Washington Post Is Richly Rewarded For False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Glenn Greenwald, originally posted at The Intercept,

In the past six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.

But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.

Baron himself, editorial leader of the Post, is a perfect case study in this irresponsible tactic. It was Baron who went to Twitter on the evening of November 24 to announce the Post’s exposé of the enormous reach of Russia’s fake news operation, based on what he heralded as the findings of “independent researchers.” Baron’s tweet went all over the place; to date, it has been re-tweeted more than 3,000 times, including by many journalists with their own large followings:

But after that story faced a barrage of intense criticism — from Adrian Chen in the New Yorker (“propaganda about Russia propaganda”), Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone (“shameful, disgusting”), my own article, and many others — including legal threats from the sites smeared as Russian propaganda outlets by the Post’s “independent researchers” — the Post finally added its lengthy editor’s note distancing itself from the anonymous group that provided the key claims of its story (“The Post … does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings” and “since publication of the Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list”).

What did Baron tell his followers about this editor’s note that gutted the key claims of the story he hyped? Nothing. Not a word. To date, he has been publicly silent about these revisions. Having spread the original claims to tens of thousands of people, if not more, he took no steps to ensure that any of them heard about the major walk back on the article’s most significant, inflammatory claims. He did, however, ironically find the time to promote a different Post story about how terrible and damaging Fake News is:

Whether the Post’s false stories here can be distinguished from what is commonly called “Fake News” is, at this point, a semantic dispute, particularly since “Fake News” has no cogent definition. Defenders of Fake News as a distinct category typically emphasize intent in order to differentiate it from bad journalism. That’s really just a way of defining Fake News so as to make it definitionally impossible for mainstream media outlets like the Post ever to be guilty of it (much the way terrorism is defined to ensure that the U.S. government and its allies cannot, by definition, ever commit it).

But what was the Post’s motive in publishing two false stories about Russia that, very predictably, generated massive attention, traffic, and political impact? Was it ideological and political — namely, devotion to the D.C. agenda of elevating Russia into a grave threat to U.S. security? Was it to please its audience — knowing that its readers, in the wake of Trump’s victory, want to be fed stories about Russian treachery? Was it access and source servitude — proving it will serve as a loyal and uncritical repository for any propaganda intelligence officials want disseminated? Was it profit — to generate revenue through sensationalistic click-bait headlines with a reckless disregard to whether its stories are true? In an institution as large as the Post, with numerous reporters and editors participating in these stories, it’s impossible to identify any one motive as definitive.

Whatever the motives, the effects of these false stories are exactly the same as those of whatever one regards as Fake News. The false claims travel all over the internet, deceiving huge numbers into believing them. The propagators of the falsehoods receive ample profit from their false, viral “news.” And there is no accountability of the kind that would disincentivize a repeat of the behavior. (That the Post ultimately corrects its false story does not distinguish it from classic Fake News sites, which also sometimes do the same.)

And while it’s true that all media outlets make mistakes, and that even the most careful journalism sometimes errs, those facts do not remotely mitigate the Post’s behavior here. In these cases, they did not make good faith mistakes after engaging in careful journalism. With both stories, they were reckless (at best) from the start, and the glaring deficiencies in the reporting were immediately self-evident (which is why both stories were widely attacked upon publication).

As this excellent timeline by Kalev Leetaru documents, the Post did not even bother to contact the utility companies in question — the most elementary step of journalistic responsibility — until after the story was published. Intelligence officials insisting on anonymity — so as to ensure no accountability — whispered to them that this happened, and despite how significant the consequences would be, they rushed to print it with no verification at all. This is not a case of good journalism producing inaccurate reporting; it is the case of a media outlet publishing a story that it knew would produce massive benefits and consequences without the slightest due diligence or care.

The most ironic aspect of all this is that it is mainstream journalists — the very people who have become obsessed with the crusade against Fake News — who play the key role in enabling and fueling this dissemination of false stories. They do so not only by uncritically spreading them, but also by taking little or no steps to notify the public of their falsity.

The Post’s epic debacle this weekend regarding its electric grid fiction vividly illustrates this dynamic. As I noted on Saturday, many journalists reacted to this story the same way they do every story about Russia: They instantly click and re-tweet and share the story without the slightest critical scrutiny. That these claims are constantly based on the whispers of anonymous officials and accompanied by no evidence whatsoever gives those journalists no pause at all; any official claim that Russia and Putin are behind some global evil is instantly treated as Truth. That’s a significant reason papers like the Post are incentivized to recklessly publish stories of this kind. They know they will be praised and rewarded no matter the accuracy or reliability because their Cause — the agenda — is the right one.

