I will not call you ignorant OR uneducated, because I can see why the link I had in mind was not as clear as it was in my head.
Here's the link I had in mind (although I see that it might need defending):
Trump has repeatedly called the media "unfair" and outright dishonest (trapping them in little pens at the back of his rallies and goading his rally-goers to trash them). I see him now refusing them access because they are unfair. This is obviously partly to get them to be nice to him with access as the reward, but also adds fuel to the "they're flagrantly dishonest (see Jade Falcon, above)" fire.
The result of undercutting actual media sites, which actually follow strict journalistic rules and (National Enquirer aside) are very leery of reporting falsehoods (and when they stumble, it's pretty spectacular - see Rolling Stone and the rape story), is to falsely inflate totally bullshit sites, and sites that have an obvious and glaring bias (like Breitbart) to equivalent, or even higher status. And the effect of THAT is, now people think they are justified in saying there's "no consensus about climate change" when of course there is amongst scientists.
Now, you don't have to AGREE with me, but maybe you see where I was going with that?
