Talking fake news with the editor of The Washington Post

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.

  • BYU Africa 🌍 Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2019 9:18 p.m.

    Look at the shameful conduct of the media when it came to the students at Covington, or the Buzzfeed story that was debunked by Muller.

    Case Closed.

  • Moderator Nauvoo, IL
    May 4, 2018 3:17 p.m.

    Look how much "fake news" surrounded the FLDS raid in Texas ten years ago. All the rumors about them that turned out to be totally false, but were propagated again and again in the news. The raid turned out to be unconstitutional, and based on a fake call by Rozita Swinton (who has still not been prosecuted for doing it)

  • Marxi$t Plymouth, NC
    May 3, 2018 2:37 p.m.

    Look at all the Mexican interference in the election, yet all the reporting is on the supposed Russian interference. Carlos Slim controlled the Pro-Hillary New York Times, Mexican politicians were stumping for her, the Spanish language media (over 25 TV networks) was supporting her, and who knows how many illegal immigrants were helping out her campaign.

    The comparison between Russian interference and Mexican interference is the difference between a feather and an anvil. Yet, the mainstream media has refused to take that angle. Their resistance to looking at it is part of what makes them fake news - what they choose not to report.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    May 2, 2018 12:02 p.m.

    @The Meliorist:

    You said, "Trump is the guy who championed the whole Obama birther movement. Everyone knows his attacks were false."

    No, not everyone knows that Obama was a natural born citizen.

    I had seen plenty of evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. I have seen no real evidence that he was born in the USA.

    Within minutes of Obama publishing his so-called long form birth certificate, I examined it before I listened to the opinion of anyone else. It took me about 20 seconds to come to the conclusion that it was Photoshopped. (Yes I have a lot of experience with working with image altering software, and know what to look for.) I noticed that the MSM was immediately promoting it to be absolutely authentic and belittling anyone who expressed a concern. At that moment -- 20 seconds after seeing the Obama birth certificate, it hit me like a ton of bricks that the MSM was 100% in Obama's back pocket and would say anything to prop him up and say anything to put a shadow on anything that opposed him.

    I had had suspicions about how biased our news media was prior to that. But at that moment I lost forever any thought that the news media would report the news accurately.

  • HSTucker Holladay, UT
    May 1, 2018 7:59 a.m.

    Mr. Wilks, how about an in-depth analysis of Mr. Gohmert's 48 page report on Robert Mueller? Why don't you demonstrate the objectivity of the Deseret News with an objective and factual article about the allegations made in Gohmert's report?

    It's fine to do the research and methodically disagree with his conclusions. It's not fine to avoid even acknowledging its existence. (Search the DesNews for "Gohmert"). That kind of omission is what leads people to believe the Deseret News manipulates the news with a liberal bias.

  • HSTucker Holladay, UT
    May 1, 2018 7:43 a.m.

    The story begins: "Journalists need to build trust with the public. . . ."

    The DN can build trust with the public by reporting on the Watergate of our day, namely the crimes perpetrated by the Clintons and their cabal, including Obama, Lynch, Comey, Clapper, and Brennan.

    Mr. Wilks, if you think these stories are fake news, then methodically and objectively debunk them! To simply fail to report the details (which you have done) is to manipulate the public. You have literally years of catch-up to do. Short of a long-term, full court press to right the ship by going back several years and accurately reporting a plethora of scandals, the Deseret News has no chance of regaining the trust of its current readership.

    It's charming, even quaint, that you would huddle with a nationally known editor. It's also a net negative in your quest for objectivity. "Powers and principalities" are not your friends.

    In the spirit of "Me too!" why don't you start with an interview of Juanita Broaddrick?

  • Utah Girl Chronicles Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 30, 2018 9:49 p.m.

    @ McMurphy

    "98 % anti- Trump makes the Post a one-trick pony."

    Washington Post vets their stories much more thoroughly than Trump vets his nominees for high-level positions. Same goes for high school newspapers and people seeking someone to walk their dogs while they're on vacation.

    Nov. 1, 2017 4:21 p.m.

    So many newspapers and news sources are so biased. Just the simple statement by this Washington Post advocate "There has been a huge decline in trust in the Presidency over the last year" is a statement of advocacy. It is certainly true for his circle of "news sources" but not for many in the country who actually are refreshed by the revitalization of the Presidency. Virtually everything the Washington Post (and NY Times and CNN and MSNBC) publishes about government and politics is one-sided nonsense. Interestingly, Fox leans right but has way more balance than any of these left-wing rags.
    Until Washington Post wakes up and smells the coffee--they are going to continually be viewed as not necessarily "fake news" but certainly "heavily biased news."