On Friday night, immediately after the Post’s story was published, one of the most dramatic pronouncements came from the New York Times’s editorial writer Brent Staples, who said this:

Now that this story has collapsed and been fully retracted, what has Staples done to note that this tweet was false? Just like Baron, absolutely nothing. Actually, that’s not quite accurate, as he did do something: At some point after Friday night, he quietly deleted his tweet without comment. He has not uttered a word about the fact that the story he promoted has collapsed, and that what he told his 16,000-plus followers — along with the countless number of people who re-tweeted the dramatic claim of this prominent journalist — turned out to be totally false in every respect.

Even more instructive is the case of MSNBC’s Kyle Griffin, a prolific and skilled social media user who has seen his following explode this year with a constant stream of anti-Trump content. On Friday night, when the Post story was published, Griffin hyped it with a series of tweets designed to make the story seem as menacing and consequential as possible. That included hysterical statements from Vermont officials — who believed the Post’s false claim — that in retrospect are unbelievably embarrassing.

That tweet from Griffin — convincing people that Putin was endangering the health and safety of Vermonters — was re-tweeted more than 1,000 times. His other similar tweets — such as this one featuring Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy’s warning that Putin was trying to “shut down [the grid] in the middle of winter” — were also widely spread.

But the next day, the crux of the story collapsed — the Post’s editor’s note acknowledged that “there is no indication” that “Russian hackers had penetrated the electricity grid” — and Griffin said nothing. Indeed, he said nothing further on any of this until yesterday — four days after his series of widely shared tweets — in which he simply re-tweeted a Post reporter noting an “update” that the story was false without providing any comment himself:

In contrast to Griffin’s original inflammatory tweets about the Russian menace, which were widely and enthusiastically spread, this after-the-fact correction has a paltry 289 re-tweets. Thus, a small fraction of those who were exposed to Griffin’s sensationalistic hyping of this story ended up learning that all of it was false.

I genuinely do not mean to single out these individual journalists for scorn. They are just illustrative of a very common dynamic: Any story that bolsters the prevailing D.C. orthodoxy on the Russia Threat, no matter how dubious, is spread far and wide. And then, as has happened so often, when the story turns out to be false or misleading, little or nothing is done to correct the deceitful effects. And, most amazingly of all, these are the same people constantly decrying the threat posed by Fake News.

A very common dynamic is driving all of this: media groupthink, greatly exacerbated (as I described on Saturday) by the incentive scheme of Twitter. As the grand media failure of 2002 demonstrated, American journalists are highly susceptible to fueling and leading the parade in demonizing a new Foreign Enemy rather than exerting restraint and skepticism in evaluating the true nature of that threat.

It is no coincidence that many of the most embarrassing journalistic debacles of this year involve the Russia Threat, and they all involve this same dynamic. Perhaps the worst one was the facially ridiculous, pre-election Slate story — which multiple outlets (including The Intercept) had been offered but passed on — alleging that Trump had created a secret server to communicate with a Russian bank; that story was so widely shared that even the Clinton campaign ended up hyping it — a tweet that, by itself, was re-tweeted almost 12,000 times.

But only a small percentage of those who heard of it ended up hearing of the major walk back and debunking from other outlets. The same is true of The Guardian story from last week on WikiLeaks and Putin that ended up going viral, only to have its retraction barely noticed because most of the journalists who spread the story did not bother to note it.

Beyond the journalistic tendency to echo anonymous officials on whatever Scary Foreign Threat they are hyping at the moment, there is an independent incentive scheme sustaining all of this. That Russia is a Grave Menace attacking the U.S. has — for obvious reasons — become a critical narrative for Democrats and other Trump opponents who dominate elite media circles on social media and elsewhere. They reward and herald anyone who bolsters that narrative, while viciously attacking anyone who questions it.

Indeed, in my 10-plus years of writing about politics on an endless number of polarizing issues — including the Snowden reporting — nothing remotely compares to the smear campaign that has been launched as a result of the work I’ve done questioning and challenging claims about Russian hacking and the threat posed by that country generally. This is being engineered not by random, fringe accounts, but by the most prominent Democratic pundits with the largest media followings.

