Lyin' Washington Post Tries to Weasel Out of 'Fake News' Smear with Silly 'Editor's Note'

Thu, Dec 8, 2016 | 1419 Comments
Editor Martin Baron, seen here dancing on the deck of the Titanic

The 'Fake News' scandal at the Washington Post continues to mushroom.  

The newspaper has become the butt of hundreds of blistering articles across the alternative and mainstream media, including big names like Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Robert Parry and many more.  Talk about a PR disaster.

Russia Insider was one of the sites named in the smear, and perhaps, ostensibly one of the main intended targets, what with the word 'Russia' in our name, and us being based in Moscow and all.

But beyond the welter of reputation-destroying articles, Wapo is now even being threatened with lawsuits, which would drag the story out for months and undoubtly trigger more embarassing revelations.  RI too is busy sharpening up our implements of legal destruction.

Independent sleuths are rifling through the digital underwear of the unfortunate Craig Timberg, who wrote the story.  The mood in the newsroom must be pretty muggy these days.

So Baron had to do something, however pointless, to at least signal that they are trying, so yesterday, he appended this delightful morsel to the top of the article:

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.

In other words, it is the old 'hey, it's not me, it's them', defense, ortherwise known as the 'desperately cover your own ass and blame someone else' manouver.  We don't thing it's going to work.  The tsunami of articles about Wapo grows with every passing day.  Alex Jones had a very good one out yesterday that was brutal, with swift kicks to the Post's shins, like this one:

For example, Matt Taibbi (no fan of Infowars), has called the Washington Post’s fake news blacklist “disgusting” and “shameful”.

Expect a steady stream over the coming weeks.

The influential Zerohedge website, which is required-reading for every professional in the financial markets had this to say:

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?

The combined reach of the publications now dragging The Wapo's name through the mud now exceeds it's own by what must easily be a factor of 20 or 30 to 1.  So pretty much anything the Post does these days is pretty futile.

This couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of neocon, Russia-bashing, warmongers.  

Savor the moment.