Washington Post’s Clinging to Fake Story Reminds Us What the Media Really Is

A clearer illustration of internet deceit and treachery could be found in the Washington Post’s article from May 2017 about how President Trump allegedly urged National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael S. Rogers to claim that there was any proof that he had colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential plan. One caveat: the story was false, and Rogers had already told the FBI this in June 2017. Eight years later, and longer after the Russian Collusion fake has been completely discredited, the Post still has the story up.

The Post’s article about Trump’s widely-covered cooperation with Russia won the Write-up the Pulitzer Prize as one of many in its series. And it turns out that was the only thing that mattered. Truth? correctness? Integrity? Travel on, man! &nbsp,

The account sold papers, along with the other articles about the alleged Russian collusion, and gave the impression that the WaPo was once more at the cutting-edge of investigative journalism. Yet reminiscing the ominous days of Watergate, when Woodward and Bernstein transformed into Redford and Hoffman, and transformed the Article into one of the most influential papers in the public’s cluster of advertising organs, The Post yet terrified took on a president of the United States.

The Post evidently oversaw the lack of time to go back in time, which overshadowed all other factors. It’s unclear whether the Post knew Rogers had previously refuted their statement, but Rogers later made it clear to researchers that the story was false, according to Matt Margolis on Sunday.

Did Rogers or the FBI inform the Post that the information was bogus as well? That is vague, but WaPo may have made it their priority to be aware of. After all, it was a paper, not just any magazine, but one that was spearheading the investigation into collusion against the president in power. Despite the fact that Rogers was the subject of the Post’s history, did he not communicate with him? Did it not work for the FBI? Or was the story simply too good, too devastating of Trump for the Post to care so much about reliability? &nbsp,

The Post’s reputation as a media source is the worst of all, at least for the Post, given how persistently the history is. It can be found below. Only the News only confirmed that Rogers had told the government that the story was false on Thursday, and that it is based on recently released Crossfire Hurricane files. Perhaps the WaPo may retract and offer an apology for the report this week. &nbsp,

However, it’s more likely that the Post’s editors won’t even notice or take action after seeing the Only the News story if they do. The administrative left has a practice of entirely disregarding the “right-wing click” unless it is covering a narrative about the dangers of “disinformation” and the need for repression, so that its voice is the only one that Americans are permitted to notice. The Post’s leading dogs are unlikely to admit that any of their reporting is fake based on a news source that doesn’t adhere to its far-left perspective and isn’t committed, as the Post is, to manipulating and propagandizing the National people so that they can effectively cast a ballot Democrat.

However, this does not only involve the Washington Post removing one of its stories because a reliable news source discovered it to be false. Eight years have passed since The Post first reported on this account and other accounts of the Russian Collusion fake, acknowledging that it was a hoax. Trump has requested that the paper’s Pulitzer Prize be canceled in exchange for these tales, and he is now suing the Pulitzer commission for libel because it refused to remove the Post’s Prize. &nbsp,

Trump Responds to Almost 20 Times More Media Questions Than Joe Biden in Four Ages.

The Post’s reports are also away, it still holds the Pulitzer Prize for them, and it is now busy producing new stories in its continuing efforts to destroy Trump, despite the fact that the entire world then knows there was no collusion between Trump and Russia ( except, of course, for the hardest of the hard left ). &nbsp,

The Washington Post is not a news source, as is made clear by this. It hasn’t been since years. It serves as a left-wing propaganda tool. In each and every case, it should be handled as such.

The Washington Post and the rest are effective for leftist propaganda. We at PJ Media are good for telling the truth. Become a PJ Media VIP member and receive all of our articles, all of our podcasts, and our fearless patriotic analysis. Use the promo code FIGHT to save 60 % off and a Trumpian&nbsp!

Source credit