I’ve been transformed, overnight, into an early adherent of alt-right ideology, an avid fan of Breitbart, an enthusiastic Trump supporter, and — needless to say  — a Kremlin operative. That’s literally the explicit script they’re now using, often with outright fabrications of what I say (see here for one particularly glaring example).

They, of course, know all of this is false. A primary focus of the last 10 years of my journalism has been a defense of the civil liberties of Muslims. I wrote an entire book on the racism and inequality inherent in the U.S. justice system. My legal career involved numerous representations of victims of racial discrimination. I was one of the first journalists to condemn the misleadingly “neutral” approach to reporting on Trump and to call for more explicit condemnations of his extremism and lies. I was one of the few to defend Jorge Ramos from widespread media attacks when he challenged Trump’s immigration extremism. Along with many others, I tried to warn Democrats that nominating a candidate as unpopular as Hillary Clinton risked a Trump victory. And as someone who is very publicly in a same-sex, inter-racial marriage — with someone just elected to public office as a socialist — I make for a very unlikely alt-right leader, to put that mildly.

The malice of this campaign is exceeded only by its blatant stupidity. Even having to dignify it with a defense is depressing, though once it becomes this widespread, one has little choice.

But this is the climate Democrats have successfully cultivated — where anyone dissenting or even expressing skepticism about their deeply self-serving Russia narrative is the target of coordinated and potent smears; where, as The Nation’s James Carden documented yesterday, skepticism is literally equated with treason. And the converse is equally true: Those who disseminate claims and stories that bolster this narrative — no matter how divorced from reason and evidence they are — receive an array of benefits and rewards.

That the story ends up being completely discredited matters little. The damage is done, and the benefits received. Fake News in the narrow sense of that term is certainly something worth worrying about. But whatever one wants to call this type of behavior from the Post, it is a much greater menace given how far the reach is of the institutions that engage in it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
turnball the banker's picture
turnball the banker (not verified) Jan 5, 2017 12:48 AM

Vlad should sue these fuckers personally

tazs's picture

Doesn't need to. They're the best PR he could get. They make him look better and better.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I get it now. Fake news is good news as long as it's viral worthy click bait news.

OK Tyler, crank er up!

Koba the Dread's picture

No, Cog! You don't get it. Fake news is good news as long as it furthers the Clinton crime family/Bush crime family/neocon/neoliberal/one-world agenda.

Conversely, any news that hinders that agenda is always called "fake news".

Nemontel's picture

There are many "Fake News" instances in America, just not what the media pushes as such.

http://www.truthjustice.net/politics/fake-hate-crimes-are-real-hate-crim...

fx's picture

Boycott Amazon already!!!
Jeff bezos owns the WaPo and is one of the most evil mofos besides Soros. Besides, almost on a weekly basis stories emerge, how badly he treats the employees of his shitty Amazon company over here in Europe and elsewhere. Amazon is not just a retailer that is very convenient to use for people shopping online. It is foremost one of the biggest and most dangerous Big Data collectors. It knows way more about its customers than do GooG and Fb. And bezos uses the WaPo to direct public opinion and to directly influence politics in washington. he is a goddamn crook and a giant threat to democracy.
So stop the hell giving any more of your money to him via amazon!

MalteseFalcon's picture

Trump and his government will not disseminate news thru the WaPo or the NYT.

These "news sources" will be reduced to planting fake news stories and will become tabloids along the lines of the Midnight Globe.

Multi-billion dollar media empires will wither and die.

Eight years is a long time.

max2205's picture

Disgusted by the 12 month non stop trump smears, I didn't even blink an eye when they tried to push this shit....   good luck  MSM... you're done 

jeff montanye's picture

just to be clear what this is really about, the entire narrative of brave little israel as the desperately needed safe haven for the poor jews persecuted the world over, the precious only u.s. ally and the only democracy in the greater middle east has been fake news since '48. 

the news fakers only got their yarmulkes askew when that story was challenged on the internet.  prior to that the dissenters (the nation, mother jones, the crusader) were too weak and/or despised to affect many people.  but as the sheep gained the power through social media and these websites to help each other pull the wool from their eyes, that changed.

J S Bach's picture

The only good thing about the Post, NY Times, LA Times, etc... are their crossword puzzles.  It's the only stimulation one can garner from otherwise worthless and treasonous rags.

beijing expat's picture

You can get crosswords on the internet these days.

