[gjsman-1000]

You clearly forgot about Russiagate. The claim that Trump was colluding with Russia was all over the news for over a year with constant coverage every day. The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham.

That was a huge, huge pie-in-the-sky take. The media is absolutely not above their own lunacy. Green Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about Snowden, agreed that it was "this generation's WMDs in terms of media malfeasance."

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1459242600179933190

My point is that the media is absolutely capable of getting things immensely wrong on incredible magnitude.

[HWR_14]

> The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham.

To my knowledge it hasn't. I believe they continue to stand by their reporting. It's possible I missed a major retraction but I have no clue why they would have retracted their stories.

[refurb]

Go and Google Matt Taibbi’s summary of all the new articles about Russiagate that were wrong and/or have been retracted. It’s quite lengthy with all the sources.

Here it is: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...

Most if not all the Russiagate claims have turned out to be false, but more critically, the media who reported them either willfully didn’t bother to validate the information or ran with it knowing it was false.

The best one was the FBI getting a search warrant based on an article by a reporter referencing an FBI source. How’s that for bullshit? Drop an anonymous tip to a reporter then use their article as proof your suspicion is valid.

[HWR_14]

Your source uses the word "correction" once (in searchable text), #18, about the detail of whether the Republican opposition research into Trump actually hired Steele, when (according to your own source) instead they hired the firm that hired Steele, but he didn't actually join the project until Clinton took over payment. It's good that it got corrected, but it's hardly something significant.

Your source uses the word "warrant" in one section (in searchable text), #12, where the reporting was accurate in that warrants had been issued. Whether the warrant should have been issued is a different question.

You'll note I qualified searchable, because I have no desire to read the entire massive text of bullet points, although I did try to find relevant ones and your best example. I did try to scan it for other corrections (because this site believes in "text in screenshots), and they were all either minor [0] of they were correct reporting [1].

[0] Example: All 17 intelligence agencies didn't say X, only the agency who coordinates information between, oversees and synthesizes their information did (and the big three of CIA, FBI and NSA)

[1] Example: Report on Day X, Government investigating Y. Report on Day X + N, Government investigation into Y turns up Z. Sometimes the Z is "nothing". You know, or the warrant reporting example above.

[zapita]

> You clearly forgot about Russiagate. The claim that Trump was colluding with Russia was all over the news for over a year with constant coverage every day.

That coverage was accurate. There was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

It is clearly described here for example: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126

> The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham.

This is false and you provide no evidence for it.

> Green Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about Snowden, agreed that it was "this generation's WMDs in terms of media malfeasance."

Greenwald is a disgraced journalist turned professional provocateur. I’m not surprised that you have to resort to quoting him to support an argument as ridiculous as “Russiagate was pie-in-the-sky”. You might as well quote Tucker Carlson.

> https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1459242600179933190

This references two Washington Post articles which have been corrected. The correction was specific to the identity of one source in the famous Steele dossier which made some of the more outlandish and salacious claims in the dossier. There is no other retraction. In particular none of the facts of the dossier are retracted. In any case, the FBI has since conducted their own investigation and published their findings. As far as I know the FBI has not retracted those findings and the press has not retracted any reporting on those findings. So what exactly are you talking about when you mention “dozens of retracted stories”? Where is your evidence?

[gjsman-1000]

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...

[Chris2048]

> Greenwald is a disgraced journalist turned professional provocateur.

Says who? He's unpopular (with the media), now he attacks the media; what gets to decide he's "disgraced"?

[zapita]

I regret using the term “disgraced” because it’s hard to assess objectively as you point out, and superfluous to my argument, which is that 1) he is wrong in those quoted tweets, and 2) he is a polarizing figure who is not known for his objectivity and therefore, quoting his factually wrong statement as only evidence does not support the argument presented here.

[tanseydavid]

Conflating Glen Greenwald and Tucker Carlson: wow I am just speechless at this.

I guess one thing these two do have in common is that you do not like them.

[mcphage]

> That was a huge, huge pie-in-the-sky take.

The President’s son is on record saying he was interested in getting info from Russia. If Trump didn’t collaborate, it wasn’t from lack of interest or effort. It was wrong, but not a pie-in-the-sky take.

[GauntletWizard]

There is a huge difference between a candidate "Getting information from Russia" [1] and coordinating on election misinformation campaigns with Russian Intelligence agencies.

[1] which provably did happen, except it was the Hillary Campaign that knowingly did so: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier

[Cycl0ps]

Have you reviewed the article you linked? The Steele Dossier was compiled by a British source, and the one claim that's generally agreed on is that the Russian Govt highly favored Trump over Hillary. I'd recommend the summary to get aquatinted, then the subsection "Risk of contamination with Russian disinformation considered"

[GauntletWizard]

I have, and I have followed the actual reporting on it; The wikipedia article shows a significant amount of bias. The Dossier was compiled by a British source from hearsay from a Russian Citizen who had contacts in Russian Intelligence. Some directly, but his major source only had the information as hearsay. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-recko...