WaPo Takes Anonymous Sourcing To A Whole New Level In Latest Obstruction Story

[IAMX 3,055]

The entire basis of a big Washington Post report on President Trump’s involvement in the FBI Russia investigation is at best a thirdhand account from anonymous officials of a conversation that happened almost three months ago.

The scoop is a big one, if true. Adam Entous reports Trump asked a top intelligence official to persuade former FBI Director James Comey to shift the focus of the Russia investigation away from then-national security adviser Mike Flynn.

Such an ask from Trump would solidify the narrative he has improperly interfered with the Russia investigation, and that he fired Comey because he didn’t like the way he was handling it. But the sourcing here is dubious. Entous attributes the information to “officials familiar with the account Coats gave to associates.”

Let’s look at how far this account had to travel to get to Entous at The Washington Post, assuming the conversation actually happened (none of those present have confirmed this).

 

Trump has a private conversation with Coats and Pompeo. Coats discusses the contents of that conversation with some “associates” — who either do or do not have an official capacity, Entous never specifies. Those associates in turn relay what is now a secondhand account to some “officials.” 

At this point we’re playing a game of telephone through likely politically motivated sources. And the story could have traveled through several more rounds of recounting in the intervening months before making it to Entous at The Washington Post.

What exactly does Entous mean by “associate” here? Are these other high-ranking intelligence officials? Former officials? Coats’ favorite staffers? The guy who does his dry cleaning? And what bar does a source have to meet to be considered “familiar with” an account of an account? The wording in the report seems deliberately vague, perhaps in order to lend the report greater credence, perhaps to justifiably protect sources. We don’t know.

Entous has previously demonstrated a willingness to run with big Russia scoops before thoroughly vetting the facts. He and a colleague reported Russia hacked the U.S. power grid in December, but the story turned out to be totally false when the electric company (which had not been contacted) quickly revealed the hack had nothing to do with the U.S. electrical grid and may not have even happened. (RELATED: Three Bungled Stories On Russian Meddling All Demonstrate The Same Big Mistakes)

 

In another big Russia hacking story on the CIA conclusion regarding interference, Entous and his colleagues cited one anonymous source with only secondhand knowledge of the matter. The source was cited as a “U.S. official” who was “briefed” on the presentation the CIA gave Senators — essentially a person who was briefed on a brief. This is another game of telephone and falls well below what used to be the standard bar for journalism: two sources with firsthand knowledge of the story.

Entous is also at the center of a more recent Washington Post report on Russian interference that is founded on an anonymous letter the paper has refused to publish. The story is another big scoop — that Jared Kushner wanted a secret channel for Trump to communicate with Russia ahead of taking office. But no one has independently verified the existence or content of the letter that formed the basis of the scoop. And The Washington Post has not explained why editors have refused to publish the letter.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/wapos-big-obstruction-story-relies-on-what-some-officials-overheard-months-ago/

 

In desperate plea for ratings, MSM doubles down on fakenews to appease their irrational leftist readers. We can go back to the horrific Russia narrative fakenews made earlier:

 

The Washington Post’s three big stories on Russian meddling in recent weeks all appear to shirk basic reporting standards, in one case forcing editors to issue an embarrassing correction, and in another to fend off a potential defamation lawsuit.

The problems with the reporting in the stories — Russian propagandists spreading fake news, the CIA’s assessment of Russia’s motive for hacking the election, and a botched report on Russians hacking a utility company — are as basic as failing to reach out to a major party or relying too heavily on anonymous sources. Let’s go through them one by one.

WaPo’s report Friday that Russian hackers penetrated the U.S. power grid has turned out to be false, after new facts revealed the electric company computer that was “hacked” was not connected to the grid, and may not have been hacked at all.

Within two hours of the story’s publication, the electric company released a statement clarifying the malware code was detected on a laptop not connected to the grid. It also came to light that anyone can download the outdated malware code online, and the whole thing could have been as simple as an employee using a work computer to visit an infected website.

 

“Pretty amazing how badly the Post appears to have mangled this one,” a cybersecurity reporter at Politico tweeted. “You didn’t call the Vermont utility regulator before publishing?”

