Conspiracy crap thrives because the media give it plausibility.

[SarahD]

Here's another of many articles purporting to explain why people believe aircraft contrails are being used to kill us. Or brainwash us. Or something. If you read the article, you'll see it suffers from the same fairness idea that news writers employ when they allow that crackpot notions deserve to be treated as credible to make the reporting "fair."
https://www.cnn.com/us/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory-explained-cec/index.html

[marble falls]

1. But, but, but ... we're only selling newspapers and ad time!

[TwilightZone]

2. Eh, not sure I agree.

The conclusion is quite clear and provides half a dozen sources supporting it. The article also does a good job of describing exactly how they gain and retain traction on social media. I see social media as a much bigger problem where conspiracy theories are concerned than traditional media.

Providing examples of the nonsense people believe and their reasoning behind it isn't implicit or explicit support of them, particularly in the context of this article. It's quite clear on the fact that the theories are nonsense.

[SarahD]

3. The examples I'd like to see.

Examples of the "experts" who make money, hold workshops, publish pseudo scientific articles, and so on. There is quite the industry involved. I would like to see some mention of all the money made from fleecing the believers. Exposing the motives of the hucksters is revelatory.

[Caribbeans]

4. Everyone should always believe their government

Always.

[TwilightZone]

5. If you believe that's a valid argument for believing the chemtrail nonsense...

you would be incorrect.