46% of Americans think the media make up stories about Trump

[John Q. Public]

I guess it didn't matter that the point of the video was to debunk the rumor. They made it up according to Tommy's post.

[Bick]

1) That would depend on what one considers to be "objectively" or "credible", I doubt whether any two people could agree on what that is, let alone an entire nation

2) I wish people would stop saying "mainstream media", it's a purposely nebulous term meant to imply "liberal"...do Breitbart or Infowars get a free pass? How about Trump's twitter account, it doesn't get any more mainstream than that...

1) Depends on the breadth of the survey(s)?
2) CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Fox, ABC all considered mainstream?

Objectivity means "unbiased" in most dictionaries. Democrats believe all but Fox are somewhat credible, Republicans believe Fox is credible. Outlets are presenting "news" their audience wants to hear. Is this somehow new information?

[Tommy Tar]

Just like the Russian hooker KGB dossier news that was on TV 24/7 for months. Still waiting for the indictment guys........

[MDDad]

I guess it didn't matter that the point of the video was to debunk the rumor. They made it up according to Tommy's post.

None of which explains why the Post saw fit to even comment on the subject. One would assume that if the President of the United States wanted a body-double for his wife, he has the power and wherewithal to find someone who at least remotely resembles her.

[Wabash]

I blame Obama.

[Fordama]

Just like the Russian hooker KGB dossier news that was on TV 24/7 for months. Still waiting for the indictment guys........

Pretty much every mainstream outlet made pains to say that many of the claims in the dossier were unsupported and probably false.

The dossier was real. It was originally commissioned by Republicans opposing Trump. No reason to blame the media for its existence.

[Tommy Tar]

Bull ****. Ford

[John Q. Public]

As of an hour and a half ago:

Fusion GPS, founded by former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson, is at the heart of the mysterious origin story behind the scandal that has dogged President Trump’s administration since his first days in office.

In early 2016, Fusion GPS began investigating Trump at the request of an unnamed Republican client. Around the time Trump secured his party’s nomination, a Democratic-leaning client took over funding the effort.

The company was responsible for hiring a former British spy and Moscow station chief, Christopher Steele, to explore links between Trump and the Russians.

Steele’s work yielded the so-called “dossier,” which is a series of memos that outline raw intelligence, much of it unverified, that alleges collusion between Russian agents and the Trump campaign.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/firm-tru ... d=50616492

It also says that for some reason, Devin Nunes seems to have forgotten that he recused himself again. The guy seems to have a worse memory than I do.

[Wabash]

Nunes continues to be an embarrassment.

[not4u13]

Media bias. It is real. Complete fabrication. Not so much. Understanding the difference takes independent thinking and reading beyond the headlines. Something increasingly rare these days. The purpose of a headline is to pique interest enough to get someone to read the story. When all you do is read headlines, you really have no idea what the truth is.

Trump has mastered the sound bite with his "Make America Great Again" and "Fake News" chants.

The general public has had a love/hate relationship with the media since it's inception. It's very easy to convince large groups of people that there is some great media conspiracy to brainwash the general public by creating news stories that fit their desired narrative. This didn't start with Trump, but he has created a new tidal wave with his "Fake News" chant.

I was reading an article about the Las Vegas shooting and in the comments the wild ideas started. One of the versions that was the most wild was the report that the whole thing was ISIS. The shooter was really a government agent working under the direction of the former Obama administration on a mission so secret, Trump knew nothing about it. He was selling guns to ISIS under federal authority and ISIS thought they were being double crossed so they shot him. Then, to cover it up, the fired on the crowd below to make it look like he shot a bunch of people then killed himself. All other reports of the story were apparently "Fake News" and anyone who couldn't see that ISIS was behind this were just left wing lemmings trying to blame this on guns so they could come take guns away from the American people.

[broman]

Hmmm....

