Liberal media outlets tend to promote their own reality in their news stories – and often times, the fake news lands them in a public relations nightmare.
While both CNN and The Vice have had to redact outrageous fake news stories this month, another newspaper joined the trend and was busted for their lies.
The New York Times just revoked a story about President Trump and Russian meddling, but their absurd “correction” to the story is even worse than the original story.
White House reporter Maggie Haberman falsely claimed in a report that 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia tried to interfere in the presidential election – which was an already debunked liberal accusation.
The Daily Caller reports:
White House reporter Maggie Haberman falsely claimed in her report that 17 intelligence agencies all agreed Russia tried to interfere in the presidential election, reiterating a thoroughly debunked liberal talking point.
Trump “still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies,” she wrote in the Sunday report. Apparently facing substantial criticism, the paper corrected the error Thursday.
Instead of fixing the story and simply clearing up the matter, the NYT added a paragraph to the end that places the blame on anyone but the reporter.
The Daily Caller relayed:
“A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”
Haberman’s story was a mess from the start, but what she thought would be an easy fix caused her many more problems.
Her original story repeated a claim that liberals had circulated following a declassified report from the Director of National Intelligence in October.
The Daily Caller reports:
Since the DNI heads up 17 agencies, it was easy to frame the declassified report as a consensus built on 17 separate assessments. In fact only the three agencies who reviewed the matter signed off on that consensus.
The former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said as much in a May Senate hearing. The assessment was a “coordinated” product from the FBI, the NSA and the CIA, he said, working under the “aegis” of the DNI. It was not signed off on by 17 agencies. That makes sense, as some of the agencies — Coast Guard intel perhaps most obviously — would have little to do with election hacking.
Haberman’s “corrected” story no longer includes the debunked claim, but tries to misleadingly say the DNI was a separate intelligence agency with language and communication barriers in which they made it difficult for her to communicate the truth.
The facts of the matter are that the article incorrectly states 17 intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion that there was Russian interference in the election, when in actuality, that idea was NOT approved by the 17 organizations in the intelligence community, but only prompted by the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA.
The New York Times told a blatant lie in the hopes of a good story, and only dug a deeper grave for themselves when they attempted to cover up the truth.
There was no communication or language barrier when Maggie Haberman was attempting to find sources for her story – only an aggravated liberal who was not hearing what she wanted to hear, so she made something up and published that instead.
Liberal media has gone too far in their attempts to destroy the conservative side of the government.
Ironically, they seem to be the ones hurting from their antics, losing both their credibility and their readers as a result.
When will they learn that the American people are sick of their lies?
Leave us your thoughts in the comments section below.