J S Bach's picture

Exactly.  Go to the WaPo, NYT, USA Today, etc... websites and print them out.  No need to waste good fiat currency for one small page.

Krungle's picture

Those are fake crossword puzzles, probably of Russian origin.

Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land's picture

Upvote...yeah, I laughed at that.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

It's not as though he can't afford it.

BabaLooey's picture

Went to on WaPoo's site recently.

The comments section was 90% pro-Trump.

I thought I was hallucinating.

 

CheapBastard's picture

same with Yahoo. Most commenters there hate Hillary and hate Yahoo itself.

lol

BabaLooey's picture

That depends on the thread on Yahoo C.B.

Some are loaded with Soros/Canks/Soetero asshats.

I monitor Yahoo daily. I practically have to shower, shit and puke after I do.

Yen Cross's picture

 Can someone please tell me when AMZN actually makes a profit. Those creepy vans are getting old.

 Who in their right mind, would buy something without trying it on?

 

RedDwarf's picture

In the short run the benefit with big jumps in revenue.  In the mid and long term however these companies have sealed their fates.  It's no different than when a company like Enron pumps up it's earnings falsely and eventually collapses when reality catches up to them.  They are literally burning their future to the ground for a few dollars today.

dlweld's picture

If WAPO is a business they're going to be having major problems - the CEO should be on the case.

Reality:

an older, out of date, commercially available virus was discovered on an employee's laptop. A single laptop, not connected to anything. Similar situation to many older computers around the world. A total non-event.

Headline:

Russian Hackers penetrated US electricity grid! Not an iota of reality here, but which then led to folks who still trust the WAPO, to all get in a tizzy and propose that the US blast the evil Russian ogres! What we used to call highly irresponsible reporting.

So it was all a self-generated fantasy - why should we trust the WAPO on anything? If credibility is their capital, they're burning through it at a great rate.

GRDguy's picture

It's just like the old IBM computer ads, "no one ever got fired recommending IBM computers," even though there were a lot of better, more efficient and less costly alternatives back in the 70s, 80s and 90s.  It was FUD selling (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).  It's the same in the MSM business.  No one ever gets fired running stories that headline the Washington Post or the New York Times. If the source is wrong, so be it.  Thanks to ZH and others, we have alternative sources. But the masses are too stupid to look.

jeff montanye's picture

the masses are, perhaps, stupid.  but it is becoming easier to look, there is much more to see, it is quite interesting and exciting, and more and more people are suggesting it to each other.  this is a time of disruptive change, make no mistake about it. as pew research recently noted:

"For the first time in the research history of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, these data show that high-speed home internet users are more likely to turn to the internet than the newspaper on the typical day for news. In fact, when focusing on whether online Americans used either the web or email newsletters or listservs to get news, fully 64% of home broadband users use an online resource for news on the average day – nearly as many as use TV. Fully 42% of American internet users who go online from home have high-speed connections and it is clear that the internet is a news source of growing importance for this group."  http://www.pewinternet.org/2004/10/27/part-2-how-people-get-news-the-int...

of course high speed home internet is becoming the standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access#History

and access to the internet continues to grow at high single digit rates, with already between three and four billion users world wide.  this year or early next users will outnumber non users.  about six thousand more joined in the ten minutes this comment took to write. http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/

rlouis's picture

Their children should be ashamed of them.  Pathetic losers, the money isn't worth sh** anymore - what satisfaction or sense of being can they get?  Waste of energy, proof of their dullness.  Learn new  tricks dogs!

jeff montanye's picture

their children are ashamed of them.  and not just their children.  and not just them.

aka hope and change.

Walken's picture

Can't wait for Washington comPost to go bankrupt. That would be the day.

Troy Ounce's picture

Wapo must be:

OR captured by the $$ of the Democrats & affiliates (Hello György Schwartz!)

OR be very, very stupid

The damage that they are doing to the MSM and their fake news narrative is BTW most welcome.

JailBanksters's picture

I love stories like this because it just reminds people how screwed up America really is.

Define Screwed Up ....

Screwed Up is when you have to vote for one Psychopath (McCain) so the other Psychopath (Clinton) can't win an election !

JLM's picture

WaPo is the new National Inquirer on steroids.  A business model that truly works.  They obviosly despise their patrons.

