> What, even approximately, is the rate of retraction? On RussiaGate? pretty high. On the Covington MAGA-wearing kids? A lawsuit. But naked numbers means nothi

> What, even approximately, is the rate of retraction? On RussiaGate? pretty high. On the Covington MAGA-wearing kids? A lawsuit. But naked numbers means nothing. We agree that trump tweets a lot of nonsense, if he were to add 10 time more tweets that were true it would not dilute the nonsense of the others. > That main witness "bombshell" is not remotely what is written in the NYT. It is what Fox news _says_ the NYT I read the NYT article (do not remember the exact wording, but I have never opened the fox news one) and the clear picture was that they were reporting the content of a book and that the book was reporting that as facts; what I criticize in the NYT article is the omission about the witness apparently not remembering the story (an omission they had to correct indeed). (As a philosophical aside: I do not want to convince you that "the mainstream media lies", that is not a proposition to me, in the sense that I do not know What a proof or disproof looks like. What I am trying to do is to point out the viewpoint of your outgroup.)