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 2:23 p.m.

    Yuge Opportunity, TerraPack

    You need to get a variety of news sources. If you did, you would know that: " Paul Singer, whom I believe supported Marco Rubio, supposedly was behind the Washington Free Beacon's hiring of Fusion to dig up dirt on Trump. Later, yet to be named DNC or Hillary Campaign operatives hired Fusion. The "dossier" ended up in the hands of one Christopher Steele, a former MI6 agent with lots of ties to Russian intelligence agents and officials. Beyond this, we don't know much. "

    It actually started with the Republicans and then was sold to the Democrats.


  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    Oct. 30, 2017 8:29 p.m.

    The Washington Post

    Serious journalism... hah hah

    Give me a break

  • rexwhitmer ELFRIDA, AZ
    Oct. 30, 2017 5:05 p.m.

    The USA is experiencing behavior that began much as that of Germany in the 1930's. What we see on the streets and hear on television is and will grow to the extent of that era, when a Chancellor was forced to turn his office over to Adolf Hitler! Everyone celebrated! Then the truth began to emerge! Parent's were afraid to speak when their children were present, no one uttered any complaint in any condition! Children became the property of the state! I shared a room one semester with a young man who grew up then. It wasn't a pretty story, but likely what you'll get listening to the fake press!

  • rexwhitmer ELFRIDA, AZ
    Oct. 30, 2017 4:55 p.m.

    It's obviously that the "fake" press has obtained a following in Utah and other places as well. It would be hoped that at they mature, they will see the falsity of the stories they've accepted as truth. We saw much the same behavior in a smaller country in Europe called Germany in the 1930's when a movement to gain control of a nation behaved very much as we are seeing many in America doing now! Both believe that their actions are for the betterment of their nation, and many were satisfied that it had so evolved. The Chancellor was forced from office much the same way efforts are attempting to expel President Trump from his! The end was the creation of one of the most evil government to ever exist on the face of the earth and caused millions of deaths among citizens and military.
    Do you really want to see this repeated?

  • kreese Ivins, UT
    Oct. 30, 2017 3:00 p.m.

    From some of the comments, I see many low-information voters and/or citizens.

    Thomas Jefferson warned us of the need to have well-informed citizens.

  • McMurphy St George, Utah
    Oct. 30, 2017 1:47 p.m.

    @ Utah Girl Chronicles

    98 % anti- Trump makes the Post a one-trick pony.

  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    Oct. 30, 2017 1:27 p.m.

    Attention enabling, low information demographic...Screaming "fake news" will not change the factual information involved regardless of the daily, nauseating attempts at defending your supreme leader. Either will constantly changing the topic to Obama and or Clinton. Current Trump approval rating are 33%-38% and declining hourly! The only question remaining is will you all abandon ship before or after the impeachment proceedings begin? Thank you.

  • Sportsfan123 Salt lake, UT
    Oct. 30, 2017 10:15 a.m.

    When you watch from different news sources its easy to see what is going on - case in point.

    During the weeks leading up to the election all you get from fox news is how great the Donald is leading in some polls, behind in others and we heard mostly about HILLARY's email scandal.

    From CNN all we heard was how horrible the Donald was a assualter of women a racist and would never ever win the White House according rachel maddow. On the other hand CNN was reporting how Hillary denied having an private email server and how well she was doing on the campaign trail leading in all of the polls, again citing the Donald had no chance.

    Well in chronological order as it went down - several weeks before the election FBI director Comey came out publically thru the media and infact stated Hillary kept a private and personal email server that infact did have classified govt information on it yet refused to indict her for this crime.

    Then the election came and come to find out Hillary was not leading in all of the polls.

    I think its obvious which news outlet was reporting fact vs fiction, aka propaganda.

  • Sportsfan123 Salt lake, UT
    Oct. 30, 2017 9:46 a.m.

    It should be made known that Obama signed into law the smith mundt modernization act in 2012. This law opened the door for domestic propaganda by our very own govt, something that had been prohibited for the last 40 years.

    So if anyone has wondered why we are getting so much proliferation of info from all different sources you can thank the govt and Obama's infinite wisdom to get as much fake news out for public consumption.

    Never before have we seen so much vitriol and a one sided affair attacking the conservative side of politics as we have in the last 8 years. If it wasnt for the likes of fox, and breitbart our msm media would be so one sided we probably would have never heard anythin negative about Hillary and her scandals, or Oblama going golfing during a major national incident like Benghazi, or Hurricane Katrina.

