There's a fundamental difference between some of us here.

I see a news item, such as Sandy Hook... and as long as the sources are reliable and credible (and I'm perfectly capable of making that judgment for myself)... I begin from the starting point of belief. If ANYTHING in the story seems fishy, I proceed to dig and analyze (as again I'm perfectly capable of doing) in order to reach a conclusion as to whether the story is real or not.

You (TIC), on the other hand, begin each news story from the viewpoint of disbelief and mistrust. You assume everything is false and staged (with some obscure purpose)... and it must be "proven" to you otherwise. The problem is that most of the time no amount of proof or evidence is good enough. Most of us can't be bothered to prove anything to those who choose to live in a world of constant disbelief.

When you begin from the viewpoint of disbelief, you've already made up your mind about the story's veracity. When you begin from the viewpoint of belief, most of us are open to (real) holes in the story that might cast some doubt on it.
REAL holes... not imagined or constructed ones.

It's all a matter of personal choice, really. I've lived a full and fruitful life going to school at all levels... learning things that are both verifiable and unverifiable. Such is the nature of life and learning. Trust is a huge factor here. I trust people and news sources until they lose my trust. Then it's difficult or damn near impossible to win if back. Others choose to mistrust everybody. It's a life choice, so to each his own.

What most of us object to is the insistence of the "unbelievers" to label everyone else with words like "sheep" or whatever. This can be EASILY turned around toward the unbelievers, who can be accused of the same thing.