Washington Post revenues primarily generated by publishing fake news

Monday, January 30, 2017 by

In recent days, the Washington Post’s executive editor, Marty Baron, boasted that his paper was doing something most other mainstream media outlets weren’t doing: adding journalists and making a large profit.

“WaPo ‘seems to be doing something unique in daily journalism: It is adding journalists early in the year,’” he tweeted Dec. 27.

While we ordinarily applaud capitalism and the ability of companies to be profitable – be they in the highly over-regulated world of industry and business or the daily news industry, which is tough – it’s difficult to clap our hands for the Post, because of the manner in which its profits are being made.

The Post, you might remember, was the first major paper to state that Russia interfered in the presidential election, with a highly sensationalized story that cited a never-before-heard-of group consisting of “experts” in media, national security, intelligence and other fields that claimed hundreds of news sites (including this one) were willfully spreading Russian propaganda, in a bid to help Donald J. Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.

Making sure the fake story goes viral while the retractions don’t

The story went viral, meaning that the paper’s website experienced a huge influx of traffic – the kind that translates into major revenue.

Never mind that within 48 hours, the Post published a qualifier (not a retraction) when one legitimate news agency after another poked hole after hole in the story, with some even stating that other major news organizations had been offered the story but declined because it was unsubstantiated and couldn’t be proved.

But the fake news didn’t stop there. As noted by Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, the paper published another false story claiming that Russia launched a cyberattack against the U.S. power grid.

As Greenwald noted, “Both articles were fundamentally false.” Both of them now come with humiliating editor’s notes that grudgingly acknowledge the mistakes, namely that the core claims made by each article were complete fabrications.

Still, while both stories serve as embarrassing examples of fake news, they have nonetheless rewarded the Post very well. That is due to the fact that the Left-wing mainstream media journo-terrorists aggressively hype and cross-promote the original, exceedingly false stories to make sure they go viral, which then of course generates revenue for the paper.

Greenwald notes further that, after spreading the falsehoods all over the Web and beyond, needlessly raising fear levels around the country and stirring up political discourse in the process (both of the Russia stories were hyped massively on Left-wing cable news networks), the subsequent retractions and/or corrections were only barely mentioned, as the Post issued them in the most muted way possible. As such, just a small fraction of those who heard the initial fake news wound up learning about the retractions, meaning that, by far, most people continued believing the falsified reports.

So, why is the Post so readily hyping the ‘danger’ posed by Russia?

Baron himself is responsible for spreading the fake news far and wide. He tweeted both phony stories to his followers and, to date, they have been re-tweeted thousands of times, including by many other journalists with large followings.

But what did Baron do when the Post had to retract or distance itself from both stories? Nothing. He never tweeted out the corrections or, as Greenwald reported, did anything at all to set the record straight. Oh, but he did tweet out a Post story that decried – get this – fake news. You just can’t make this stuff up.

While it should be obvious by now to any impartial observer that the so-called mainstream media are the real purveyors of fake news, Greenwald asks the appropriate questions about why they are spending so much time demonizing Russia:

Was it ideological and political — namely, devotion to the D.C. agenda of elevating Russia into a grave threat to U.S. security? Was it to please its audience — knowing that its readers, in the wake of Trump’s victory, want to be fed stories about Russian treachery? Was it access and source servitude — proving it will serve as a loyal and uncritical repository for any propaganda intelligence officials want disseminated? Was it profit — to generate revenue through sensationalistic click-bait headlines with a reckless disregard to whether its stories are true?

Greenwald notes that the Post is a large organization, with many reporters and editors participating in virtually every story, making it difficult to pinpoint a motive. We have to disagree here; when the political ideology (far Left) is pervasive within the organization, then it becomes rather clear what their true motivations are.

And to be frank, profit is the least among them.

There is a solution, however. Censored.news is a new partner site we’ve created for readers who are interested in getting their news from an unfiltered, ideologically pure group of independent sites that are dedicated to speaking truth to power, no matter who is in the White House or Congress. You can also search for legitimate news stories at GoodGopher.com and Fetch.news.

Check them out today.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

WashingtonPost.com

Freedom.news

TheIntercept.com

NaturalNews.com

iMediaEthics.org

Comments

comments powered by Disqus