Incredible but another false story this week reported by the Wash Post, NY Times, and others about Rudy being given a formal warning that he was a target of a Russian disinformation investigation. Turns out to be completely false.
I've expressed my dislike - to put it mildly - with Trump and his unbelievably unethical cronies but the corruption by the major news media over these years is remarkable. What kind of sourcing do they do on these stories now? Do they just accept a leak and then run with it? What is their confirmation? Calling the same source up and asking them again?
There used to be a rule by reporters that if an unnamed source lied to them that the promise of anonymity ended, that they would expose that source. Well, clearly there have been a series of falsehoods leaked by people in the DOJ and FBI and CIA over these years but the media won't expose them. Or hasn't. The media should be furious with being used like this. But they don't seem to be.
The leftwing writer Glenn Greenwald wrote a longish piece on this issue. It's here:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/corporate-news-outlets-again-confirmHe also Tweeted this: "In preparation for this writing this article, I spent the day notifying close to a dozen of these media luminaries that their false tweet [about Giuliani being warned] remained up and asked whether they intend to take it down and/or correct the false tweet. Only one - NBC White House Correspondent Geoff Bennett - responded. He did so by blocking me on Twitter, while leaving the false tweet up, uncorrected."
Opposing Trump shouldn't justify abandoning all and every journalistic standard. Apparently it does. Thus the corruption. If this can be done for Trump, why not others? What are the rules now?