    I would prefer getting news from all outlets reporting exactly what the imformation is without political spin, who cares if its the washington post, fox, cnn, msnbc, new york times. Why is it we hear two completely different sides to a story from news outlet from the next.

  • jackjoh RIVERTON, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 9:31 p.m.

    I like these statements: In terms of repairing public trust, how about adhering to some principles like objectivity, accuracy, and completeness of coverage of all news, not just the news that fits your political bias. This goes for all news outlets.

    If you want to restore trust in print reporters, print journalists should not moonlight as paid political consultants on cable news outlets where political biases are on display. I don't want their left or right biased opinion, I just want to know the facts.
    What I would like to see is the news reported without the slanting or editorializing that is evident on these pages. Leave the editing to the opinion page.

  • jparry Provo, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 7:54 p.m.

    I've been reading The Washington Post and The New York Times for a long time, too. The only thing that changed 12-15 months ago is that these papers realized that they had gotten lazy in their reporting on Donald Trump because they didn't think Republicans or this nation would make him president. They knew Trump, especially the Times. They just didn't believe that a critical mass of people would look past his lies, racism, and sanctioning of violence.

    So when they realized what was happening, they had many, many stories to tell about Trump's scandalous past, and there was plenty to say about his conflicting statements and incoherent thinking on most political issues on the campaign trail. However, they and everybody else were simply not prepared to say much about his strange affection for and pursuit of Vladimir Putin's approbation (unprecedented in Republican politics). This last story has been unfolding ever since, and it's not based on information from anonymous sources, but rather from credible sources who wish to remain anonymous to you and me. There's a big difference.

  • idablu Idaho Falls, ID
    Oct. 29, 2017 6:30 p.m.

    When the majority of their anti-Trump and anti-conservative stories are based on anonymous sources, then the public tends to lose faith in those media.

  • Utah Girl Chronicles Eagle Mountain, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 6:03 p.m.

    @ McMurphy

    "About summer last year it became a one trick pony -- anti Trump. Over the edge anti-Trump."

    You must not have read the Washington Post on 7/31/16 when they gave Hillary Clinton "four Pinocchio's" for her truthfulness in comments made about James Comey's email server investigation.

    From the Washington Post article: "Clinton is cherry-picking statements made by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual set-up of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation."

    That was written in the heat of a presidential campaign. How was the Washington Post being a "one-trick Trump pony" when they wrote that?

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    Oct. 29, 2017 4:34 p.m.

    Thank you, DN, for giving Mr. Baron a voice.

  • Sad Sack Hurricane, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 3:44 p.m.

    When media decided that ratings were more important than honest reporting, is when they started losing the trust of the people. When they started pandering to the least intelligent of the people, they lost trust.
    When networks and local stations decided that they needed several hours every day to report "news," then took those hours to repeat over and over again, a few news items, but spend most of that time with "entertainment," they lost trust.
    It really is not a hard thing to figure out.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 3:05 p.m.

    Fake news? Like the Halloween candy that is tampered with by strangers. Better have it x-rayed at the hospital.

    How many decades have journalists warned us about that? It scares people.

    Except the threat is fake and always has been.

    Who is it perpetuating the myth?\

  • McMurphy St George, Utah
    Oct. 29, 2017 2:40 p.m.

    I have been a reader of the Washington Post for 45 years, 28 years reading the print edition and the rest reading the on-line edition. I always it considered it liberal but mostly even handed. About summer last year it became a one trick pony -- anti Trump. Over the edge anti-Trump. Foaming at the mouth anti-Trump. It is easy and natural for a liberal paper to be anti-Trump but it is difficult to have a lot of faith in any paper who has only one tune to play.

  • JBs Logan, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 12:24 p.m.

    Trump supporters will likely not believe anything The Washington Post says because Trump has said it's fake news. Actions have shown this the case with his unmovable base. What he says goes, no matter what thus far, so anyone declared anti-Trump is anti-Trump, no matter the facts.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 12:11 p.m.

    Well here's an example of fake news Russian style. I supported Bernie Sanders. There was a lot of stuff on Facebook about Clinton's tampering with vote tallies. It was targeted to guys like me. I bought a lot of it, and it was almost entirely false.

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 11:40 a.m.

    I love how Fox News Radio listeners have concluded that all news that they disagree with is "fake news" and that opinions of political talk show hosts are more relevant and true than verifiable evidence discovered and cited by actual journalists.

