I just came across a Forbes opinion piece making this claim. Please read the original for yourself, but my brief summary would rely on the “we are making kids too soft” theory. We encourage trust in perceived authoritative sources and this does not serve us well in the “real world.”
Here is the counter argument (based on work done in learner understanding of science knowledge). We all built explanations (models, theories) to help us deal with life (real world) experiences. These theories help us get by. However, research shows that these personal theories are often flawed and incomplete. Personally formulated theories are very difficult to modify even when the flaws are confronted through formal education. We seem to have the capacity to store competing models of phenomena we encounter in the world and the context in which we formed such models ends up being used to call to mind one theory or the other when we must deal similar experiences. The problem here is that the school context is intended to prepare learners for the real world, but the potentially more accurate knowledge remains “inert” when in a real world concept is prompted by the real world context. These findings are the basis of a form of education based on what is described as “conceptual change theory” – basically flawed models must be activated and then experienced as inadequate for improved understanding.
The Forbes article makes some sense, but consider the problems educators would have if educators tried to activate and take on fake news stories. Parents who accept the fake news would object.