Golden Showers's picture

What is WaPo? What are these "Times's" you all speak of?

I know the Time. You know the Time.

When I look at a Newspaper I feel dirty, smudgy. It's all wrapping paper for car parts or fish heads.

It's not news: It's intellectual faggotry. NPR did a massive show on Megan Kelly getting NBC anchor today. I was, all, who gives a fuck? I turned the dial.

The trick is to selectively breed, grow, and weed out people to create the news. You dress them in Khakis, sweaters, ties, nerd dork glasses, and gay them up. These monkeys punch keys faster than Air Force Radio Techs. Then it's off to the hot tubs.

I don't know what the fucking problem is. You're talking about pederasts with typewriters. (No pun intended... jeez, now that I think about it, that's really un-dude). You are all pederasts with typewriters! Holy SHIT!

So fuck you.

KingMoe's picture

The ever vigilant truthseekers at WAPO, NYT and the other outlets will redeem themselves as they hurtle headlong to out-scoop each other on this story...

http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/55042/data-breach/fbi-hacked.html

Any minute now, the headlines will be popping... unless it makes the FBI et-al look kinda like stumblefucks. Or incompetent. Or partisan;

Okay, forget I said anything.

Ed Jobb's picture

MSM lol.... These guys are funny fuckers.

CNN using Fallout 4 Game pics as evidence of Russian hacking a few days ago etc.

The Transpirator's picture

"Whether the Post’s false stories here can be distinguished from what is commonly called “Fake News” is, at this point, a semantic dispute, particularly since “Fake News” has no cogent definition."

The mainstream media, along with the precious snowflakes, have embraced the term "Fake News" - let them keep it, I say.

I always thought that the term "fake news" was historically reserved for stories with headlines like, "London bus found on moon" etc. But the mainstream media have embraced the term and applied it to news from the alternative media that doesn't fit the narrative of their puppet masters.

In order that we can discriminate between the two, I suggest that their dissemination of lies and propaganda be referred to as Flake News;

Flake; A so called friend who is constantly unreliable and shady. A flake is someone who can think up an excuse for everything but their own existence. The behavior that a flake exhibits is a product of their own desire to manipulate people. A flake will find reasons to ditch a friend whenever that person wants to do something that is not on the flakes agenda. They are insidious beings they do not exhibit this behavior when you first meet them but usually much later down the line. A true flake is not the idiot that they would have you believe.

 

I think it's important that we can distinguish clickbait from deceit and misdirection.

In some ways they remind me of undertakers (apologies to those in the funeral business), they'll have you believe that they're the last people to let you down; and indeed they always do.

 

innertrader's picture

I ALSO dispise The "New Yorker"!  What a bunch of idiots!!!  Truly, it's hard to believe that adults actually live and think like that!!  Is that what brain washing looks and sounds like?

s2man's picture

Well written,  Greenwald.  Nice to see someone proof read their article.

pigpen's picture

Firefox mobile + ublock origin or brave browser which is chrome with adblock allows me to go to fake news Washington Post and give them zero advertising revenue for my fake eyeballs.

Fake eyeballs for fake news seems like a fair exchange. 

Make America and bay area great again kill all adtech businesses esp fb and Google

 

Stan Smith's picture

Arrogance, Hubris, and flat out fucking stupidity.  

Progressives in a nutshell.

 

I've mentioned this before, but I for the life of me couldnt understand the MSM push with the "Fake News" stuff.    It was only going to come back and bite them when most folks see that 80% of the shit that THEY put out is fake, or at least less than honest.    Especially when THAT approach was so prevalent during the election season.

Sometimes stupid isnt fixable.

 

malek's picture

Pissed off by WaPo fake news?

Try to avoid Amazon, as much as possible.

moorewasthebestbond's picture

Fake WaPo news?

 

Three words: Private Jessica Lynch.

 

Another WaPo exclusive!

heddahenrik's picture

And Washington Post and New York Times deleted articles about Norwegian child sex trafficking (that they accidentally published due to AP):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHYUblpXVyk

New York post is run by someone who helped to cover up the child sex trafficking that was run from BBC.

So you can definitely call this pedo-media.

January Jones's picture

After pissing away their Watergate Pulitzer legacy and interring it with their recent 2016 Election/Fake News coverage, WaPo now seems intent on driving a spike into the new owners reputation. 