Sixty-two percent of Americans polled consider the accusations against Weinstein credible, with just 3 percent saying they’re not credible and the rest uncertain. The vast majority of both Clinton voters (74 percent) and Trump voters (66 percent) think that Weinstein’s accusers are credible, with just 3 percent in either group saying that they’re not.

But it’s a different story with sexual harassment and assault allegations made last year against Trump. While 83 percent of Clinton voters find the allegations credible, just 8 percent of Trump voters feel the same. A 51 percent majority of Trump voters say outright that they don’t think the accusations against the president are credible, with the remainder uncertain.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tr ... mg00000009

58% drop even with knowledge of the "Access Hollywood" tape.

[Bick]

Neither side believes the other, and can't agree on an objective source of information.

Now what?

Gain power
Loser resists
Repeat

Our country's competitors continue to gain on us. Our team loses.

[Vilepagan]

Neither side believes the other, and can't agree on an objective source of information.

Now what?

It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw years ago...

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".

We're trying it now. The answer is education.

[not4u13]

How do you educate when there is no credible source of the truth? The answer is to teach people critical thinking skills. It is incredible to me how many people fall for the click-bait headlines from "news" sites created for the sole purpose to deceive. They use common credible sources as a part of their name and URL. They use small elements of truth but with a heavy dose of hyperbole and opinion, written in a "reporter" style.

Nobody is going to be educated by a source that they don't find credible but few do much work to determine credibility. When it fits their narrative, the "subscribe" and then are fed more and more of the same. Confirming what they "know" to be true. They feel educated. They feel everyone else is in the dark.

Attempts to divert people from these "news" sources is thwarted by Trump's mantra of "fake news" where he undermines credible news stories to form his own narrative.

[Red]

The mainstream media is a criminal syndicate and propaganda arm of the DNC. No doubt about it. Thank God for social media and the internet. Finally people are wising up. Thank about it, I di NOT support Mitt Romney, but he would have a much better President than Obama. He was destroy by the criminals in the media. Putin and Russia would NOT have had access to 20% of America's uranium because Hillary would not have been secretary of State. Sad but true.

[Wabash]

VP makes a great point. Red reinforces it.

[John Q. Public]

Point/Coutnerpint

It is incredible to me how many people fall for the click-bait headlines from "news" sites created for the sole purpose to deceive. They use common credible sources as a part of their name and URL. They use small elements of truth but with a heavy dose of hyperbole and opinion, written in a "reporter" style.

Not only the fake ones, but also the very biased, very sensationalized ones as well. I can't believe how many of those show up in my FB feed because one of my otherwise very intelligent and well educated friends "liked" them. You know the ones. They aren't "fake" but they're definitely click bait. I even considered doing a site like that when I read about how much money they make. But (1.) I didn't feel like doing that sort of thing full time, and (2.) I have a hard time writing in that style. But boy they make money. And they're nothing more than heavily promoted, sensational message board posts. And then, even better for them, very bright, very credible "friends" "like" them thousand of times a day times a day. And worse for the nation, people are hit with those many times a day whether they click on them or not, and their one-sided opinions are reinforced to the point that they think any other opinion is just wrong.

And then there's that little issue of Conservatives being convinced that fact checking sites are are leftist. That one is downright scary. I wonder if that was started by Russian fake news purveyors. Pure evil genius, whoever it was.

[Wabash]

Exactamundo. I still trust the sites like the LA and NY Times, Wash Post, etc.

For the simple reason that they are willing to admit mistakes and make retractions.

Outlets like Fox News and Breitbart don't practice that.

[John Q. Public]

Fox corrects stories but I only remember them retracting one. I doubt Breitbart does either. More likely they'd double down.

[Wabash]

And then there's that little issue of Conservatives being convinced that fact checking sites are are leftist. That one is downright scary. I wonder if that was started by Russian fake news purveyors. Pure evil genius, whoever it was.

It's not difficult to believe when one considers Trump's core audience is white and without a college degree. Their gullibility is constantly exploited.