Ah yes, Channel 4, the most implacable enemy of Trump. And that time they did an exposé of how Poundland wasn’t actually cheap, it was due to their vendetta against Poundland, and not at all due to the fact that they do bloody investigative journalism.

What would you prefer them to do, in depth investigations into how fuzzy cats are? Generally, in investigative journalism, someone gets hurt. It’s not a conspiracy against poor innocent Trump, just the nature of the beast.

Just wondering... If there are differences, which you concede, then maybe it's those differences and not "an engineered campaign by Trump's enemies" driving the difference in outrage?

They aren't nuanced differences, at all. And a substantial majority of the public can be counted as "Trump's enemies" (whatever that paranoid label may mean) probably because they understand how different 2016 was than any other campaign in the US, ever.

Do we even have much evidence that the public is outraged?

I mean, it's hard to judge, but things like [1] generally suggest that to some degree, yes

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/technology/users-abandon-...

I'm curious how they find these people to interview....the one fellow who plans to move his marketing to Twitter for example...he does have a Twitter account, but he has no tweets, so she couldn't have found him that way.

I doubt there's been any sort of a reliable survey on this, yet once again numerous media outlets are portraying extreme public outrage at this. My spider sense tells me the outrage isn't coming from the public.

Russian trolls are infiltrating HN too?