    Figuring out if news is fake is actually super easy, all one has to do is check the citations. That's it. If there are no citations it's either fake news or opinion.

    Also, phrases like "many people have said" or "the FBI has found that" are dead giveaways that no actual evidence exists. Ask yourself who said what and when.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 10:28 a.m.

    Some of the comments are ridiculous, acting like Clinton->DNC->Fusion GPS->Chris Steele->Maybe some Russians as intel sources 3-4 step separation is collusion while totally pretending Kushner/TrumpJr/Manafort->direct talks with Russians to get dirt on Hillary isn't.

  • Utah Girl Chronicles Eagle Mountain, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 9:48 a.m.

    Trump's presidency would be cratering even if the Steele dossier did not exist. Trump has been in Putin's back pocket for years. The USA being a satellite Russia entity should concern everyone. "Fake news" will fade over time just as Gerald Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" buttons did. The country is lurching toward a massive Constitutional crisis and in the end the media will have done its job to the disappointment of the alt-right.

  • New to Utah Provo, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 8:55 a.m.

    CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, NYTimes have all been totally complicit in using unnamed sources to perpetuate the Trump Russia collusion story. This non stop story and questions about the dossier and how Clinton Campaign and DNC paid for it and potential law breaking by the Obama justice department makes reasonable people skeptical. Uranium one and the Clinton Foundation’s corruption and lack of journalistic interest to delve deeply and punish lawbreakers are issues journalists must do something about.

  • jzwillows willows, ca
    Oct. 29, 2017 8:48 a.m.

    In my opinion asking someone from a prime source of fake news about fake news is fake news.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Oct. 29, 2017 8:42 a.m.

    "Fake News" is also the clever manipulation of facts by selective reporting"......blank space of reporting of Bill and Hillary Clinton's multi-million dollar income from speeches and donations to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was approving the Uranium One deal giving the Russians(!) control of 20% of our uranium production.

    Wow, talk about willful blindness. First of all there is massive reporting of the allegations, and there has been numerous investigations about the claims with no evidence Hillary had anything to do with the contract. If you have another investigation that shows something different..please, just not more of your 40 year old baseless Hillary bashing. Without that connection any money to Bill or the foundation have no's hogwash.

    Secondly, the deal did not give Russia "control" of any of our uranium. Our uranium is not sold or given to anyone. A small amount goes to Canada for processing and then comes right back.

    If you're looking for a manipulation of facts, look no further than your own computer screen.

    Lastly, reporters shouldn't vote (register). No one thinks Fox is bad, just because they're Repubs.

  • JoelB44 idaho falls, ID
    Oct. 29, 2017 8:12 a.m.

    The wholesale support for ANYTHING Obama and a perceived blind eye to anything conservative among the MSM was a telltale hinge on "fake news" when Trump was elected. Too often, the MSM has been caught looking guilty of "fake news" in the UNPARALLELED liberal bent consistently taken in their editorializing against anything conservative.

    News item management by Marty Baron is somewhat above the average for MSM, and it should be remembered that it was Baron and the Boston Globe who lead out against the pedophile Catholic priests issues!

  • Copybook Headings Draper, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 8:07 a.m.

    Every four years during the Republican primaries the MSM roots for the candidate who has the best chance of losing to a Democrat. This is an undeniable fact. The DNC was terrified of Rubio and Cruz; so they got their friends in the MSM to destroy them in the primaries. And with Trump the MSM got a 'twofer': sky-high ratings and a sure loser to Clinton in the general election. What's that old saying? You reap what you sow? A hearty congrats to the MSM and the DNC. You got that guy elected. Your massive screw up is probably going to result in a very conservative Supreme Court; for a generation at least. And sure as night follows day if that happens the MSM and Democrats will decry (at the top of their lungs) about legislating from the bench. Bet on it.

  • duck Saint George, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 8:02 a.m.

    I agree with the prior DN Subscriber and Christoph at Brigham City. We get "selective journalism" without the press even knowing. They are so biased in their "democratic views" that they normally only attack those with conservative leanings. Naturally they can find multiple sources to document those biased views--who couldn't? What they need to win back our support is more balanced reporting, i.e. a balanced editorial and reporting staff (between liberals and conservatives), and a balance in the issues they choose to investigate and report. By the way, the liberal press still doesn't understand that for many Americans the vote wasn't really in favor of Trump. Rather, it was a vote against Clinton!!! And, the press is still not investigating the many Clinton scandals, e.g. Clinton Foundation fundraising, exorbitant speaking fees, Russian relations, etc. I view that as biased UNREPORTING and Americans just want a fair and truthful reporting of all important issues. When the major news media understand that, our country will once again be able to say "We shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free."

