We live in a world where communication has drastically transformed in the past few decades.

Not only do we speak in person, on cell phones, via Skype and FaceTime, but we text, Tweet, post statuses, blog and submit Instagram photos. We are a culture more connected than ever, and this connectivity has inspired a seemingly infinite number of new platforms from which speakers can express their beliefs and opinions.

When it comes to the realm of news, this means news consumers have a larger and more diverse buffet from which to choose where they get their information. With the convenience of abundance and variety, however, come questions – questions about authenticity, origin and that fidgety little thing called truth.

During the weekend I read a news story titled “Mitt Romney Accused of ‘Dyeing His Face Brown’ for Univision Interview.” Apparently, last week, Romney went on the channel, (which has a Latino demographic), for a “Meet the Candidates” forum with a darker, somewhat more orange face than usual. This prompted left-wing blog Democratic Underground to conclude Romney had somehow made his face darker, with the implication that he was trying to look more like Univision’s viewers.

My reaction to the headline and story was one of humor. I first thought it had to be a Saturday Night Live sketch because of the obvious bizarreness of it all, but upon further investigation, I was a little discouraged by the story’s angle.

While I’m not a fan of Romney, nor would I enjoy an afternoon playing polo with him on his estate, I highly doubt he is the type of person who would change the color of his face to appeal to an audience. I believe, while I don’t agree with his politics, he is a good and decent man.

There is mudslinging going on in this campaign, but it’s not necessarily by the candidates. Our news sources – those hoards of journalists who feed us our information and their opinions via e-mail, the Internet, newspapers and more, constantly twist and shape our beliefs about Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, their running mates, their wives and their campaign staff.

And we let them.

As I mentioned previously, there is a danger in getting our news from only one or two sources, but there is also danger in getting news from all sources. No person is perfect, no journalist or news aggregate has entirely clean and pure motivations.

When we take the information from one, two or any number of news sources to be fact, we are doing our nation and ourselves a disservice – especially in an election.

For some reason, we don’t trust ourselves anymore. We think we need Rush Limbaugh, David Brooks, Ari Shapiro or any other number of talking heads to interpret Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and their people for us. But the thing about a presidential election is this: it’s about people. It’s about one man’s beliefs and vision versus another’s, and it really shouldn’t be that complicated. Yet we make it so, and we let others manipulate us into thinking we need the manipulation.

I’m proposing something simple and novel: we take these men for who they are, by what they say and what they are doing.

The thing about Mitt Romney’s possible skin darkening is many people believe it. It’s probably not true, but some folks are going to let that story shape their opinion of Mitt Romney, possibly quite sharply. What should matter to voters is what Mitt Romney said during the forum – the beliefs he expressed there and the vision he has for our country.

Whether we indulge in the surplus of news stories and talking heads out there or not, let’s remember who we are and where we want to go as individuals as well as a community, not where the people with the platforms and money want to take us.

And while we try to get there, however strenuous the journey might be, let’s remember to trust ourselves and the beliefs we have about people. News is good, and opinions are an important part of democracy, but so are people.

Let’s be a community that takes the time to learn about people – not just the gossip about them.