My perspective may stem from timing - most of the recent ugliness and arguing online over recent events started around the same time I returned to school, so I was relearning to argue at the same time I was learning to site sources for college papers. That being said, it made it easier to weed some of the truth, as well as shape said perspective.

1. Any source using a clip, video or audio, must include enough context to fully stand by, or must have an unedited source that can be easily found. An example of this is the famous clip Democrats repeatedly used of Donald Trump's mocking of the handicapped journalist - especially when Republican groups started trying to erase it.
2. If there's no common clip/source, news must be able to be found from three similar, but truly different, sources. These sources must say something similar enough in actions, while not word-for-word outside of the quotes - two places can't use the Associated Press as their source, for example, or it's counted the same. This was a common thing I've noticed with conservative sites - they may change two or three sentences, or add a few paragraphs (usually an opinion or criticism), but otherwise it'd be the exact same thing, as if it was copied-and-pasted.
3. If the first source comes from an opinion, that opinion must site sources in a similar fashion. (Anyone can write blogs - such as I did before the election on a similar subject: https://w2ed.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/the-resources-i-follow-for-political-information )

While it's not a perfect system - it doesn't weed out anything leaning towards a particular slant - it does verify that something is legitimately true. It's too easy to get wrapped in something that's a lie - and with everyone want to steer you in their circle, even something as simple as my system is still better than nothing. The trick isn't to rely on one news source - especially if you're worried abut the topic, or will argue about it. Instead, if you can't find the source or something unedited, treat it like your professor expecting your final paper.

I'm going to share what I would do if I was opening a video store today: I'd make sure to have enough space for 3-4 screens, in addition to the rental and server space. When the screens are not in for special events - for example, showings of Christmas movies around Christmas or the Lord of the Rings Trilogy before The Hobbit comes out - they can be used to show trailers, like many of the TV screens used in many of the video stores today are, and the area itself could be used for a cafe/coffee house that has wi-fi hotspots built-in. I'd also throw in a record and book store, and sell stuff relevant to the movies. For example, around Christmas I'd make sure to stock up on the famous leg lamps similar to the one in "A Christmas Story", as well as a constant supply of red Swingline Staplers (in addendum to other geek-based staples, such as lightsabers and star ship models.) I'd try to keep the merchandise consistent to the videos we sell - for example, while we'd sell CD's by Linkin Park, we'd probably have more "Dracula 2000" or "Transformers" soundtracks - where they're featured artists - than studio or live albums in stock, except when new releases come out. I'd also play on social media, trying to keep people interested in the store, and encourage customers to "hang out." Most businesses think of customers who stay in longer than a set period - usually 30-45 minutes - as wasted space, but I see them as opportunity. Offer services, such as food and drinks, while customers decide on something; offer private screening rooms for "Twilight birthday parties"; etc. On the web site, offer links to services you offer, games and other things to keep people interested, etc. Heck, even offer electronics - why not go home with a new TV and Blu-Ray Player for those three copies of Harry Potter you just rented? I'd also go as small as possible in two areas: Price and franchises. If possible, in fact, avoid franchising altogether - you may get a good deal by going with BlockBuster, but their rules and marketing may interefere with your strategies and prices. Likewise, you want to attract people to YOUR business - you can't stop others from copying your idea, but if you can limit your base to one store like yours for every 200,000 customers, you should be able to do the kind of business that video stores used to do when there was one every other block. Pricing should be kept to a minimal as well - it may cost $100+ per copy of every movie, but charging more than $2 a night on any movie is a little unreasonable, especially in an age where people can easily access illegal copies for free.It may mean that you make only a couple of dollars an hour more, after expenses are paid out, than your top managers, but the adoption of little niches and things that make you stand out will, in the long run, keep you open and more relevant longer than your competitors that stick to the "tried-and-true" business model adopted by many video, record, and media stores that have and are going by the wayside. This is just what I would do, though - I don't know what this guy has for space, whether his video store is a franchise or is his own business, or the kind of location dealing he has for his area or with the companies he deals with.

I'm probably alone in the thought that "The Phantom Menace" did not suck. Granted, it was not the greatest movie everyone, myself included, was expecting, but it's far from the bitch-all-you-want-buffet that people make it out to be. Jar Jar Binks? Annoying, yet necessary - from a comedic standpoint (as R2-D2 and C-3PO had a very small pairing at this point) and from a historical standpoint (as he would prove in the second film as being the nail in the coffin for the war to begin in the next film.) Young Anakin? Again, annoying but necessary - It's hard to understand how someone could become a monster without seeing them at their best. (Note the growing arrogance and carelessness in the latter two films to see how he'd become the monster.) There are many other plot points and story things to complain about, yet these two are consistently the biggest. I get so sick of hearing everyone whine because the film did not live up to their expectations - which is what I really feel is the basis for all of TPM's backlash. Instead of Darth Vadar being a bad-ass and raping and pillaging things like the monster we were expecting, we got a young boy who happened to have excellent skills being noticed by someone who believed him to be the one for their prophecy. We didn't get Obi-Wan and Anakin fighting side-by-side until the latter two films, we didn't get the Darth Sideous we were expecting, etc. It was never going to live up to everyone's preconceived expectations, but the number of people whining about it far exceeds the number it should be. Yes, there are things I will concede to - TPM was, by and far, the worst Star Wars film ever made, and it's stiffness in dialogue and characters leaves a lot to be desired. It's far from the worst movie ever made (I've seen far worse than that!), and it did what it was supposed to do: set the elements up and show the staring points for the events to come. It's time to stop the complaining.