This week’s readings and podcast emphasized the concept of fake news and navigating our search for the truth amongst mainstream and heavily influenced political discourse. An example provided was a well-known one of fake news from the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. This historical moment spread worldwide due to the many elements of communication and media that  addressed potential alterations in information regarding one of the candidates. While fake news can spread fast, it should consider what it is versus how it is perceived. In this case, it was perceived as a direct target of the individuals’ character and beliefs that may be unwanted or unfavorable. More accurately, it would expose systemic issues, propagate targeted news articles, and could be commercially advertised. This highlights how public figures who engage with audiences within the media can be at risk and how any information linked to them can be exposed, manipulated, and altered to fit an agenda. However, it can also highlight their true beliefs and expectations of their society that they may not want to be true. The severity of the situation can vary, however, it does not change how addressing certain issues or topics should always come with a cautionary warning to be considerate of what you say and how you say it. This is especially true for media platforms as they remain constant and ever-lasting on the internet for future generations to see and interact with. This also raises the question of how best to address negative responses and reviews that reflect one’s values. If your belief system is being targeted or questioned, I think it is important to attempt to understand other perspectives and the information they used to formulate their opinion. While it may be difficult to understand, it is important to acknowledge that all values must be respected as long as they do not pose harm or threats to someone else. Though I do follow this school of thought, this can change based on many unique circumstances and should be handled case by case.