The problem is the safe thing to do with that regulations that to try to find truth of substantive claims, but instead tomjudt uncritically relay sourced rumor: it's very easily to be completely factual if everything you report is “So and so says that...” regurgitating official statements from interested parties without attempting to validate the claims the originator is making.

How about we start with the over-use of "leaked"?

For example the new James Comey book was not "leaked." What happened was, the publicist kicked off the marketing campaign and MSM feeding frenzy and hyping begins. The part about the book's author being sacked by the guy he's critiquing is never mentioned.

A real journalist would not use the worded "leaked" as that's not only entirely misleading, it's a lie. Stating the obvious or not, a real journalist / legit news outlet would not make assumption, they would make sure the context is 100% clear.

> The part about the book's author being sacked by the guy he's critiquing is never mentioned.

I've yet to see any news piece on Comey, whether or not the context involved his book, since the firing not mention the firing, and, since the appointment of Mueller, also mention that the firing is widely perceived as instrumental in leasing to the Special Counsel being appointed.

The idea that the coverage of the book never mentions the firing is laughable.

> The part about the book's author being sacked by the guy he's critiquing is never mentioned.

Every bit of coverage I've heard about Comey--both from the last 24 hours about the book, and for the last year--has mentioned Comey being fired every time.

Who should be the final arbiter of "100% true"? Should it be an elected position or an appointed position?