Hi hsilgne,
Fair enough. Although I do trust their fact checking because they make their findings public and they present the claims that were made, which anyone with a computer can check. It's a lot like those who say that the Scriptures have been rewritten or otherwise changed since Jesus' day. Godly people would have been up in arms about such a thing. The Jews, who take great pride in the careful and meticulous copying of the Scriptures would still be crying foul. Similarly, if an organization whose very existence depends on people's trust, was found to be regularly untrustworthy, they'd have long since been abandoned to the scrap heap of worthless enterprises. But, that isn't the case.
Such a complaint as yours, attacks the presenter of the evidence as being somehow untrustworthy, but can't actually put in print a statement that is reported in one of their reports and say, "that's a lie!" Yes, you can likely claim that you don't agree personally with their findings, but can you make a charge advanced by factual evidence to support where exactly their facts or findings are incorrect?
But, fair enough. Here's the very same source that you linked in your post concerning President Trump on this same issue.
100 days of Trump claims
Now, if you're going to claim that we can't trust the Washington Post because it's part of the MSM, that's perfectly ok, but then you have to throw out the claims of your post substantiated by the same 'untrustworthy' source. All I'm asking is that we be fair. We be honest in our assessment of each man's abilities and work.
Personally, I'm not a part of this new age idea that we can't trust news sources that have been held as reputable news sources for decade upon decade. Journalists, and their respective employers, have a job to do. That job is to report the facts of events as accurately as they can assess based on fact finding evidence through phone calls and interviews. It just seems a near impossibility that an entire group of long respected news sources are now looked at with such distrust and have somehow colluded in keeping the truth away from their readers.
The Christian faith rests on the initial testimony of just 4 or 5 men who actually walked with Jesus. The argument that we can believe the new covenant Scriptures rests on our logical understanding that if these men had been spreading lies, then people would have made a big stir of it all. But there is no evidence that any of their testimony was untruthful. Yes, there are people who will make that claim today, but we have no evidence that in the time that the new covenant writings were actually being made that anyone ever took issue that any of the reports were not correct. Why? Because it's hard to get away with a lie that is spread among thousands and thousands of people. Somebody is going to have been there and be able to say, "No!!! That didn't happen." Luke, in writing his gospel starts out by telling us that he gathered the information that he presents in his writing from firsthand accounts of eyewitnesses.
So, believe what you will about who is or isn't a reputable news source, but just know that I'm of a mind that when source after source of the long established reputable news sources say the same thing among themselves, then it's very likely the truth. Especially in this day and age when all it takes is a few key strokes to bring up the actual video account of the things that are being claimed to have been said. I've got ears -- to hear.
God bless you,
In Christ, ted