After two weeks of constant criticism and many influential outlets debunking their journalism, the Washington Post finally retracted its story on “fake news” sources. Though, upon examination of the retraction, it is questionable if you can even call it that. The original story was left up, unedited, with an “editor’s note” posted at the top. It reads as follows:
Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.
This retraction is laughable. Not only was PropOrNot the sole source for WaPo’s story, in direct contradiction to what was stated in the editor’s note, it took them this long to even acknowledge PropOrNot as one of its sources. Amazingly, the story remains up, unedited, and the retraction itself doesn’t even acknowledge that there could be errors in Timberg’s reporting and methodology.
As I noted in my original article about WaPo’s story, had Free Market Shooter or any other “alternative” outlet done this, not only would it be immediately labeled as “fake news”, the readers would immediately disappear. I’m assuming WaPo’s established nature is the only readership is the only reason it is able to stay in business, because it seems the only time anyone ever references the Bezos-owned paper is to discredit it. ZeroHedge summed up the whole episode wonderfully in one quote:
Now, at least, the “national newspaper” has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted “work” smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the “fake news” it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections?
Speaking of WaPo’s “endorsed presidential candidate”, shortly after the retraction was issued, Hillary Clinton came out of hiding, ostensibly to pick up the torch from WaPo, as she derided “fake news” as an “epidemic” that of course must be addressed by legislation. When she was referring to “fake news” sources, perhaps she meant CNN, the source that shared debate questions with her campaign before the debate?
Note: Is it just me, or does Hillary look about 10 years older than she did when she was campaigning?
Instead of blaming herself, or the MSM, establishment, and rich elites that falsely propped up her candidacy, Hillary is instead choosing to blame those who would dare expose her as the flawed candidate she was. The voters ignored her pleas, and instead elected a candidate who many (including myself) was thought to have been doomed to defeat. Why hasn’t she just accepted her fate already, and faded off into obscurity with the millions of dollars in crooked donations and speaking fees she accumulated over the past 15 or years since she and Bill left office?
The march of Hillary has ended, but she is still standing. Its unfortunate that Trump has chosen not to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton Foundation as well as Hillary herself. However, the people still have the power in their hands to put her out to pasture, and we can do that by taking the microphone out of her hands. Stop consuming news from any outlet that falsely propped up her candidacy, and the true “fake” news outlets will eventually fall into oblivion. Without the MSM, she has no platform with which to peddle her false message.