Humans are easily manipulated, I agree with you. Contrast the multi-faced manipulation from an aggregator like FB with the power of the unified worldview given to you by the media conglomerates.
So who are the non-MSM in your opinion? Facebook is more than merely and aggregator. They know how to keep peoples' eyes glued to them. They know what stories/narratives will push your buttons so to speak.
I am sorry I can't answer your question: I read many many sources (from big name media to small time bloggers), contrast and apply common sense. I know my limitations to access the 'truth', and I live with that, always in doubt.
That said, regarding Facebook, I genuinely never used it really (I have a placeholder account), never used Instagram, never used Messenger, never installed any of these apps on my phone, never log into these web apps on my PC. I use WhatsApp constantly to communicate with friends and family across the world.
You apply the term MSM and thus must have a notion of what constitutes the MSM, right? So which media sources don't count as MSM? If you can't name such sources then why use MSM instead of "mass media"?
We are completely gone off-subject, but here is my take: I don't believe the MSM/Non-MSM divide creates any magical trust or value. The national (or international) household names (say WaPo, NYT, CNN, Fox, Slate, BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, Le Monde, Le Figaro, El Pais, Al Jazeera, etc.: extrapolate worldwide...) just have the power to do more harm/control/propaganda. Non-MSM (or non household recognizable names) are not more trustful in my view, obviously. In short: read, contrast, doubt, apply common sense.
Then why use MSM instead of just “mass media” or instead of just saying, “verify sources to the extent possible”? My claim is that Facebook has far more power to do damage than the sources you’ve stated.
