Example:

You're debating the cause and effect of a given congressional policy based on a combination of sources; CNN, FoxNews, political websites, and the little you remember from your freshman politcal science seminar that you slept through every morning, thanks to a massive hangover. How valid is your argument versus someone has taken a personal interest in that given subject, and felt the urge to study it thoroughly, by reading up on relative issues, and a history of the given subject?

I'll use myself as an example:

Prior to arriving to Iraq, I only knew what military publications reported, and then balanced that off of the information provided by major media outlets. Upon my arrival, one of my responsibilities entailed being thoroughly briefed on the political, social, and combative affairs of the forces occupying this theater. The only way to acquire the knowledge necessary for me to do my job in the intelligence field is to be exposed to information that require a 'top secret' clearance. Without posing as a threat to operational security, I'm able to debate what I know to be true (from experience and the knowledge I receive directly), and what's commonly portrayed.