When print and broadcast news media compile lists of the "alternative facts," half-truths, misleading comments, falsehoods and flat-lies perpetrated by a president who peppers his speeches with the plea, "Believe me," and attacks every report that he doesn't like as "fake news," readers and viewers must deal with this question: Who is more believable?
Should they continue to believe an individual with a proven record of deception and untruths, or come to accept multiple information sources with a record of reliability going back many years?
Even the conservative sympathizers at Fox News regularly tout the slogan, "We report, you decide."
Or when dealing with claims of wire tapping of a presidential candidate when the FBI, the CIA, numerous senior officials at major intelligence agencies point out that such a move could not happen without a warrant, and if it did, that would mean the FBI, for example, was breaking the law, what is the believability quotient for each? Law enforcement agencies or an individual who refuses to provide evidence or proof to back up his claims?
The White House now says the president won't divulge his source for the wiretap information in order to protect the confidentiality of his sources.
Yeah, right. And I have it on good authority that the moon is made of green cheese, the lunar landings were faked -- they were filmed at a movie studio in Brooklyn -- and Walter Cronkite fibbed.
No comments:
Post a Comment