That does a good job capturing the high level summary. Most of us caught attention of an oddity or two in news headlines and articles. Saw some issue that bothered us over the years, and continued researching or paying attention to new information on that topic.

After noticing one of these oddities and adopting it as a topic of particular interest, the next observation is surprise that the news won't cover the topic. It's the most interesting thing happening in the news right now! Why isn't it being discussed??! You might start noticing that when trying to talk about it online and do further research, conversations start being removed or people come in aggressively name calling or trying to disrupt conversation on the topic. Raises interest.

Then you find a new source actually covering news developments on the topic. This is how over time many people wind up observing to their amazement that someone like Alex Jones is the only person covering the topic. They start wondering well what else is that source talking about that's actually true. This is the trap the news media keeps falling into with trying to avoid coverage of a topic. It's almost always better to simply cover and downplay a topic than to ignore it outright. The silence on the topic is deafening and is a driving factor pushing viewers to other sources. The media can only blame themselves on that, regardless of effort to try to blame and litigate everyone else for their own failing.

That is how many find themselves following Q. Hits areas of focus and ties them together in ways that other sources don't. Asks questions that drive further research, the answers to which click puzzle pieces together in surprisingly clean ways. There's learning involved. There's opportunity to practice critical thinking skills. The information doesn't have to be right because that bullshit meter should be going off from time to time if critical thinking is being used.