The Washington Post’s released another Trump-Russia report this past week and it’s solely another example of how the media will manipulate it’s readers or viewers by putting the worst of the worst front and center while burying details needed within the article, hoping you barely glance over them.
In this latest report, spy agencies intercepted Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak stating to his superiors that he “discussed Trump campaign related matters with Attorney General Jeff Sessions”. This, however, was buried deep within the article, eight paragraphs in fact, after reading a sort of “framing” of the account before discovering the meaning and depth of what’s taken place.
The ninth paragraph of the WaPo article finally revealed:
Officials emphasized that the information contradicting Sessions comes from U.S. intelligence on Kislyak’s communications with the Kremlin, and they acknowledged that the Russian ambassador could have mischaracterized or exaggerated the nature of his interactions.
Another example of biased-ness in an otherwise claim of unbiasedness. Mainstream media outlets have gotten away with this sort of reporting for years, especially under the Obama administration. Now that President Donald Trump calls them out publicly, it seems a lot easier for us to spot the dubiousness of it all, wouldn’t you say?
As reported by The Daily Caller:
By the eleventh paragraph, the Post reported, “Russian and other foreign diplomats in Washington and elsewhere” are known “to report false or misleading information to bolster their standing with their superiors or to confuse U.S. intelligence agencies.”
WaPo’s report begins by stating, “A former official said that the intelligence indicates that Sessions and Kislyak had ‘substantive’ discussions on matters including Trump’s positions on Russia-related issues and prospects for U.S.-Russia relations in a Trump administration.”
“One U.S. official said that Sessions — who testified that he had no recollection of an April encounter — has provided ‘misleading’ statements that are “contradicted by other evidence.”