I understand your issue here is the environment, but the main issue your title brings up is very interesting! I see things on FB for example about the UK banning books being sent to prisoners. The post is followed by pages condemning the UK, the decision, blah blah blah blah... Do I jump in and post what a shame that prisoners cannot read classics etc.? No, I wonder what is the reasoning behind the decision? And then I look. And I read that prisoners have access to a library. That prisoners can buy whatever books they want. And that part of the decision is the process of a reward system in the prison, and part of the decision is that it takes resources to check packages sent to prisoners, and it's easy to send drugs or weapons inside of books. It seems very reasonable. And then following the news article explaining the decision, the comment section here is again filled with rants from people that must not have even read the article! In this age it is so easy to find the right information to inform yourself before forming an opinion. And people don't do it. People don't want to take the time to understand an issue before commenting on it. Drives me crazy too. What can be done? More critical reasoning in schools, perhaps?
By the same token though, I think a lot of times the official story does not represent the entire picture. I think about people like Joe Arpaio, the sheriff in Arizona who's had prisoners go on hunger strikes. If you read the news it's because he started serving vegetarian meals. But if you watch videos where they interview the prisoners and tour the facility, you see that it's because the food looks like vomit and is purposely designed to be as unpleasant as possible while saving money. It's not unreasonable to get worked up and ask questions about cruel and unusual punishment when there are legitimate stories of prisoners shoes melting because they are being housed is 145°F conditions. I think that's the most frustrating thing about the amount of information available today. It's very difficult to sift through it when there's so much spin and so few responsible news agencies that try to represent the issue factually. When you get to larger issues like Ukraine and the protests around the world, it becomes practically impossible for the average person to understand the motivations and all the different elements. I'm reminded of the protests in Venezuela where most major news outlets were simply saying "the protests turned violent" without trying to address why they turned violent, and who was perpetrating the violence. Couple that with the Venezuelan government actively suppressing reporters and disabling communication and the picture becomes very difficult to understand at a distance.
It's not always (ever, really) so cut and dry, though. Down to the way the information is received from the journalist. What are they trying to say? Why did they use these words? Especially, it seems, lately that we've gotten so much better at speaking and thinking in political /legal mindsets. Everything is a bloody press release because it's the most efficient way to pretend that multiple people share a common, concise message. It's easy for us to digest. And feel like we can make a rational decision based on the information perceived by our brain. But these are just words. And truly every event will be interpreted differently by each and every person, day to day, week to week and so on. How can I trust my own eyes, let alone yours?