Who Do You Trust?

The Guardian used to be one of my preferred,  and most trusted,  sources  for  news.  They’re still  far from the worst,  I don’t view them as actually being the enemy, as I do the New York Times, for instance, but they are tainted.
There were a couple of iffy stories today, but not for the same reasons.  First was a story about a new beauty treatment that is popular among Hollywood elites – Cate Blanchett, Sandra Bullock, and some others, which consists of oils  extracted from foreskins after circumcisions.  This is ridiculous.  A baby, as anyone whose ever seen a newborn one in the hospital knows, is really, really small.  The penis on a boy baby is only a tiny fraction of that baby, which is, as I’ve already mentioned, very, very small.  And the foreskin of that penis is almost nothing at all.  So, the oil extracted from that foreskin is practically nothing.  It would take hundreds, maybe thousands, to get enough to spread across your face.  Not that I doubt the story.  Just that the product itself is ridiculous stuff, and writing about it is the stuff of tabloids.
The other is a report that Paul Manafort (a Trump follower who is in plenty of legal hot water) met secretly with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, I guess to co-ordinate the release of the information that Hillary Clinton had rigged the primaries.
Wikileaks has totally denied the story and is threatening to sue them, and Glenn Greenwald and a lot of other journalists (Greenwald is one of the few journalists I still  trust) have said there are a lot of  things fishy about the story.
So,who  can you trust any more?  Well,  on politics, there’s no source you can trust 100%.  Everybody has their own viewpoint, and the line between facts and opinion  is blurrier and blurrier.  I still trust Assange and Wikileaks pretty  much, though.