> Of course you'll be called a "conspiracy theorist" for speculating about this case in any way deviating from the official narrative. Prior to Snowden, people

> Of course you'll be called a "conspiracy theorist" for speculating about this case in any way deviating from the official narrative. Prior to Snowden, people who warned about extensive government surveillance were dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. After Snowden, everyone said, "oh all this was common knowledge anyway". Prior to the DNCLeaks, Sanders supporters who complained about the DNC favouring Hillary were dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. After to the leaks, everyone said, "oh this was all common knowledge anyway" Things are getting pretty messed up. I used to mentally snicker at anyone who seriously used terms like 'liberal media' and 'mainstream media' as pejoratives. And yet here we are in 2016, and it's harder and harder to deny that they are right to use terms like that. And I'm appalled. I don't know what to do about it, but when you have self-declared liberal readers of the NYTimes complaining that they have to go to Fox News of all places to get the full story[0], then you know there are serious problems. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-the-new-york-times-public-editor.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-th...