that's not the world we live in.

We need mechanisms that help us discern integrity. Those mechanisms should be transparent. They should allow for mistakes, of course, but they should also be willing to recognise that a person who makes as many "mistakes" as Donald Trump, say, might not be trustworthy. They should recognise that somebody who said one thing about Trump four years ago and says exactly the opposite about him today, all while never explaining what brought about that change of heart, might also not be trustworthy. And they should make that untrustworthiness plain to these people’s audiences.

I'm not advocating censorship, I'm not advocating preventing people from continuing to trust liars if they so choose, I'm advocating making it absolutely clear that these people are liars. I'm advocating making it clear how these people are funded, so it is clearer why they might be motivated to say certain things. Simply put, if you are in a position to reach million of people with your speech, I have no problem with the idea that your speech should be held to greater scrutiny.