by DAVID HARSANYI
Axios says there’s a “reckoning” in the media over coverage of the Steele dossier after the partisan oppo document’s primary source was charged with lying to the FBI. “It’s one of the most egregious journalistic errors in modern history,” writes Sara Fischer, “and the media’s response to its own mistakes has so far been tepid.”
Tepid is a nice way of putting it. While the Washington Post “corrected” some of its discredited reporting on the dossier, removing portions of reporting connecting former president Donald Trump to Russia, there has been virtually no other accountability. And really, it’s become modus operandi for the news organizations to “correct” stories in which the entire premise is false. Any sort of “reckoning” would mean a retraction, followed up by investigative deep dives, not only reporting the problems with the story themselves, but outing the fraudulent sources who participated in the deception. Perhaps that’s going on as we speak, but it’s highly doubtful.
Those who perpetuated the Russia collusion deception — and this means editors and pundits, not only reporters — still hold premier jobs in political media. Many, in fact, have been rewarded with better gigs. Is anyone at the Washington Post or New York Times going to return a Pulitzer? Is anyone going to explain how multiple alleged independent sources regularly buttressed the central fabulistic claim of the dossier? Journalism is ostensibly about transparency and truth, and yet not one of these sentinels of democracy has explained how they were supposedly fooled for years, exhibiting not a modicum of skepticism — one of the most vital components of good journalism. When asked by Axios about the Steele dossier, the two outlets that churned out some of the most sensationalistic and conspiratorial content of the Trump era, CNN and MSNBC, wouldn’t even comment.
The most charitable explanation is that reporters had become such saps for Democrats that they were inclined to believe the most fantastical stories imaginable. The more plausible explanation, considering the lack of any genuine accountability and self-reflection, is that they were in on it.
There’s the argument out there that contends that Trump and his associates did and said things that made the dossier’s claims plausible. Well, Trump’s words could have been a big enough story on their own. The president made no secret of his personal admiration of Putin before the election. The notion that a Russian asset — since 1987, even! — would need to go on TV and ask the Russians to ferret out Hillary’s lost emails seems a stretch. To excuse what came next from the media would be tantamount to excusing widespread coverage of birtherism simply because so many of Obama’s abuses of executive power or inability to say America was exceptional was antithetical to the Constitution he swore to protect. The press exists to avoid the proliferation of faulty information and conspiracies, not to perpetuate them because of their partisan assumptions.
[the_ad id=”155722″]
Would Buzzfeed editor Ben Smith, now media reporter for the New York Times, have published an uncorroborated “dossier” on birtherism or, for that matter, Biden’s dealing with his corrupt son, giving it undo attention and credibility?
You would think these so-called “news sources” would want to restore their credibility by holding those within their organization accountable for embarrassing them with their lies. That is, IF they were embarrassed by openly spreading propaganda for the Democrat party. To the contrary, I believe they wear their lying as a badge of honor.
“What difference, at this point, does it make?” The main difference is to shine a bright light upon left wing partisan media credibility… or complete lack of it. This should be a definite motivation to rehabilitate their reputations and credibility, but since their primary audience refuses to disbelieve in Russian collusion, why bother? Yeah, many of these misled fools still believe Trump colluded with Russians, at least as much as they ever did. No doubt, many of them only WANTED it to be true and convinced themselves it was real, but still they, in their ignorant desperation, cling to it.
Meanwhile, those of us NOT leftist sycophants merely have our previously held beliefs, based on numerous examples, reinforced. So, really, nothing is changed. The liberal media will continue to lie, their cult followers will continue to convince themselves the lies are true (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and everyone else will continue to shake their heads in disgust, wondering how people can be so stupid as to continue to trust those that take them for complete fools.
The media is another enemy of the people.