by Robert Spencer, PJ Media:
There couldn’t possibly be a clearer example of media perfidy and dishonesty: back in May 2017, the Washington Post published a story about how President Trump supposedly urged Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael S. Rogers to deny that there was any evidence that he had colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. There was just one catch: the story was false, and Rogers said as much to the FBI as far back as June 2017. Yet not only did the Post not take the story down; it’s still up, eight years later and long after the Russian Collusion hoax has been definitively debunked.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The story was one of many in the Post about Trump’s much-publicized collusion with Russia that won the Post the Pulitzer Prize. And apparently that was all that mattered. Truth? Accuracy? Integrity? Come on, man!
The story, along with the rest about the alleged Russian Collusion, sold papers, and made the WaPo seem as if it was once again on the cutting edge of investigative journalism. The Post was even fearlessly taking on a president of the United States, recalling the heady days of Watergate when Woodward and Bernstein bearded the wily Tricky Dick, became Redford and Hoffman, and made the Post into one of the leading newspapers in the left’s constellation of propaganda organs.
The opportunity to relive the glory days was apparently too much for the Post, and overrode all other considerations. As Matt Margolis noted Sunday, “it’s unclear whether the Post knew Rogers disputed their report before publishing it, but Rogers made it clear to investigators shortly afterward that the story was false.”
Did Rogers, or the FBI, notify the Post also that the story was false? That is unclear, but the WaPo should have made it its business to know. It was, after all, a newspaper, and not just any newspaper, but one that was leading the covering of the allegations of collusion against the sitting president. Did the Post have no contact with Rogers despite the fact that its story was about him? Did it have no contacts in the FBI? Or was the story just too good, too damning of Trump, for the Post to be all that concerned about accuracy?
