Much of what we see and hear is tainted

Subject: Much of what we see and hear is tainted.

It's revealing when you are watching one of those respected political programs which appear daily on the television, to hear a deliberate skewing of the truth  from one of the leading political commentators in this case Laura Kuenssberg.
Just prior to the program I had been watching the Chancellor of the Exchequer being grilled by the Treasury Committee. Much of the discussion was taken up by the issue of Brexit and in the complex matters arising. One of his messages to the committee was in answer to a question about pre-planning for the outcome of leaving the EU.  In his answer a gave a range of possibilities.
If there was 'no deal', the pragmatic assumption was that without a specific deal on say aviation, one scenario was that "planes would be grounded", the other, that there would be no "infringement of the current rules regarding flights" and it would be business as usual.
It was clear that he believed that the latter would be the case since the issue of a 'common Interest'  would guide the matter.
Enter Ms Kuenssberg who less than 15 minutes later said on the "Daily Politics" that the Chancellor in his meeting with the treasury Committee had said that without an agreement over Brexit planes would be grounded and not be able to fly into and out of the UK / Europe. The emphasis on the worst case scenario, one which the Chancellor had discounted, was used by, Ms Kuenssberg to spruce up the argument that the "remainders", of who Philip Hammond the Chancellor is one, were trying to scare the electorate into avoiding a hard Brexit and rather accept some sort of continued linkage with Europe. His words were deliberately misconstrued.  I was witness to what he had said and the context he gave to his statement and was not what Kuenssberg was tendering to the public as news.
This gerrymandering of important political statements, of taking out of context the words or leaving the contextual counter statement unreported is extremely troubling.
These political commentators have assumed an importance way beyond their pay grade. They are not the decision makers but with their audience ready to sallow what they say as true the politician has no chance to get a fair hearing.
And so the headline is :- Chancellor is fighting a rearguard action to keep us in the EU.
It's all twisted innuendo mixed with a sprinkling of fact. In a court of law it could be classed as perjury and merit a sentence but in the hurly burly of 'media news' it merges neatly into the spectra of "false news" and we have to live with the fact that much of what we see and hear is tainted.