I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.

Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.

You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.

Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.

Until you provide evidence, I won't believe it exists.

(See how this works?)

I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.

So you have no examples, then. Good to know.

I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.

Yes.

Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.

Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us ... obviously.

Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.

Even if you think it is in his character, unless there's SOME evidence it happened, then it's irresponsible to treat it as though it's possibly true.

The media regularly gives us stories without evidence, without substantiation, and asks us to believe those stories. Then -- I'm shocked! -- people end up believing stories without evidence or substantiation.

Only when we stop paying attention to source-less claims will we solve the problem of "fake news."

Actually they do. The current B-52, for example, is really the B-52H, which came after the B-52G, etc. Likewise the C-130 is the C-130J, though some units still fly the H model (and there's a K model for export).

While the sentiment may be correct, I have to disagree with the example.

While it's true that sound doesn't travel through space, even archaic 20th Century technology like laser microphone would detect Spock's beep. While it's true that the cloaked Romulan probably wouldn't be using such an active sensor, there could be a legitimate way of detecting such vibrations passively. Indeed it might be exactly these types of vibrations that the show refers to every time Spock says something like "I'm [not] detecting any life signs, captain". So that particular example is well within the framework of the Trek canon.

It wasn't the tweet that caused the sell off, it was the poor Q1 numbers.