Source - Natural News
by J. D. Heyes, November 28th 2016
You have to believe that the managing editors at the Washington Post saved the tin foil from their Thanksgiving meal office party so they could issue it out as headgear for their reporting staff.
Because only tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy nuts posing as journalists would churn out the kind kooky theory the paper published over the holiday as a legitimate "news" story.
It seems like any independent media outlet that actually reports that truth – that would include ours, by the way – is really just a Russian intelligence asset working for Moscow.
You can't make this stuff up.
As noted by Zero Hedge, the Post is continuing the crumbling establishment media post-presidential election narrative that its chosen nominee, Hillary Clinton, only lost the election to Donald J. Trump because of "fake news" and "the Russians stole the election."
The Russians did it with 'fake news' planted in hundreds of alternative media sites!
The Post cited "two teams of independent researchers" to claim that "Russia's increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery...echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal..." The paper further names Drudge, Zero Hedge, the Ron Paul Institute and Natural News, among many others.
Consider us a part of the throng of "useful idiots" that real American patriots should be leery of.
Citing a report from some group called PropOrNot listing more than 200 web sites that supposedly pushed Russian propaganda routinely to more than 15 million Americans, the Post – without irony – declared that somehow constituted "scientific evidence" of Russian election-tampering:
The flood of "fake news" this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.
But then the Post story included this passage:
There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders.
So, which is it, boys and girls at the Post – Russia did tilt the election in Trump's favor or it didn't?
That can be addressed easily, as it has already been answered. Not mentioned in the Post article is the fact that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, whose site released a trove of emails hacked from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, has said the documents did not come from Moscow.
"The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything," he said in denouncing the Clinton campaign's accusations. ""Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That's false—we can say that the Russian government is not the source."
But to the Post and the sycophants in the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign, anyone and everyone who is not a Left-wing media shill and drone is now a Russian plant. The absurdity of that allegation is only surpassed by its comical nature.
First, you'll note from the Post report that there is no evidence of Russian tampering using "fake news" planted in sites like ours, mind you – just goofy conspiratorial charges under the facade of "scientific research." That's what we like to call the "Harry Reid Factor" - just throw out unsubstantiated charges no one can prove or disprove and hope they stick.
You'll also note that the Post got to decide the 'research' it cited came from groups it also decided on its own were 'independent.' We don't know that; for all we know, these groups could be filled with some of the most Left-wing activists in the country.
For another thing, Russian propaganda did not start with this election – and it won't end with it, either. Even the Post acknowledged that. The Russians – then the Soviets – have attempted to "undermine" American democracy for decades during the Cold War. That didn't stop with the collapse of the former Soviet Union. So the assertion that all of a sudden Russia is attempting to subvert U.S. democracy is just stupid, and it makes you wonder if this would even be a "story" if Clinton had, in fact, won.
Mainstream press trying to deflect from Clinton's pathetic second presidential lossAnd why does Russian President Vladimir Putin have so much animus against Hillary Clinton? By all accounts their meetings when she was Obama's secretary of state went alright; in fact, only meetings between Putin and Obama go badly. The Post never bothered to explain this, either, claiming generically that there was some Russian "goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton" while "helping Republican Donald Trump."
Furthermore, why does Putin want to 'help' Trump? It only makes sense that no matter who is in the Oval Office, an American president will pursue policies that are in our country's best interests (Obama was the exception), and those generally do not align with Russian interests. Trump has given every indication he is willing to work to repair U.S.-Russian relations, but Clinton did not. Could that be the reason? Trump's approach is the right one because what sense does it make to have raucous relationships with a major nuclear power if you don't have to?
The Post's wild conspiracy theory about "fake news planted by the Russians" is nothing more than a childish attempt to deflect from Clinton's pathetic second loss in her bid for the White House – and the establishment media's inability to push her over the finish line.
But we'll have great sport poking fun at the Post and others for making such a claim with a straight face. And don't forget, you can always access truth sites via GoodGopher.com.