From my perspective, I think it's a big deal to get the details right, without needing to obviously exaggerate ("everyone claimed ... disinformation", WaPo says "it's legit" [some is, some remains unproven], 90% of the media [by what measure? Certainly not reach, as Fox has a significant minority of the market], "all the fact checkers in cahoots" [there does not appear to be any evidence of cahooting]).

You may have some good points, but it's unlikely anyone will dig through your screed to be influenced by your ideas. (But thank you for at least making it short!)

It may matter to you. But I don't think I'd be wrong to believe that if Hunter had been Ted Cruz's son, or Trump's son, no such politeness would have been granted and it would have run till it ran out of steam due to over-exposure.

And granted, I took some license but I wasn't intent on saying there was a literal agreement by the media and fact checkers, but that's like saying there is no pricing collusion between airlines -yeah, I'm sure they are not calling each other, but they are following each other's lead so to speak and that's what media and fact checkers do.

By 90% I mean exposure -Impressions and eyeballs. How many articles, tweets, reddits, etc.

If it fits people's ideology they don't hold it accountable.

The desire for truth is over.

Its a war of ideology now, which has never ended well historically.