The questions Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is currently facing about a supposed full scholarship to West Point is a reminder that politicians have historically embellished or outright fabricated their personal stories. The following are 5 presidential candidates who were not completely honest about their past:

I wrote before that Google’s search algorithm didn’t play politics — facts spoke for themselves, and searcher/voter intent determined the results they found. That, unfortunately, is no longer the case. The world’s most popular search engine has announced that a new, experimental feature will give presidential candidates (Republicans and Democrats only) a way to feature their own images, and up to 14,400 characters of their own text, at the top of relevant searches. Similar to how a search for, say, a celebrity will yield a Knowledge Graph above all other organic results (typically a Wikipedia page), featuring images, biographical information, and related links, the idea is to bring voters directly to the candidates they are searching for with real-time updates. These Candidate Cards will not be drawn from other popular search results, as the current Knowledge Graphs are;rather, they will be taken from the candidates themselves.That means they will determine independently what the primary search results for their names look and sound like. It is well documented, researched, and discussed how important social media’s role was in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.By making a public search for facts and resources redundant to social media, Google is compromising the future and development of political engagement online. The difference between online search and social media was, until now, the difference between campaigns controlling the message and people electing to engage directly, versus the sum of what is being said both by and about candidates, correlated with how the public at large is receiving these many different narratives and messages.Or put differently, Google is bridging the gap between public relations and public scrutiny, and putting PR on top.

But quantity does not necessarily imply quality.While coverage has been abundant, it is worth exploring the nature of that coverage, and, specifically, whether the media is adequately vetting Trump as a candidate. Chuck Todd, the host of NBC’s Meet the Press, claims that it has. “A common criticism you’ve heard is that Trump’s rise is the media’s fault, because we have enabled his rise,” Todd has said.“But,” he added, before listing several of Trump’s flip-flops and liberal-to-conservative policy evolutions, “you could argue that the media has also provided all the material that normally a campaign would want to put together an attack against Trump.”

Twenty-nine seconds: according to Lee Fang and Zaid Jilani of The Intercept, this is how much time cable news networks Fox News and MSNBC devoted to daytime and afternoon TV coverage of the Democracy Spring protests as of April 12. On April 11, when 400 protestors were arrested for a sit-in at the Capitol, some were heard chanting, “Where is CNN?” which had not yet covered the protests.