The Media Perpetuated A Clinton Lie For 9 Months. What It Means For The Russia NarrativeRACHEL STOLTZFOOS
The Daily Caller
Jul. 10, 2017
"Shame On You!" Leftists Attack Cherokee Nation For Criticizing Elizabeth Warren
Video Shows 'Antifa Started The Fight' In NYC, But NYPD Looks to Charge 9 Proud Boys
Beto O'Rourke's 'Lifelong Republican' Mom Voted In Dem Primaries Since 2000, Donated to Obama
Secret Service Intervenes When CBS News Reporter Confronts Kushner On An Airplane
How Not to Respond to Being Called a 'Horseface'...
When Hillary Clinton claimed “17 intelligence agencies” agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously false, and there’s been a “simple” explanation as to why all along.
A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter.
“The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign,” The New York Times now reports. “The rest were doing other work.”
Strange admission for the paper, since its star political reporter recently reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish.
“The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump’s party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him get elected,” Maggie Haberman wrote. Her story was later corrected to reflect the — basic fact — that only three agencies working under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community’s conclusion.