Last night I had to explain differences in journalism about the church to friends over the Pope Francis story. Several comments I got "why do people write in language that we don't understand?" "they might know this happened before but we don't."

"who do you recommend reading?" I think it's important to note that folks spend their lives trying to run them, they will not have read your previous stories on a topic. Our job is to give context.

I honestly think this is why it's important to go to journalism school to learn what mass media is, how people consume it but if you can't/haven't, keep these two principles in mind: keep it simple and don't assume folks know concepts that sound easy to you.

I also explained how agendas/ political points of view seep into what may seem like legitimate "news" but some is actually propaganda, ideological attacks. it mirrors what's happened in secular media

to readers: know who you're reading, whether they have an agenda, does that outlet have particular interests, loyalty or ties to political/ideological parties or organizations?

everyone struggles in this age of having of so many choices but as I heard a panelist say a few days ago: read voraciously and remember that there is such thing as truth out there -- not a set of facts for one or for another

And if you noticed problems, explain the landscape to others using concrete examples, how other outfits that might seem legit have not told the truth. Collect "specimens" of what people have passed off as news