9 minutes ago, alocacoc said:

'News outlets, including Business Insider, routinely report on the progress of the investigation, often citing anonymous sources whose knowledge of the investigation is often unclear and extremely biased to readers.'

 

We all what that means. Mueller is about to wrap up. Now he prepares the Dems for the reality. There is no collusion.

 

Democrats must be strong.

 

Edit: That's how they fabricate 'inaccurate' (others call it fake) news. One would think those 'news outlet' would do a better job - would act accountable. But I know, I asking too much.

 

All media outlets are full of inaccuracies and unidentified "sources". They know their readers don't care about accuracy they only care if they can use it to justify their own previously held opinions. Good for profits, bad for society.

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

All media outlets are full of inaccuracies and unidentified "sources". They know their readers don't care about accuracy they only care if they can use it to justify their own previously held opinions. Good for profits, bad for society.

Although that is true, reputable sources, do make a real effort to fact check their information.   They attempt to obtain corroborating sources or use sources that  are credible (based on previous reports) or who are close enough to a situation to be deemed credible.  

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

Although that is true, reputable sources, do make a real effort to fact check their information.   They attempt to obtain corroborating sources or use sources that  are credible (based on previous reports) or who are close enough to a situation to be deemed credible.  

 

I do appreciate TV's increasing use of Reuters as a news source. I think they do a better job than most in "sticking to the facts". I do not like news sources that feed you a steady diet of anonymous sources and then go on to tell you what you just read "really" means.