jerryhung

Um, have you been following it? It's the faux lies, propaganda, incendiary hatred etc. that was promoted by the Russians. You know, like lock her up, Benghazi, anything to incite anger/hate in those dumb ass Republicans...

I don't know what evidence you are referring to. If you are referring to the emails, yes the Democratic Party is a political machine.

Almost Canadian

In the modern world, with people electing to believe what they read on their twitter/facebook feeds rather than actually looking for credible sources, this is going to happen more and more.

Out of interest, which source do you believe presents a balanced view of world events, simply reporting the facts and leaving it for the viewer to make of it what they will?

jerryhung

Yes this is very true.

BBC seems pretty objective.

Also, watching news conferences, hearing (as an example for this purpose) Donald J Trump talk/tweet/explain/rationalize - i.e. directly from the source.

That is pretty fair to me.

How about John Kelly - again direct from the source:
Frederica Wilson is no 'empty barrel,' John Kelly | Editorial - Sun Sentinel - Just watch the video

Proving he lied/misrepresented it.

etc. i.e. hearing it from the source is pretty reasonable in my books. And for that reason, I don't rate the guy in the White House as honest by any stretch of the imagination. Then, watching Fox News and how they spin his lies - well there is a tell tale sign to me.

Almost Canadian

Fair enough.

I don't believe the BBC either, ever since I was stood right next to a very famous BBC war correspondent as she said her piece. Right after she finished, I asked why she has said what she had said as she knew it was not correct. She replied that she knew that, but that the truth was too uncomfortable for the British public to hear.

BristolUK

Trump Accuses Clinton of Deliberately Losing Election So He Could Be Impeached

dave_j

I've only seen one source for this, Andy Borowitz a comedian and political satirist, suspect it is fake news? Trump reportedly talking to reporters, but still only the one source. If fake, then repeating it as fact without caution should be avoided.

BristolUK

If you click the link you see Satire from The Borowitz Report and the Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the news, for newyorker.com.

Seriously, though, even for Trump you should be able to recognise it as a spoof.

dave_j

I agree, but not everyone reads the Newyorker or knows who Borowitz is and simply repeating headlines out of context is simply misleading. Perhaps you should have noted that your link was an amusing "Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the news" in the first place.

Danny B

Don't people realize that if Trump gets impeached, they get Mike Pence, not Hilary.

dbd33

Are you having a go at satire yourself?

Novocastrian

Does anyone think they get Hilary? Is anyone that stupid? (OK don't answer that).

But I agree that Mike Pence is just as toxic as Trump and slightly less insane. However don't forget what happened to Spiro Agnew in the run up to Nixon's "resignation".

BristolUK

I don't read it either and when I didn't know who he was I was still able to recognise a spoof report

Next you'll be telling me that not everyone knows those word balloons on the cover of private eye are made up.

jerryhung

Real news - I see a newscast the other week where Trump was telling people he's "very nice" and "very intelligent".

Should have been a spoof.

The next CIC roll call is a bit scary - Pence, Ryan.

jerryhung

I suspect that many organizations do that. I don't think I trust any one source implicitly and like to read widely in any case. Anyway, we all do our best with what we can discern (perhaps).... Cheers AC.

carcajou

I have had similar experiences with reporters (plural).

I trust reporters as much as I trust bank CEOs.