That (the above transaction between OverKnight in USA, and Ironside of Sweden) is a perfect example of how "news" and its presentation has changed.

In Cronkite's heyday, with only 3 major TV broadcasters available in major urban areas, we were forced to rely on the integrity and research of the news presenter and his huge team of fact-checkers, source-vetters, double-checkers, wire-service providers, etc.

So, we had to assume that when Uncle Walter said: "The sky was blue today", his fact-checkers had consulted weather experts, government officials, long-distance wire services, and a couple of university meteorologists, ahead of broadcast time (which was live in those days), to confirm that in fact, in America that particular day, the sky was mostly blue.

So we trusted that what he said was true, or as true as could be confirmed from multiple reputable sources, as possible.

OTOH, what Xiahou wrote is true as well: that was spoon-feeding us news, and in the hands of someone less scrupulous than Mr. Cronkite, could have been blatant lies, and we might never have known it. Fast-forward 20 years to Wolf Blitzer's reporting the US used nerve-gas in 'Nam; when debunked, his defense was: "I just read what they put in front of me." Cronkite-style reporting died that day.

That trust was gone. So now we have the 'net, and more direct contact with our own sources to check and double-check info. Improvement? I think so. But it takes more work on my part as an info consumer. Which I'm OK with. But I worry about my fellow citizens who continue to rely solely on TV so-called "news" outlets as their only source, ala the 1960's and 70's.