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Oct. 29, 2017 7:55 a.m.

    Some questions to those who have taken up the battle cry of "fake news":

    *Where do you get your news? Why do you trust those sources?

    *To what extent do you rely on TV versus radio versus printed news, and why?

    *To what extent do you get your news from blogs? Which ones?

    *To what extent do you get any news from international news sources for an external perspective?

    *How often do you look for objective background information on complex topics such as economics, healthcare, or legal arguments?

    *How does the source of news immediately filter your willingness to believe it?

    *How often do you go to a news source you consider opposed to your political ideology and engage in the comments (as all liberals commenting on the DN do here)?

    *Do you consider yourself open to changing your mind? Can you recall an example of a news story you initially refused to believe, but then changed your mind based on evidence? Or a story you did believe initially, but then realized was untrue? For example, I've seen repeated assertions here that Obama was a Muslim and HRC exploited children from a pizzeria basement. Are any of you willing to own up to that and admit a mistake?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Oct. 29, 2017 7:01 a.m.

    @ DN Subscriber

    Why aren't you concerned about having liberal-minded editors at Fox, Breitbart, WSJ, etc.?

    Also, consider the possibility that the reason the journalism profession is dominated by liberal-minded people is because the nature of the work draws a certain type of personality. This isn't unique to this profession. Consider, e.g., the military or banking/finance, which draw more conservative-minded than liberal-minded people. It isn't some conspiracy. It's human nature.

    To those getting your news on the Russia investigation from Fox, et al.:

    I get that, if it was improper for the Clinton campaign to hire a Brit to dig up dirt on their opponent, that she/it should be held accountable for this. What I don't get:

    Why is it a scandal that the Clinton campaign - or any campaign for that matter - paid for oppo research on their political opponent?

    If the information in the dossier can be substantiated and it proves that Americans aided Russia in its bid to undermine our process, how does who paid for the dossier have any relevance?

  • ctkid Naperville, IL
    Oct. 29, 2017 6:03 a.m.

    Here are a few examples that lowered public trust in both government and new media for the past few years.

    Fox News vs. Clinton
    Dan Rather vs. George Bush
    Fox News vs Obama
    Obama vs. Fox News
    Obama / Justice Department vs. James Rosen
    CNN vs. Trump
    Trump vs CNN, MSNBC

    This started long before 2016.

    In terms of repairing public trust, how about adhering to some principles like objectivity, accuracy, and completeness of coverage of all news, not just the news that fits your political bias. This goes for all news outlets.

    If you want to restore trust in print reporters, print journalists should not moonlight as paid political consultants on cable news outlets where political biases are on display. I don't want their left or right biased opinion, I just want to know the facts.

    If journalists don't want to abide by these principles, then, in my opinion, they should not go into journalism.

    I find myself today wanting to go to a website that reports all news equally with the facts, no opinion, not unnamed sources without the truth, just the facts. I feel like it doesn't exist and that I am reading half-truths at best. All seem to have a political agenda.


  • Egyptian origins Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 5:35 a.m.

    "Fake" news is widespread. Propaganda, rhetoric, & opinion are not the only concern we the people have with our news agencies. How many times does a reporter go to a 2nd hand witness, such as "friends", "family", or a former "expert"? How many times does the news fill us with advice and trends to live our lives? How many times does a reporter pass up the opportunity to ask critical questions? And how often does the news withhold coverage or even edit coverage? How many times do reporters render judgments about conditions and/or individuals to illicit an emotional response? All these concerns and more are conditions we face with our media. News is the presenting of the observable evidence in real time coupled with the factual timeline of events from the observable evidence. The % of real news has to be weeded through and compared with other reported sources; thus the many conspiracy theories that inevitably result. Granted actual news is boring if it is not an exposing of a conspiracy, a covering of a grand event or showing the tragedies of others all as a type of Hollywood entertainment. Our Constitution is about freedom of the press which is not permission to abuse that right.

  • TerraPack Sandy, UT
    Oct. 29, 2017 5:21 a.m.

    Well, Mr. Wilkes, You missed the boat by focusing on 'Fake News'.

    As the excellent comments above by 'Yuge Opportunity Here', christoph, DN Subscriber, and 'at long last' illustrate, there is a much more important word which you should have focused on... 'Objectivity'.

