Is it any wonder people don't trust the establishment media when the they push narratives like that of the impending "mushroom clouds" if we don't invade Iraq? With nary an ounce of critical coverage? It wasn't long after that we found out that it was all a bunch of bullshit. But of course by that time it was too late for the million Iraqis and thousands of Americans who died, and the trillions of tax payer dollars wasted (stolen), yet somehow alternative news sources are the problem? I'll go ahead and assume that you were equally critical of the NY Times when they published, from sources with a political axe to grind, false information about the supposed Iraq threat. One must always question the sources, but that's hardly unique to alternative news outlets.

It's also very convenient to lump all alternative news source in with the Infowars and Brietbarts. The reality is that there are a plethora of disparate media outlets of varying quality that are covering legitimate stories from legitimate (at least by NY Times standards) sources - stories that are simply not covered elsewhere. People should be free, and indeed encouraged, to get their information from a variety of sources. The implication that people are drinking either full-establishment or full-Infowars kool-aid is false. People have lost trust in the mainstream media, for good reason, and they are searching for alternatives. That doesn't mean they agree with anything and everything that can be found.

And finally, please tell me, why would all the top DNC heads resign over the Guccifer leaks if they were all forged and fabricated?

Are you saying that CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES, ABC, CBS, NBC aren't all extremely biased in favor of Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general?

I mean, I would say that, given that it's true and everything.

I never said they were or were not. But that only sets the tone and the coverage. Emails/Benghazi/Clinton Foundation got plenty of coverage by the "liberal" media. The facts were found, and they moved on.

What's the old saying, facts have a liberal bias?

I encourage you to watch this panel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsgapaYCs40) and then say that "the facts are found". They have been stonewalling all fact-finding from the start, and anyone paying attention to the actual facts can see a seriously egregious pattern of corruption and cover-up on multiple levels.

I'm not a Trump supporter, either, but I am baffled by how ignorant some Democrats have become to this stuff given the relative cynicism and insight that prevailed during the Bush years, especially concerning Iraq. She acts a lot like Bush and we can expect a very similar administration from her. It's sickening, honestly, as people will die and suffer for our ignorance.

How well would you say modern "liberals" handle facts in the domains of:

- IQ testing

- Evolutionary psychology

- GMOs

- Child development

- Economics

This was going to be my reply to this, almost exactly. The fact of the matter here is that there is a large group of people that treat Infowars, Breitbart, etc. as news organizations of integrity higher than or parallel to "traditional" news orgs, as they are good at stopping cognitive dissonance and confirming their beliefs. All it takes is enough of these to jump on the unverified documents and turn it into a faux scandal that requires a question or three at a debate.

More like "everything you know is a lie and ONLY WE can give you the truth."

The more you buy into it the more susceptible you become to baseless conspiracy theories. Because it's always easier to believe that the people you are told to hate deserve the hate than to consider that you were duped.

It scares me how many smart people are playing right into the Bernays/Goebbels/Chavez playbook.

Side note: I don't think it's completely fair to place Breitbart alongside Infowars; they are on completely different strata.