The Washington Post appended its story accusing ‘Russia of spreading fake news’, saying it does not vouch for its ‘experts’ findings. The revelation is disturbing considering the effect news printed in the media can have on the public.  Russian president, Vladimir Putin was repeatedly accused of interfering with the US election, with many of the information leaked on Wikileaks blamed on being inspired from the Kremlin.

Whenever a media outlet is spreading information from another outlet, the duty lies with that publication to verify the credibility of the information, except where the publication is reliable with a high level of credibility and claims to have got the information first hand. The credibility of a news outlet rests on its reputation but also on the integrity and standing of its editorial competence. The risk and judgement always must lie with the publication trusting the other.

The damage caused by spreading false news can be immeasurable and lasting,which is why it is always best to air on the side of caution. The Washington Post up until now has appeared reliable. With this almost unforgivable blunder, every main declaration of news the Washington Post publishes may have readers wondering and questioning.

They will learn from this. The temptation to jump on a bandwagon to report news whose content  may appear convenient is never far away, but should be resisted. Especially news with far reaching consequences.

The one great thing about the eye of media.com is the emphasis placed on objectivity and verification stressed to me verbally and in writing from the very first day I joined them.In expressing our opinions on certain matters the surrounding facts on the matter is always important. The potential for hidden prejudices to be enmeshed in opinions is often inevitable, but the careful and honest evaluation of any story is where objectivity and integrity lies.

Russia Accused Of Cyber Attacks

Russia was repeatedly accused of cyber attacks during the U.S elections, with revenge promised by the U.S in  what was building to be a psychological and media warfare that exacerbated other existing tensions between the Pentagon and The Kremlin. With this admission, it now appears the allegation wasn’t true. Website or news outlets publishing  fake news are not worth anything and should be ignored  and abandoned.Readers deserve to get true and quality news, no matter the organisation or subject that constitutes the news.

The admission from the Washington Post- one of America’s well-read newspapers- that it does not vouch for its expert’s finding is alarming and is a lesson to all media outlets. If the researchers from the publication can genuinely be described as experts with integrity  then referencing them is professional and not a bad thing. Greater caution is required when spreading an allegation against a country or organisation without hard evidence.

 The  Washington Post can be forgiven because the nature of the Wikileaks miscellaneous exposure of Hillary Clinton’s emails during the U.S elections did appear to have roots in Russia. However, I am proud of the eye of media.com’s editorial for constantly instructing its team to be mindful that there is no evidence to suggest this and we should stay away from suggesting it no matter how attractive it may be to do this.

  The Washington Post should still be commended for admitting error once it came to their attention and announcing that error. The paper reported claims from anonymous group PropOrNot which said it had identified more than 200 websites as ‘routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season’ – some knowingly and others as ‘useful idiots.’

Propnot issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions.

The  Washington Post did not name any of the sites which did not name any of the sites but also didn’t claim to vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Washington Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.

The amendment also stated that a number of the websites on PropOrNot’s propaganda peddler list have objected to their inclusion while some of the outlets, along with several others who were never included on that list, ‘have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions.’

Those challengers include Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat, a well-respected researcher who has investigated Russian propaganda for years, who derided the research by PropOrNot.

‘I think it should have never been an article on any news site of any note,’ he told the New Yorker’s Adrian Chen who branded the report ‘a mess.’

The possibility PropOrNot could be working on behalf of the Ukraine in their own propaganda war against Russia had also been suggested.  Ideas or notions expressed outside the political mainstream were allegedly deemed to be Russian propagandist by Prop or Not, a position not necessarily accurate but at least the perception.

RT network was itself  at one point understood to be propagandist for the Putin’s regime, with the Russian media publication  once  caught up in a media dispute  with the BBC and also claiming to be more objective and honest than Sky news.  the objectivity of Sky. The eye of media.com at the time contacted RT for some clarification on the latter but received none, perharps to prevent intensifying the dispute. However,  editorial at the eye of media.com has been ben keeping a watchful eye and will continue to do so.

The newspaper had reported claims from anonymous group PropOrNot which said they had identified more than 200 websites as ‘routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season’ – some as ‘useful idiots’

The  Washington Post’s article claimed that Russia was hoping the spread of ‘fake news’ would swing the US election for Donald Trump. That assumption may have been true, but without evidence to back it up, it is just a wild guess.  An opinion that could way of f the mark, and responsible journalism but always avoid this.

One of the ‘fake’ stories peddled allegedly linked to Moscow was about Clinton’s apparent ill health after she fell ill at a 9/11 memorial event in September.

Speculation grew over her condition, with the rumuors appearing to be confirmed when she fainted  on camera while getting into her car. Those stories grew worse when Clinton  appeared at other events battling a cough said to be so serious that moving objects came out of her mouth.

It was later emerged Hillary Clinton was battling pneumonia.  However,  some media publications  claimed she was suffering from Parkinson’s disease or Syphilis. Not good at all!

Integrity in journalism is everything, and must not be compromised.