    There has been a profound distortion to reporting, especially from because nearly all reporters and commentators allow their own philosophy, usually progressivism, to obstruct a clear view of the happenings in the world.

    Take the comment by Meliorist, above, about the implied wacky adherents to the "Birther Movement". The Deseret News also poked fun of these obviously shallow thinking folks.

    However, when you look at the early months of the 2008 election with some objectivity, you realize that these people were responding correctly to a situation where there was very little objective knowledge of the formative years of this two-year Senate wonder who was born in Hawaii, moved to Indonesia, and much later in Hawaii would be mentored by a zealot with crimes unpunished. The Main Stream Media had no trouble taking Obama on faith, but Objectivity would reveal WE knew far too little about Obama's past.

  • The Meliorist Grande Cache, 00
    Oct. 28, 2017 9:44 p.m.

    Trump is the guy who championed the whole Obama birther movement. Everyone knows his attacks were false. He is the one who needs to build our trust in him.

    To begin his whole presidency by attacking the press collectively as liars is the epitome of hypocrisy. I have far more trust in Cooper Anderson than Donald Trump.

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    Oct. 28, 2017 9:38 p.m.

    Anyone who trusts the media these days is an absolute gullible fool. They have earned every bit of the distrust the American people have in them. It is also far, far too late to get that trust back.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 28, 2017 9:17 p.m.

    "Fake News" is also the clever manipulation of facts by selective reporting. Witness the barrels of ink spilled over vague suggestions of "Trump collusion with the Russians" with the nearly blank space of reporting of Bill and Hillary Clinton's multi-million dollar income from speeches and donations to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was approving the Uranium One deal giving the Russians(!) control of 20% of our uranium production.

    Partisanship is rampant, and the WAPO reported in May 2014 that while 50.2% of journalists hide their affiliation, 28.1% are Democrats, nearly four times the 7.1% admitting to being Republicans, and 14.6% are "other" (likely even father left in my opinion).

    However, it is not all bad news for the news media as the story reports:
    "There's been a decline in trust in Congress where Congress is actually trusted less than the media in this country." No telling where used car salesmen or pond scum fall in the rankings.

    Tell us, who are the high level "conservative" voices in editorial or management positions in the WAPO, NBC, CBS, or even the SL Tribune, if any at all?

    Fake news abounds but people are not buying it anymore.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Oct. 28, 2017 8:30 p.m.

    Nice bold questions to editor of the Post. ABC, CBS and NBC for decades, has been biased, as at most prominent universities, and at most newspapers, they may speak the truth in science and art and business, yet they won't talk much of someone helping a elderly person across the road because positive news doesn't sell. Negativity is addictive. For the last 15 years, these outlets have often started the evening news telling of someone in Hollywood passing away, some icon celebrity. Is that news? Or fairy tales? Or obsession with Hollywood? Seinfeld made complaining an art, sadly. Yet, also too much truth can be overbearing, as in OJ Simpson trial and other scandals of the 1990's and recently. Take the Hollywood scandal going on right now, every lady is coming forward and accusing the accused of the tough words, which I won't mention, which words I do not like to hear, yet media is obsessed with these stories and words. Tell the truth, or protect our innocence? Few people could have ever predicted Clintons and Obamas going down to defeat, or at least their legacies; they were upheld by most papers, universities and media. Few dared stand up to them.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Oct. 28, 2017 8:17 p.m.

    "The president's idea of fake news is anything that does not conform to his account of events, he would call fake news. … I remember when he said, “If you see any negative press about me, that's fake news.”"

    Yep. Anything that doesn't report glowing praises to Trump is "fake news". Trump is like a 3rd world dictator. The way it's going, America will soon be a 3rd world country.

  • Yuge Opportunity Here Mapleton, UT
    Oct. 28, 2017 8:14 p.m.

    May I share a comment about fake news from this side of the monitor?
    Let's take the Russian dossier. It is the jumping off point for the Mueller investigation.

    We heard about it, unsubstantiated as it was, because Buzzfeed and CNN scooped one another. It was known for months, but news editors wouldn't run it.

    But now it is out there.

    And we know John McCain picked it up and turned it over to Obama's Intl guys to investigate.

    What we don't know, from reading this newspaper, is that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded the whole story.

    And we know that Obama's FBI paid money to the source as well.

    So was it fake news then, or is the democrat connection fake news? And why aren't we hearing about it now?

    It sure looks like an expression of the survey, that media outlets today are the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

    Ask each other to explain that one at your conference.