It'll be curious to see how the President responds to what is clearly a non-partisan investigation - And what Manafort and Gates will do (given that the Money Laundering charges seem pretty much iron clad charges based on the FBI's case description).

They're not selecting them randomly, if it's on their YouTube site the whole idea is the number of hits you get. They're not going to put something on there that no one is going to look at, I dare say they move stuff there after it gains so many views on the news site itself.

I prefer to use the sub-sections on the main site. If I want all the US news, i'll use the US sub-section as the World sub-section will only give one or two stories as they've got to fit in everywhere else.

During Obama's 8 years everything was covered, good and bad. He wasn't a bad president, at all, he was a hamstrung one however. People think Clinton was a bad president because he cheated on his wife. That makes him a bad husband (and her stupid for not only sticking with him but for using him to try and gain politically) but doesn't make him a bad president.

I don't subscribe to this notion that Trump, and Gusset long before him, believe that the media don't report certain things.

I can't stand either the acronym or phrase mainstream media but I think that when people say the large media (news) companies don't or haven't reported it, what people actually mean is they haven't reported it from the angle I'd like them to.

Well it's not, is it. It's only there to see,
if they did a video on that story.

I think Pence did a pretty good job of making himself look daft by touching something that has a sign saying do not touch. Same as it would if you walk on the grass next to a sign saying not to. That's not the BBC trying to undermine the Trump administration, that's a politician (of any hue) giving the press a free slam-dunk.

As a journalist myself, that is a silly story for the diary pages of a newspaper. It's not real news. Come on now. How about the photos of Melania wearing high heels on the way to see the damage from hurricane Harvey? Real news? Or trying to undermine anyone connected with POTUS.

Yep, bashing Trump gets hits! So now we know the real reason. Hits vs good journalism – and the former is a priority for the BBC. Imagine if they covered an angle of a story that rivals, Sky, ITV and Channel 4 DIDN'T follow? Imagine they didn't follow the MSM line at all times? Do you think offering something different might actually get more interest, more hits and show they can criticise the Dems too? Or shock, horror, actually report real news without an agenda?

How many people in the UK know about the probe into Hillary's Russia connections this past week? The selling of uranium, and her party paying for the dodgy dossier? Not that many, which is a dereliction of duty from so called journalists.

The BBC were totally up Hillary's arse during the presidential campaign, nobody in the UK knew of Benghazi, the missing 33,000 emails, the corruption of her foundation etc etc, and people were surprised she lost! She was so bad, she lost to a glorified builder! She was a repeat of Obama and the people no longer wanted that. The BBC were fawning all over Obama, who will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. But like you, I did think he was brilliant! When you live in the US, you can quite clearly see the anti-Trump, anti Republican UK media bias from here.

Its latest story is: 'Did Russian backed propaganda sway US voters?' Again, the British Broadcaster for Clinton is producing more propaganda that Hillary lost because of Russian interference. Pathetic!

On a separate topic, look at this BBC piece on Kevin Spacey: 'Why are people angry about Kevin Spacey coming out?' [Link] I mean really???

Edited by Penge Eagle (31 Oct 2017 7.51pm)

Just for you, Penge. [Link]

What really sickens me about things like this, is how people don't speak up at the time. Same with the republicans who step down, and won't be running for re-election who suddenly are very critical.

I respect them speaking up, but do it at the time - The reasons why you don't are why people don't trust politicians and political parties.

Corruption, Greed and abuse of power aren't any more unacceptable once you have nothing to gain by complicity.

There would have been far less interest in the internal machinations had they won. Losing means that such wounds stay open much longer.

The process of the Democratic party was laid bare by Russian hackers and WikiLeaks. It was a disgusting mess. There's no reason to assume that it has been anything other than this - you know the establishment wanted Clinton over Obama for 2008 - but, as I said, winning makes it go away.

Parties need to get over themselves. Just how the Democrats forced through a past her sell-by date Clinton because Obama stole 8 years from her, the Republicans did this in 2008, unfathomably putting up McCain against Obama after Bush Jr stole 8 years from him (famously by claiming he'd fathered a black baby out of wedlock [Link] ).

They all get this wrong, trying to sell us what they want us to buy, ignoring what we actually want. It's only when you lose at it that it gets dragged out into the light.

Edited by Ray in Houston (03 Nov 2017 4.39pm)