FAKE NEWS: The Atlantic tries to discredit WikiLeaks with selective editing

OMG! WIKILEAKS WORKED FOR THE RUSSIANS! LIKE, THE RUSSIANS PUT, LIKE, DONALD TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE! IMPEACH DRUMPF NOW!

Every time a so-called bombshell is reported by the mainstream media pertaining to the Trump-Russia-WikiLeaks saga, journalists and leftists get more excited than a Libertarian Party candidate polling at four percent. But oftentimes their excitement is unfounded after some close analysis of the report has been done.

Case in point, a report from The Atlantic that suggests WikiLeaks and Julian Assange collaborated with Donald Trump Jr.

Three Twitter DMs between Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks (when Assange didn’t even have any Internet acess) were exchanged. Three! And this irked the CNNs and the MSNBCs of the media landscape – apparently they think it’s OK to completely collaborate with the Hillary Clinton campaign, though.

But there was a nefarious DM that gives the left “proof” that WikiLeaks is a Russian outfit.

Here is an excerpt from The Atlantic report:

It is the third reason, though, Wikileaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” Wikileaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.”

At first glance, this looks pretty bad for WikiLeaks. But after you read the original DMs, you realize that there is something missing. Yep, a journalist omits some important parts of the communication to fit her agenda.

Here is the actual DM that Julia Ioffe failed to include (emphasis ours):

“That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with.

There is an immense difference between what the journalist reported and what was actually contained in the DM.

Now do you know why members of the mainstream press are accused of publishing fake news?

Caitlin Johnstone writes on Medium that “this is a big deal”:

There is a big difference between “because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source” and “because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with.” Those are not the same sentence. At all. Different meanings, different implications. One makes WikiLeaks look like it’s trying to hide a pro-Trump, pro-Russian agenda from the public, and the other conveys the exact opposite impression as WikiLeaks actively works to obtain Donald Trump’s tax returns. This is a big deal.

Of course, Ioffe’s report was retweeted thousands of times, many of whom probably didn’t even read the original DMs.

And that’s another problem. So many leftists are desperate to prove their Russian conspiracy that they fail to actually fully probe their sources. Once their source’s information is discredited and proven incorrect, and some type of retraction is issued, they won’t retweet that crucial development.

Like Van Jones said, the Russian saga is “a big nothingburger.”

Like this article? Get ECN delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here.

Leave a Comment