Since being bought by billionaire Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, Washington Post has degenerated into a newspaper of fake news, conspiracy theories, and sinister McCarthyism.
Recall that it was the Washington Post that, without making even a feeble effort at investigative journalism or verification, cited the work of a shadowy anonymous newly-founded website Is It Propaganda or Not? (PropOrNot) naming 200 websites as conscious or unconscious purveyors of Russian propaganda and “fake news”. The List of 200 includes WikiLeaks, Drudge Report, and this humble little blog, FOTM. (See “FOTM made the List of 200 secret-Russian-agents websites!“)
Most recently, Washington Post claims an anonymous “government official” said a secret CIA report has concluded that the Russian government intervened in the 2016 presidential election to favor Donald Trump by giving hacked Democrat emails to its agents to be published by WikiLeaks. The only problem is a careful reading of the Washington Post article shows that the alleged CIA report doesn’t actually say that, which means the Washington Post outright lied. (See “Fake News: Washington Post’s CIA report that Russia intervened in elections to help Trump“)
Now, Philadelphia based conservative news organization True Pundit is confirming that the Washington Post indeed lied — CIA personnel say there is no such CIA report.
From True Pundit, Dec. 12, 2016:
“The Central Intelligence Agency is declaring the Washington Post’s much-hyped story linking the Russian government to hacking the presidential election to help Donald Trump an ‘outright lie,’ according to CIA personnel with direct knowledge of the case….
‘It’s an outright lie,’ a CIA analyst divulged to True Pundit. ‘There’s nothing definitive like that. There are leads from activity originating in Finland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, China and Russia.’
Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to Wikileaks.
On the rabid Sunday morning political talk show circuit yesterday, fueled by the Washington Post’s thinly-sourced yet highly-lauded reporting, Sen. John McCain implored President Elect Trump to look at the CIA-Russian information which he said was credible. McCain, however, as the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, had strangely never publicly disseminated such intelligence prior to Sunday. And no other elected officials have stepped up to echo his narrative or that of the Washington Post.
CIA and intelligence sources, however, quickly countered McCain’s claims as speculative at best, saying his information is simply not accurate and he, as the Arizona senator has done previously, was grandstanding for the media without knowing key facts.
“If he (McCain) in fact is being told that information, it is bad information,” a CIA source said, pondering whether McCain had perhaps been briefed by outgoing CIA Director John Brennan or his loyal Agency underlings. Multiple sources said Brennan and his inner circle in the Agency could not be trusted to disseminate any true intelligence, especially in their final days on the job, without tainting raw data with political ideologies that parallel their White House boss.
Trump has already named Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo as Brennan’s successor and CIA personnel anxiously anticipate Brennan’s departure, sources said. (But you won’t read about that in the Washington Post.)
Could the Russian state be linked to hacking to influence the 2016 U.S. election? Intelligence analysts, again, reiterate there is no overwhelming current evidence to definitively link any government to such rogue actions.
CIA personnel said any official information released by Brennan or the White House on this issue prior to President Barack Obama’s departure from office should be discounted and tuned out as partisan ‘white noise.’
The CIA sources’ collective assessment that the Washington Post purposely and brutally misrepresented the CIA’s findings is the third blow to the embattled newspaper in the last week, having been busted writing two other high profile fake stories on national security that were quickly proven to be problematic and ultimately bogus.
A veteran beltway journalist, author and award-winning professor…Greg Morris [said about the Washington Post], ‘They just make news up, fabricate whatever news was required at the time, especially when they were scooped or embarrassed by other publications…. Sometimes they did it because they believed they were entitled. Nothing has changed.’
Morris worked for Time Magazine, the New York Post, Gannett’s Democrat & Chronicle newspaper in Rochester, NY and Washington Star, D.C. A graduate of Cornell University with a bachelor and Master’s degree, Morris is currently an award winning journalism professor at Hunter College in New York City.
Morris has chronicled the decline of the mainstream media, especially the Washington Post, for 30 years as a professor and journalist and is currently working on a new book about corruption in undergraduate higher education.
Morris said the Washington Post’s latest foray into make-believe journalism with the CIA Russian story had several glaring inconsistencies that are often hallmarks of fabricated, fake news, including:
- Story debates itself. Certain parts of the story directly contradict other so-called facts of the same story. The reader is rendered bewildered; the narrative’s “facts” prove untrustworthy.
- Haphazard construction. The story’s sloppy foundations and reporting were likely the result of it being constructed on a rush basis or under pressure from editors or the publisher.
- Weak sourcing. The story fails to nail down a true link between what the Post claims and DIRECT confirmation from CIA sources.
‘There are no sources with direct knowledge, it’s just all hearsay,’ Morris said. ‘Who cares what some partisan Senators or lawmakers say they were told. The Post needs real sources on this. Without CIA sources, this story wouldn’t even make it out of my classroom alive.
‘The editors should be fired. If you’re covering national security as a reporter for the Post or New York Times, LA Times, and don’t have CIA sources at your fingertips, find another job.’
Morris is far from alone when questioning the Washington Post’s credibility on its concocted narrative of the flimsy CIA-Russian allegations story.”
H/t Jim Stone