Sources

Remember when your teacher told you that you needed to remember the multiplication tables because you wouldn't always have a calculator with you? Yeah, about that, I now pretty much always have a calculator with me (on my phone), not to mention something that will tell me in a few seconds about the quadratic formula, the definition of a cosine or the acceleration due to gravity.  It can also call up the Gettysburg Address, the Preamble to the Constitution or Hamlet's monologue.
What it cannot do is sort out all of the nonsense that passes for news these days.  In the past day or so, I have seen articles shared on facebook by people I'm friends with that claimed the following: Hillary Clinton ordered a drone strike on Julian Assange (Wiki Leaks guy), because Assange has been "threatening" to release information detrimental to her campaign.  Granted it is a crackpot story from thoroughly disreputable sources, however, it has come to my attention that people don't really carefully consider the source before they re-post. I use this example because it should raise the following question in EVERYONE's head, regardless of whether you support Clinton: Hillary Clinton is no longer Secretary of State, a Senator, or functioning in any capacity that would give her the authority to order a drone strike on someone (and honestly I'm not even sure any of her other positions would have given her that authority, maybe sec. of state? Maybe?).
There are equally ridiculous things being said about Trump, although there are enough absurdities that issue forth from the orange one that do not require hyperbole.

Here's a clue, and I'm going to be as balanced as I can here.  If it comes from Breitbart, Mother Jones, The Daily Kos, Occupy Democrats, Fox News, CNS or any of the myriad other mudslingers You should always consider the information contained therein to be suspect.  I'm not saying they never tell the truth, but their version of the truth is probably slanted.
Fact checkers like Snopes, Factcheck.org and Politifact are necessary stops on your daily internet browsing.  Don't be dissuaded if one of wizards of misinformation tries to convince you not to look behind the curtain because: fact checkers are just another tool of the "liberal media" (right wing) / "establishment" (left wing).  Breitbart loves to "fact check the fact checkers" because, a lot of the time, the fact checkers are more critical of their boy (the struggle of being the propaganda mouthpiece of a pathological con man).
I admit, my cynicism meter gets pushed into the red an awful, awful lot these days, I want to just throw up my hands and concede that in a world of liars I'll settle for half truth and be done with it, but I'm not okay with that really.
I spend a lot of my time engaged in a practice called Exegesis, in which I take a particular passage of Scripture and I try and interpret what it means.  The end result of this practice is the sermon that I crank out every Sunday (and sometimes a few blog articles along the way).
The thing is, I spend an entire week wrestling with each little block of Scripture, because, no matter what someone might tell you, the Bible is a lot more complicated than a newspaper.  I have to take into account a lot different things in the process of exegesis far beyond just "knowing what the words mean." I have to consider history, I have to consider the the traditions of the church and theological perspective.  I have to consider how my own experience shapes my understanding, but also guard against committing "eisegesis" where I read my own bias and preconceptions into the text.  Finally I have to sort out all the stuff that I've learned and somehow figure out what I'm going to say and what I'm not going to say, given the time I have and the audience who will be listening.  Last week, I had a neat way to tie in the scripture from Lamentations with the teachings from Luke, but it would have taken too long to make the moves to get there, so I had to put it aside.  It was good, it was true, but it was sort of irrelevant to the rest of what I was saying.
It's kind of hard to hold back when you see something that confirms your bias: Trump is a stooge, Hillary is a crooked politician, the two party system sucks, neither one of them deserve to be president.  No matter where you stand, you can find some "news" outlet that makes you feel not so very alone.  That doesn't mean that the people who agree with you are right.  It doesn't mean their stories are true.
Just because the truth is often difficult and hard doesn't mean we get to give up looking.