 

WaPo showed no indication reporters reached out to the electric company in question before publishing the initial story, which was based on a tip from anonymous U.S. officials. Additionally, snapshots of the story at variouspoints demonstrate it was heavily edited and significantly changed in the hours after it was published, but the editor’s note correcting the story was only added half a day later.

In a truly brutal autopsy, Forbes contributor Kalev Leetaru showed how over 11 hours, WaPo added a stunning 10 paragraphs to the original eight, performed significant edits to the headline and focus, and did not update the article to indicate any changes had been made.

 

“This is significant,” wrote Leetaru, summoning media’s favorite new phrase, “as one driving force of fake news is that as much of 60% of the links shared on social media are shared based on the title alone, with the sharer not actually reading the article itself.”

 

A second recent WaPo story on Russian hacking is apparently based on one anonymous source with only second-hand knowledge of the story. Even liberal journalist Marcy Wheeler, who has extensive experience covering the intelligence community, said she thought the source wasn’t a CIA employee, but rather a staffer in a Democrat senator’s office. WaPo cited this source as a “U.S. official” who was “briefed” on the presentation the CIA gave Senators — essentially a person who was briefed on a brief. The reporting falls short of what used to be the standard bar for journalism: two sources with first-hand knowledge of the story. (RELATED: Anyone Who Reads About Russian Hacks And Trump Should Read This First)

As the story on the CIA’s conclusion has developed, the reporting became almost schizophrenic, as confusing articles followed regarding the FBI first disagreeing, then agreeing with the CIA’s assessment, and basic questions regarding what exactly the CIA concluded remained unanswered. Two members of the House Intelligence Committee, including the chairman Devin Nunes, have publicly stated they have not seen evidence of this reported CIA conclusion, casting further doubt on the initial story.

“The events involving Coats show the president went further than just asking intelligence officials to deny publicly the existence of any evidence showing collusion during the 2016 election, as The Washington Post reported in May,” Entous writes. “The interaction with Coats indicates that Trump aimed to enlist top officials to have Comey curtail the bureau’s probe.”

But not once in the story does Entous even mention there is as yet no evidence Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia, despite what has already been a lengthy FBI investigation.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/03/three-bungled-stories-on-russian-election-hacks-all-demonstrate-the-same-big-mistakes/

 

Two fantastic reads. It's pretty much guaranteed that movies and/or documentaries will result from this sham of news reporting.

[IAMX 3,055]

This forum... 

 

Why even allow pasting of other page formats if endquotes ie /quote in brackets are going to just be ignored. Forum should just remove it...  completely mangling my posts and can't even edit it now. 

[TBoneTX 43,175]

Post a thread in Site Discussion, or in the existing "New Site Bugs" (or whatever) thread.

[IAMX 3,055]

4 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Post a thread in Site Discussion, or in the existing "New Site Bugs" (or whatever) thread.

After allowing a few more Scripts via ScriptSafe (Chrome addon) I noticed when pasting there's a "remove formatting" option. I'll be using that one permanently henceforth. Quotes are never messed up when using non-formatted pasting.

 

Thank you sir.

[TBoneTX 43,175]

On June 8, 2017 at 4:02 PM, IAMX said:

Scripts via ScriptSafe (Chrome addon)

Welcome, si man, but English-only outside the regional forums, see above man.

Edited June 10, 2017 by TBoneTX

[Dakine10 5,452]

On 6/8/2017 at 10:06 AM, IAMX said:

This forum... 

 

Why even allow pasting of other page formats if endquotes ie /quote in brackets are going to just be ignored. Forum should just remove it...  completely mangling my posts and can't even edit it now. 

  the left?

[IAMX 3,055]

WaPo doxxes Sheriff Clarke, giving out his home address on Twitter:

 

 

I wouldn't recommend any snowflakes go to that address and mess with that guy.

Edited June 19, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

On 6/9/2017 at 10:32 PM, Dakine10 said:

  the left?

the Left Margin..with indents, we have the best formatting on the left 

[CaliCat 3,957]

On 6/10/2017 at 1:32 AM, Dakine10 said:

  the left?

+10!!

4 minutes ago, ccneat said:

the Left Margin..with indents, we have the best formatting on the left 

 

LOL.