[DFHippie]

The problem with saying institution X is "not as a source of information, but as an instrument of the establishment to influence and control" is that most people who say this do believe some institutions. The ones that tell them what they want to hear are obviously honest. The ones that say otherwise are obviously corrupt.

Believing "institutions are corrupt" without addressing specific instances of corruption is an abandonment of critical thought itself.

You can LARP life for a while, but reality continues outside your fantasy, and at some point you will have to reconcile the two. You may find at this point that you weren't on the side of truth and justice after all.

[donw]

People assume all institutions are default-corrupt.

True for any social system that grants one group power over another.

Only constant and consistent demonstration of honest behavior signals otherwise. Trust is a delicate thing, and must be maintained.

[lemmsjid]

That may be true of some people, but what we’re seeing right now is people’s trust swinging to media vehicles and political leaders that have done nothing to earn trust aside from charismatically asserting that they are more trustworthy.

[rayiner]

Trump’s brand isn’t built on trust, it’s built on fighting.

Trustworthy institutions enable people with conflicting interests and values to cooperate. When people lose trust and believe institutions are biased against them, they don’t seek an alternative source of trusted authority. Instead, they seek a champion who will be biased in their favor and fight for them.

You see this in third world countries all the time. The factions there aren’t built on leaders being trustworthy, but instead sectarian affiliation.

[jerry1979]

The article we're discussing specifically talks about the run-up to the second iraq war. I didn't watch the link, but I assume they highlight when the New York Times helping trick the country into war.