21st Century Wire says The Washington Post has been caught lying and deceiving the public twice in the last few weeks pushing the unfounded mainstream media meme that Russia invaded the U.S. electric grid and another claiming that Russia is behind the explosion of so-called  fake news. Considering that the power grid story was proven to be a fake news story that WashPost had to later retract  We have to consider the legitimacy of any further claims the outlet has against Russia as particularly dubious.The Intercept has some interesting analysis on how outlets such as WashPost not only deceive the public, push false state sponsored talking points but also how they profit financially from this collusion. Glenn Greenwald The InterceptIn the past six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of  fake news,  the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no  penetration of the U.S. electricity grid  as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that  the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility  and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That s because journalists   including those at the Post   aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.Baron himself, editorial leader of the Post, is a perfect case study in this irresponsible tactic. It was Baron who went to Twitter on the evening of November 24 to announce the Post s expos  of the enormous reach of Russia s fake news operation, based on what he heralded as the findings of  independent researchers.  Baron s tweet went all over the place; to date, it has been re-tweeted more than 3,000 times, including by many journalists with their own large followings:Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent researchers https://t.co/3ETVXWw16Q  Marty Baron (@PostBaron) November 25, 2016But after that story faced a barrage of intense criticism   from Adrian Chen in the New Yorker ( propaganda about Russia propaganda ), Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone ( shameful, disgusting ), my own article, and many others   including legal threats from the sites smeared as Russian propaganda outlets by the Post s  independent researchers    the Post finally added its lengthy editor s note distancing itself from the anonymous group that provided the key claims of its story ( The Post   does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot s findings  and  since publication of the Post s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list ).What did Baron tell his followers about this editor s note that gutted the key claims of the story he hyped? Nothing. Not a word. To date, he has been publicly silent about these revisions. Having spread the original claims to tens of thousands of people, if not more, he took no steps to ensure that any of them heard about the major walk back on the article s most significant, inflammatory claims. He did, however, ironically find the time to promote a different Post story about how terrible and damaging Fake News is: Pizzagate  shows how fake news hurts real people https://t.co/cOh7RZ4RqK  Marty Baron (@PostBaron) November 26, 2016WHETHER THE POST S false stories here can be distinguished from what is commonly called  Fake News  is, at this point, a semantic dispute, particularly since  Fake News  has no cogent definition. Defenders of Fake News as a distinct category typically emphasize intent in order to differentiate it from bad journalism. That s really just a way of defining Fake News so as to make it definitionally impossible for mainstream media outlets like the Post ever to be guilty of it (much the way terrorism is defined to ensure that the U.S. government and its allies cannot, by definition, ever commit it).But what was the Post s motive in publishing two false stories about Russia that, very predictably, generated massive attention, traffic, and political impact? 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? In an institution as large as the Post, with numerous reporters and editors participating in these stories, it s impossible to identify any one motive as definitive.Whatever the motives, the effects of these false stories are exactly the same as those of whatever one regards as Fake News. The false claims travel all over the internet, deceiving huge numbers into believing them. The propagators of the falsehoods receive ample profit from their false, viral  news.  And there is no accountability of the kind that would disincentivize a repeat of the behavior. (That the Post ultimately corrects its false story does not distinguish it from classic Fake News sites, which also sometimes do the same.)And while it s true that all media outlets make mistakes, and that even the most careful journalism sometimes errs, those facts do not remotely mitigate the Post s behavior here. In these cases, they did not make good faith mistakes after engaging in careful journalism. With both stories, they were reckless (at best) from the start, and the glaring deficiencies in the reporting were immediately self-evident (which is why both stories were widely attacked upon publication).As this excellent timeline by Kalev Leetaru documents, the Post did not even bother to contact the utility companies in question   the most elementary step of journalistic responsibility   until after the story was published. Intelligence officials insisting on anonymity   so as to ensure no accountability   whispered to them that this happened, and despite how significant the consequences would be, they rushed to print it with no verification at all. This is not a case of good journalism producing inaccurate reporting; it is the case of a media outlet publishing a story that it knew would produce massive benefits and consequences without the slightest due diligence or care.THE MOST IRONIC aspect of all this is that it is mainstream journalists   the very people who have become obsessed with the crusade against Fake News   who play the key role in enabling and fueling this dissemination of false stories. They do so not only by uncritically spreading them, but also by taking little or no steps to notify the public of their falsity.The Post s epic debacle this weekend regarding its electric grid fiction vividly illustrates this dynamic. As I noted on Saturday, many journalists reacted to this story the same way they do every story about Russia: They instantly click and re-tweet and share the story without the slightest critical scrutiny. That these claims are constantly based on the whispers of anonymous officials and accompanied by no evidence whatsoever gives those journalists no pause at all; any official claim that Russia and Putin are behind some global evil is instantly treated as Truth. That s a significant reason papers like the Post are incentivized to recklessly publish stories of this kind. They know they will be praised and rewarded no matter the accuracy or reliability because their Cause   the agenda   is the right one.On Friday night, immediately after the Post s story was published, one of the most dramatic pronouncements came from the New York Times s editorial writer Brent Staples, who said this:Now that this story has collapsed and been fully retracted, what has Staples done to note that this tweet was false? Just like Baron, absolutely nothing Continue this article at The InterceptREAD MORE RUSSIAN HACK NEWS AT: 21WIRE Russian Hack Files