We saw in the recent election season

that these organizations were tending to avoid covering things that were negative to Hillary Clinton.

This was particularly true once the Wikileaks leaks became heavy, a couple of months before the

election, especially. Sure, there's the "fake news" meme, but I don't recall a single email that came

from the DNC/Podesta/Weiner camp that was claimed to have been "fake": By and large, eventually

the MSM simply refused to publicize them.

That's one big reason I blame the MSM itself for the "fake news" phenomenon. In prior election

cycles, generally all the outlets covered all the stories...with a different slant and spin, of course. An

average person would have a good clue that a given story was fake if it came solely from a given

source, or 'side'. But in 2016 the public observed that the MSM was studiously limiting its coverage

on those issues that happened to be negative to Hillary. I'm not saying that they entirely avoided

them, but I think most people would agree that their coverage was completely stilted.

As a consequence, it became virtually "normal" for there to be apparently-quite-legitimate stories on

one 'side', and not another. This meant that ordinary people no longer had this as a clue to tell them

which thing to believe, and which not to.

Jim Bell