Finally the editors (and perhaps the owner) of the Washington Post decided it was time to admit it did zero due diligence or investigative reporting in its "fake news" story. The Washington Post "fake news" article now includes the following:
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.
And just in case you missed it, here it is again:
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.
How is it that a major news outlet, once one of the most respected in America, is not held accountable for what appears to be pure propaganda? What happened to investigative journalism at the Washington Post? Did its new owner drive this decision? Did the editorial staff? Who is calling the shots at the Washington post?
Could it be the same people pulling the strings that were behind the Newsweek Madam President edition?