Just because they play both sides of the field doesn't add credulity to the objectivity of their coverage.

I am so jaded to believe that both sides pay them for coverage. Either in money or political favors.

The weird thing is, it doesn't seem to have affected the election at all. From the article:

> He set up a website, posted gushing stories about Hillary Clinton and waited for ad sales to soar. “I don’t know why, but it did not work,” said the student, Beqa Latsabidze, 22, who was savvy enough to change course when he realized what did drive traffic: laudatory stories about Donald J. Trump that mixed real — and completely fake — news in a stew of anti-Clinton fervor.

> But he, too, discovered that writing about Mr. Trump was a “gold mine.”

> “It’s all Trump,” Mr. Egan said by telephone. “People go nuts for it.”

Is it possible fake Trump news was the result, and not the cause, of Trump's appeal to the American people ? There's more in the paragraphs below that makes one think this is the case.

You'll note that those results all start appearing in July - after the DNC shoved Sanders out of the race. When the corruption was relevant, the "reputable" media was silent.

I tried the same search with DuckDuckGo and got the same results as what I posted.

Perhaps this is fake? Perhaps not. Who controls that? http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/pizzagate-4chan-un...

Media claims its fake: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pizzagate-shows-how-...