I found some of the comments in this article highly insightful and others surprisingly blinkered. It did an excellent job of tying in technology and the media, however, the presentation left much to be desired.

For example,

Q: How many people trust Facebook as a news source and/or don't check any other sources?
Q: Why was there no mention of TV and radio news?
Q: Why did the article imply many times that Trump only won the election because of fake news on Facebook, yet, embedded well down was the comment '“overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other.” This is almost certainly true.'
Q: Why does the article imply multiple times that Facebook is the principal source of fake news, when a Google search of keywords can prove most media outlets (including the prestige NYT) propagate fake news? This was not spelt out nearly clearly enough.

All media outlets have some form of bias. However, the reason that most people i've spoken with are wary of Facebook news is because it only shows you what you want to hear. You can't establish an informed judgement with that sort of information. Long term, I believe this will be the downfall of Facebook as it will never be seen as a credible news source. It will allow its readers to be blind-sided (ie. like the people who predicted the election result to be
a landslide in favour of Hillary Clinton).

After reading this article, I have a better appreciation of why so many people struggle with critical thinking. For example, anyone that says "domestic violence is not exclusively a male behaviour" (even when you list the high percentage of male victims) is shouted down as an extreme right winger. This defines logic, but, it's an extremely popular and pervasive view throughout the mainstream media of all western countries and is almost never challenged, despite obvious ethical implications. It's an excellent illustration of blind-siding and an inability to critically think or fact check by most media outlets.

The New York Times a great example of prejudice of mainstream media because it's often quoted as exemplary media. Look at the following NYT times page on hiring a gender editor. Not only is it extremely biased and inflammatory, but it specifically spells out the sort of editor and the sort of prejudices the NYT are looking for.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/jobs/nyt-gender-edi...

"An analysis that shows how pay decreases when women take over jobs that men used to dominate. A look at how women ruled the Olympics. A searing documentary showing how a mob in Afghanistan killed an innocent woman. Chronicling the quest of women in rural India to work and be independent, even at the cost of their lives..."

The same page has the cheek to claim they are equal opportunity and non-discriminatory. That takes real courage (or a head in the sand). women "ruled" the Olympics? If someone said "men ruled the Olympics", you'd have extensive outrage over social media, if not more.

In summary, the article has some excellent insights and fundamental flaws (eg. news on radio and TV not mentioned; Is Facebook really treated credibly?). It also didn't address the credibility and usefulness of news sources that tailor content rather than telling the whole truth. It downplayed the amount of "fake news" that comes from the mainstream media and misrepresented what influenced the outcome of the election.