You aren't missing anything, these people don't care about common-sense, they care about drumming up content.
There are four types of sports news nowadays, ranked:
1\. Legitimate, public, fact-checked news, e.g. player interviews, game reviews
2\. Factual non-news, e.g. things footballers wives are doing
3\. Sensationalised, possibly not fact-checked news, e.g. snippets, opinion pieces, rumours, clickbait
4\. Fake news, e.g. propaganda, manager-driven media (MDM)
Most of this stuff that worries you falls into #3 or #4\. It's wise to assume that everyone who stands on a soapbox has an agenda, and it's up to you to decide whether that agenda is acceptable or not. But obviously don't assume that folks who have access to a soapbox have anything of value to say.
There's a very clear and easy reason why I haven't bought the DT since the days of The Mirror and I wanted those footy collector medallions - they've gone to #3 and #4 because other publications are better at #1 and #2\. There will always be media to fill the gaps and with modern communications there is more media "space" to fill up.
I'm the biggest critic of the disgrace that is the Telegraph going around but with respect it's a bit more complicated than that. There are also at least two more categories, being:
- Non-official but still reasonably sourced reporting. When the Telegraph reported Woods and Foran to the Dogs, Tedesco to the Roosters this wasn't just rumour, and even if the source was player managers that doesn't necessarily mean the content is inaccurate. Much as I hate to admit it, the Telegraph has a reasonably good record with this sort of thing - it isn't, despite what some people claim, "all made up" or just ripped off forums and Twitter.
- Reasonable comment based on a fair assessment of facts. All pundits have some sort of bias whether conscious or not. Some still present fair opinions that can at least be viewed through the lens of understanding their starting point. Peter Sterling is a Parra legend and wants the club to succeed, but has still commented negatively on Mitchell Moses' behaviour. Lots of people don't like Phil Gould and he clearly has his own agenda, but his commentary tends to be, at least, based on a fair assessment of all parties' positions.
What makes it so hard for people to grasp what 'fake news' really means is that fact that all the options you mention and mine are jumbled up together - often in the pages of the same publication. So the Telegraph accurately reports the landing place of two of the Tigers' off contract players ahead of any other mainstream media and also prints the ramblings of Phil Rothfield that largely seem to be motivated by his vendetta against Marina Go and desire to make sure there is a club ahead of Cronulla on the Sydney chopping block.
It's no different from Sky News having a first rate news gathering operation and also providing a platform to the bizarre extreme right drivel spouted by the likes of Andrew Bolt.
