"Nate, Nate" I said ever so many times, graciously telling my tale. You got it wrong. Horribly wrong. Let it go and move on. The US mainstream media is not ther

"Nate, Nate" I said ever so many times, graciously telling my tale. You got it wrong. Horribly wrong. Let it go and move on. The US mainstream media is not there to report the news. It's there to shape public opinion in favor of the small group of elites who own it. It didn't work in 2016 because there's been an awakening; people want government that represents them and not itself and they're sick of being lied to. No-one really gives a fuck about what's on Memoerandom. This analysis reads like an in-depth textual criticism of the Hitler Diaries that's forgotten the main point about them: they weren't real. Let me give you an example of how pathetic the reporting has become. This is an interview from Columbia Journalism Review (http://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/washington_post_bezos_amazon_revolution.php http://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/washington_post_bezos_amazon_revo...): CJR: So you think news consumers in the future will make a decision on which Hillary Clinton story to click on based on speed? If they see a number of options and their experience tells them that The Washington Post is faster, then they’re going to read that one? SP: Yes. And we see that already. I don’t know if it’s a conscious choice. I think it’s more about not hesitating to click. CJR: I can’t imagine that’s a popular view in the newsroom. JM: Well, it doesn’t really change our editorial strategy in any way. I'm an old-school journo and I found a number of things in this disturbing. One: Hillary is assumed to be the winner. Two: The WaPo is admittedly trying to brainwash their readers through site responsiveness. Three: the article should mention owner Jeff Bezos's large contracts with the intelligence community and the ramifications of possible influence there. But it doesn't. In short, it's propaganda.