On the one hand, I get it - that the Sun can get away with disingenuously positioning 'the objective truth in that it was true that these words were uttered by some guy' as 'the reportable truth of the matter' - is frustrating.
But on the other they are reporting that some guy said something or it looked like some guy did something. It's how they put breakfast on the table, and I think describing it as misinformation overstates the paper's credibility as a source of 'News'.
That said, you have to convince some Sun readers to get elected as PM.
On the one hand, I get it - that the Sun can get away with disingenuously positioning 'the objective truth in that it was true that these words were uttered by some guy' as 'the reportable truth of the matter' - is frustrating.
But on the other they are reporting that some guy said something or it looked like some guy did something. It's how they put breakfast on the table, and I think describing it as misinformation overstates the paper's credibility as a source of 'News'.
That said, you have to convince some Sun readers to get elected as PM.