A favored tactic of the mass media
Yesterday Putin claimed that Idlib gas attack was a false flag and that Russia had information that more such "provocations" were in the works. Specifically he feared that one such was imminent in rebel-held southern Damascus.
A number of media outlets took that and reported that Putin was saying that the US was planning more chemical weapons false flags attacks in Syria. In fact Putin said no such thing, nor did he imply it.
As usual British tabloids led the way but crucially other, supposedly "respectable" outlets joined in. Mail, Mirror and Sun all went with one version of "Putin claims US planning fake chemical attacks" -- and the CNBC and The Independent joined in.
The funniest was the celebs-loving but supposedly still super-serious The Independent which seemingly realized it had gone overboard and tried to fix things but did not quite succeed.
Its headline now reads "Fake chemical attacks in Syria could provoke further US strikes, Vladimir Putin claims". However it's earlier title is still visible on Facebook:
In a very charitable reading of Independent's headline the paper did not try to imply Putin thought Trump was planning a false flag attack in Damascus. Merely that US is already planning the next "punishment" strike for that provocation.
Trouble is Putin did not say that either. He merely explained that more American strikes were possible (given that someone, presumably rebels, is planning to stage more fake chemical weapons attacks and the US had seized on the previous one), not that they are already being planned by Trump.