> And who decides which experts get to join the consensus, and which outside sources that proffer corrections should be listened to? A lot of them are academic

> And who decides which experts get to join the consensus, and which outside sources that proffer corrections should be listened to? A lot of them are academics. They're not bozos dragged in off the streets. The approach isn't significantly different from how science works. > In which case, one wonders how much "neutral, unbiased" was ever in the cards in the first place. Spare me the bullshit. Facts are still facts. There's absolutely no rational way to pretend that Trump isn't a pathological liar.