Wake up, Bezos!! You're being played for a chump by your new employees. They can get new gigs at some other ethical sewer and leave you holding the bag. Get a grip or reputational risk awaits. 

Last of the Middle Class's picture

After reading the headline "Washington Post" and deceiving the public. Why in the holy hell would it be necessary to read any more of the article?  It's a fact Jack! Been that way for a long long time now.

Cutter's picture

Nice job Mr. Greenwald. Excellent article. The state of American journalism today is truly sad. It leaves one wondering what happened? When? Where? And Who is responsible? I suspect that, while US journalists were always left leaning, at least after the 60s, the new generation has allowed their political allegiances to boil over. They now see their job as advocacy, not informing.

rtb61's picture

It's called tabloid journalism, nothing new, it doesn't really work. Sure you snatch a few eyeballs but in the process you destroy your reputation and people just ignore you. Just look at press releases by the US govenment, no one really gives a crap, it'a all bullshit, they know it, you know it, everyone knows it.

venturen's picture

Now I will no longer go to the WAPO....as with the Kardashians....I will avoid at all cost and will not click!

GCT's picture

Good journalists are actually finding out what the extreme left thinks of them if they do not tow the party line.  I hope they wake up for a change.  All of this propaganda is being used to try and make Trump's presidency  illigitimate in the eyes of people who still believe their tripe.  If you do not agree with them your a russian insider, a homophobe, deplorable, and you are no longer in their fold for reporting the truth.

Maybe Greenwald and the others will wake up and see what the extreme left is all about now.  Hell the media is blaming Trump for the GOP trying to gut the OCE office.  Trump is not even sworn in yet.  I just do not watch TV media except for my weather report.  I guess people forget the president has this thing called VETO!!! Og I forgot Obama is still the president not Trump but it is Trump's fault.

I was hoping the Hillarry's loss would go away by now but it looks like everything the Trumpster will do will come under a microscope as they continue to whine because the media may actually have to do real reporting as Trump will continue to tweet to the people.  No more propaganda handed to them daily by the White House is going to be tough on them.  They may actually have to go do real work and report something other then propaganda.

I think the American people are waking up more and more daily, hopefully so are some of the left leaning "honest" journalists.  If you or I do not agree with their agenda we are labeled and now so are some of left's best defenders.  Now they will get a dose of what we receive daily. 

esum's picture

wapo is owned bY the CIA

BEZOS PAID $300 MIL AND GOT A CONTRACT FROM BRENNAN FOR $600 MIL...

honest news or FAKE NEWS..... you decide

Brennan is a retard libtard muzzie political traitor activist.... oh and thanks for signing he 19 hijackers visas.... hwo was the haj to mecca...

he's gone in jan.... watch where he surfaces.... GOOGL  FB   TWTR  WAPO  NBC other libtard media rag or perhaps CARLYLE GROUP ... the ceptic tank for political flunkies or TENEO or better yet the Clintoon Foundaiton... or maybe th Obama foundation... no one in their right mind would reallly hire this retard...

MEAN BUSINESS's picture

Great Scot! Carlson and Greenwald, Hannity and Assange. Who's next? O'Reilly and Gore?

killer article GG.

Dutch1's picture

Someone said click bait, that's exactly what I was thinking. More views or ratings more potential if not garunteed revenue from companies wanting to buy ad space or time. This probably how the convo goes between journalists and their bosses. "I think I have a good story that I can piece together from shit taken out of context and a half ass study done by people with little to no credibility" The Boss, "I don't care, make it work and sell that shit! we need to hit our ratings quota. We'll appologize later in fine print"

Terms like expert and researcher are such fucking bullshit. Define said terms, most won't because it'll kill the story. I think people have forgotten the power of the boycott. To a business like the press all they really have to generate prophit is ads and subscriptions. If no one is viewing your shit then that implies no or less subscriptions, thats one down. Then advertisers a aren't going to buy ad space or time, thats two down - theyre fucked. Negative views about people checking out and commenting what a croc of shit, and viewers who actually belive the shit are both the same. Empowering the bullshit. Views are views. This site does it too, lots of fear mongering, but I find it to be entertaining and more indepth than MSM news. Bottom line, stop mentioning the fucking post, stop looking at the fucking post for shit to mention, leave it the fuck alone and let it dry up. Business either chnage the product or go bust if no one is buying. In this case vieweing. Zero Hedge - Stop bringing up the god damn post.