In the spirit of not doing homeworking, you raise an unintended point on the value of our words. Whether or not anyone agrees with you, you don't have a reputa

In the spirit of not doing homeworking, you raise an unintended point on the value of our words. Whether or not anyone agrees with you, you don't have a reputation, you haven't done meaningful research, and the accusations you've asserted under the flimsy guise of opinion are the kind of unsubstantiated and valueless commentary you'd expect from one of the less brazen corporate media outlets. You've provided no defense of the basis of your intuition other than sprinkling a few "seems" around. Seems to whom, on what evidence? That's the difference between someone who has cultivated a history of performing reputable journalism, defended under the scrutiny of editors, fact finders, and the public and low effort armchair experts, spin doctors, popular conspiracy theorists, and other soundbite spewing talking heads. I'm not exempt, but my point is that when subjected to the same standards and scrutiny we might hold another to, especially on the internet, we don't often fare as well as we'd think.