I consider WaPo almost completely a modern mockingbird operation in full force.
Bill Moyer did a nice episode showing the disproportionate number of report Wapo did in pushing fro a war in Iraq [1].
Among notable neoconservatives/neoliberals working at the post and using it as a pulpit are Robert Kagan [2] who worked on the "Project for the New American Century" that became the blueprint of Iraq war agenda.
For me the nail in the coffin against the Post was when they used an unknown research firm to push for a neo-mccarthyism Russian connection to over 200 blogs and publishers [4],[5].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt
[1] http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/citations.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-prop...
[5] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgrace...
If it bleeds, it leads.
War makes good for good photo's/footage and is a polarising issue which means you get to make headway whichever side you fall on it.
Real journalism seeking truth, no matter whose agenda that truth might endanger, died years ago.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/03/18/b...
I admit I can't discern the difference between the dozen WAPO or NYT articles I've read in the previous fortnight, for instance.
No.
What was that information? And according to who?
"Facts pertaining to terrorism and airline safety", in Trump's own words.
>And according to who?
People present at the meeting with the Russian ambassador in the White House. Sources in the US and Israeli intelligence communities who had to deal with the fallout.
"McMaster refused to reveal details of the conversation, which he said was privileged and confidential."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-h...
"McMaster says that 'at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed.' But The Post's reporting doesn't say that they were. Instead, the report states clearly only that Trump discussed an Islamic State plot and the city where the plot was detected by an intelligence-gathering partner. Officials worried that this information could lead to the discovery of the methods and sources involved, but it didn't say Trump discussed them."
You don't get rewarded with verified information for publishing fake news. The burden is on the journalist to verify their sources' information. And if they can't, to not publish.
The press manufacture loaded questions faster than the administration could answer them - but that's not their job. If you don't agree, then can you first tell everyone why they should listen to you considering you still haven't stopped beating you wife? [0]
[0] according to official sources close to foldr.
> Officials worried that..
Yet more insidious 'Officials'.
So, returning to my original point: who has gone on record to say what Trump said?
Presumably no one since anyone in a position to reveal such privileged information would be liable for doing so? So all "well he didn't deny it" double-speak and insinuation, from a press starved of information, and hence resorting to punitive speculation.
That's a tangent anyway, if there is no verification, the only value a statement has is the authority and sincerity of the person who says it: we have neither that, nor do we even know the context (we have just the words, or interpreted statement - it's easy to cherry-pick those).
"Executive Editor Ben Bradlee later recalled that many people wondered “how the Post dared ride over the constant denials of the president of the United States and the attorney general” as well as top presidential aides. Bradlee replied that the Post knew its information was correct. Leads from Deep Throat as well as other well-protected sources consistently checked out. Tapes of Nixon’s conversations show that The Washington Post was right."
> Leads from Deep Throat as well as other well-protected sources consistently checked out
I admit, I don't know much about water-gate, or if the following DW[0] paragraph is true:
"An anonymous source was not enough during Watergate. Without a second source to confirm, The Washington Post would not publish anything, even if it came from the credible Deep Throat."
Are you saying this is not the case?
[0] http://www.dailywire.com/news/16487/another-another-watergat...
See e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/water...
No on the record sources at all.
If they are multiple independent, unbiased sources, that is different.
Not clear what you mean by this. The WP used multiple anonymous sources for many of its Watergate stories.
>If they are multiple independent, unbiased sources, that is different.
The current stories about Trump are based on multiple sources. What gives you the idea that they stem from a single source? After all, Trump’s administration is one of the leakiest in living memory.
> The current stories about Trump are based on multiple sources
I don't see evidence of that, but also there were two important conditions: independent and unbiased.
The problem here is I also don't trust the press anymore to not misrepresent sources. Eventually, the evidence needs to surface.
Right, but your statement did not make any sense. There is no connection between the number of sources used and whether or not they are anonymous.
>but also there were two important conditions: independent and unbiased.
What makes you more confident that the Watergate sources were independent and unbiased? You are trusting the judgment of the journalists in both cases.
>I don't see evidence of [multiple sources]?
Are you kidding? There are, at the very least, people who were in the meeting, and people in the Israeli intelligence community, who clearly weren't.
> There is no connection between the number of sources used and whether or not they are anonymous.
there is - If there is only one source it requires more scrutiny. Multiple independent sources might at least be checked for consistency.
> What makes you more confident that the Watergate sources were independent and unbiased
I don't, as I already stated, I don't know much about WG - you brought it up.
> people who were in the meeting, and people in the Israeli intelligence community, who clearly weren't.
Depends on what you are trying to prove - If it's "what Trumps said" then people not in the meeting have no reliability on the matter.
And that is so regardless of whether the sources are anonymous.
>I don't, as I already stated, I don't know much about WG - you brought it up.
If the WP was following your guidelines for the use of sources, it would not have published the Watergate stories.
>Depends on what you are trying to prove
That Trump shared classified info.
Did Trump describe that information as classified?
Who asked Trump if he leaked classified information, in which interview? Anything specific? Or selective reporting?
> He was asked if he leaked classified information and responded by defending his right to do that
He was defending his right to [release] classified information? He does have that right, but:
"I have the absolute right to [share] facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety"
I can't see the mention of "classified" in that particular statement.
So to summarise; the press claimed Trump gave the Russians classified information - Trump nor McMaster has confirmed or denied this. The press heavily imply this means their original claims are right, but again, the burden is on the press to prove their original claim, by their original source; you don't just get that as a reward for making unverified claims. My original point is no one has gone on record to affirm it, it's just insinuation games.
That is why I mentioned the context. He said this in response to allegations that he had shared classified information.
Trump did not answer to the allegations made. You quote the tweet yourself, and it does not address "classified" information, you're assuming that it is, and hence putting words in Trump's mouth. you don't know.
Also, it does change the perception of the story. As someone who has followed the Syrian civil war somewhat closely, I get the sense that the US has repeatedly tried to "cooperate" with Russia on Syria (while putting Ukraine on the back burner). In other words, the US - not a democratic or republican president - has a policy of constructive engagement. That changes the story - it is about cool academic cucumber handling one way, smarmy braggadocio salesman handling it a different way.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/horrified-israeli-intel-officia...
Put simply:
The US has a process for sharing intelligence whereby the intelligence community runs through a long list of concerns, redacts things that are too secret, protects sources and methods, protects allies and relationships, protects national interests, etc, and makes intelligently informed release decisions based on a mature review process.
Donald Trump blurted out Israeli-sourced active-asset-in-the-field top secret code word intelligence WITHOUT following the declassification/sharing protocol precedent, performing analysis, redaction, or doing even the merest hint of due process at all. -- And he did that in a fit of braggadocio, "I have the best sources, the best intel, such as..."
He's entitled to do that. To be careless and crass and a braggart with our most trusted and important secrets.
But we're entitled to criticize such craven carelessness.
See, even the language is as biased as in the Pravda in its heyday.
There are no public logs that show how the discussion advanced, but there is a heavy push by the Leftist media to portray and spin the exchange of information in the light that fits their narrative. There is also absolutely no reason to believe that Trump doesn't want something in return. The two stories are almost identical, but spun in entirely different ways which shows the blatant stench of bias.
Well, except for the part about the Washington Post actually having journalistic standards and ethics.