{"id":289684,"date":"2017-01-12T06:55:02","date_gmt":"2017-01-12T05:55:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/wapos-factcheck-of-wikileaks-highlights-papers-strange-view-of-facts\/"},"modified":"2017-01-12T06:55:02","modified_gmt":"2017-01-12T05:55:02","slug":"wapos-factcheck-of-wikileaks-highlights-papers-strange-view-of-facts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/wapos-factcheck-of-wikileaks-highlights-papers-strange-view-of-facts\/","title":{"rendered":"WaPo\u2019s Factcheck of WikiLeaks Highlights Paper\u2019s Strange View of Facts"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Washington<\/a><\/p>\n

The Washington Post<\/strong> (1\/5\/17<\/a>) “factchecks” Julian Assange’s claims without either proving or disproving them.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

WikiLeaks<\/b> founder Julian Assange (Fox News<\/b>, 1\/3\/17<\/a>) again denied that the leaked e-mails he published during the election came from Russia\u2014an assertion contradicted by many anonymous US intelligence officials. \u201cWe can say, we have said repeatedly over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government, and it is not a state party,\u201d Assange told Sean Hannity.<\/p>\n

It is perfectly reasonable for the media and the public to be skeptical of Assange\u2019s claims, just as they should be of the anonymous intelligence officials who say otherwise. How can we know what the truth is, absent any evidence? This is an especially pressing question since the release of a declassified Intelligence Community Assessment on the matter (1\/6\/17<\/a>) which, as released to the public, is big in bold assessments but lacking in forensic evidence. \u201cThe message from the agencies essentially amounts to \u2018trust us,\u2019\u201d as the New York Times<\/b> observed (1\/6\/17<\/a>).<\/p>\n

But thanks to the Washington<\/b> Post<\/b>\u2019s dutiful commitment to verifying facts through its \u201cFact Checker\u201d column, the mystery should be over. Assange\u2019s claim that there no connection between Russia and the leaked documents were put through the Post<\/b>\u2019s rigorous factchecking criteria (1\/5\/17<\/a>) and subjected to its penetrating \u201cPinocchio Test\u201d scale, earning a damning \u201cthree Pinocchio\u201d grade. This, according to the Post<\/b>\u2019s methodology<\/a>, means that Assange\u2019s assertion contains \u201csignificant factual error and\/or obvious contradictions.<\/p>\n

So now that one of the most cherished institutions<\/a> in American journalism has checked this \u201cfact,\u201d we can all be assured in the knowledge that Assange is wrong and Russia is responsible for the hack, right? After all, the word fact<\/a> does not\u2014or should not\u2014allow for much ambiguity.<\/p>\n

The problem, however, is that the Post<\/b>\u2019s \u201cFact Checker\u201d column is often not in the business of checking facts (FAIR<\/b>, 9\/6\/12<\/a>), but instead offers its own judgements and opinions under the imprimatur of factchecking.<\/p>\n

At best, the Post<\/b> provides a counter version of what the truth might be<\/i>, \u201ccontesting one interpretation of the facts with [its] own interpretation,\u201d as Clive Cook once wrote (Atlantic<\/b>, 9\/3\/12<\/a>) in a critique of the column. \u201cAn interpretation is an opinion\u2014not a fact,\u201d Cook wrote. \u201cWhen a fact is wrong, it’s not some number of Pinocchios, it’s just wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n

The column\u2019s editor, Glenn Kessler, claims<\/a> to be \u201crevealing the truth behind the rhetoric,\u201d but \u201cFact Checker\u201d is really just another op-ed section.<\/p>\n

Unproven and Irrelevant \u2018Evidence\u2019<\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

The article on Assange, written by the Post<\/b>\u2019s Michelle Ye Hee Lee, is a glaring example of this. In more than 1,600 words of \u201cfactchecking,\u201d not a single sentence disproves\u2014or, for that matter, proves\u2014the accuracy of Assange\u2019s statement.<\/p>\n

Fact Checker\u2019s first method is to connect the statement to Donald Trump\u2019s Twitter<\/b> account, where the president-elect mentioned Assange\u2019s denial. \u201cAs seen in Trump\u2019s tweet, this exchange was ultimately interpreted as Assange saying the \u2018Russians did not give him the info,\u2019\u201d Lee wrote. \u00a0But one didn\u2019t need Trump\u2019s tweet to make this acknowledgement: Assange\u2019s claim that Wikileaks<\/b>\u2019 \u201csource is not the Russian government and it is not a state party\u201d is straightforward enough, and follows a much more detailed account of who gave the emails to WikiLeaks<\/b> by a WikiLeaks<\/b> associate that Fact Checker simply ignores. (See below.)<\/p>\n

It\u2019s newsworthy that Trump, who has a long record of deception<\/a>, is amplifying \u00a0Assange\u2019s denial\u2014and has accordingly been covered by the Post<\/b> (1\/4\/17<\/a>) and virtually every other major outlet\u2014but worthless to meet Fact Checker\u2019s burden to prove that the claim is false.<\/p>\n

The next claim is also irrelevant: \u201cWe will stipulate that governments regularly spy on each other, and the United States also gathers intelligence on governments such as Russia,\u201d Lee writes. \u00a0\u201cThe difference here is that intelligence operations allegedly led to the release of information to the public, via WikiLeaks<\/b> and media coverage.\u201d Indeed, journalists have rightly been criticized for failing to acknowledge the United States role in \u201cinterfering\u201d with elections\u2014and not merely by \u201creleasing information to the public\u201d (although that has been one method), but also with violent coups on numerous occasions (CBS News<\/b>, 9\/11\/00<\/a>; Slate<\/b>, 4\/14\/16<\/a>).<\/p>\n

But, again, the purpose of this article is to examine if what Assange said was factual, and this effort to acknowledge US covert operations\u2014while also distancing them from Russia\u2019s alleged ones\u2014does nothing to this end. \u00a0If anything, the distinction weakens the argument, because it acknowledges that to date Russia is only \u201calleged\u201d to have been responsible for WikiLeaks<\/b>\u2019 release of leaked e-mails. By Oxford\u2019s definition<\/a>, the word \u201callegation\u201d means \u201ca public statement that is made without giving proof.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another unconvincing point of emphasis \u00a0was that Assange was telling a falsehood because he made his claim \u201cwithout providing any evidence in the interview or in response to our inquiry.\u201d It is unclear what kind of proof the paper would hope to see, absent Assange outing a source, which the Post<\/b> itself refuses to do (5\/31\/05<\/a>), even when its source is a US official making false claims<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This specific logic about a lack of evidence is also rich in irony, since it could be used to dismiss most of the anonymous intelligence sources the Post<\/b> has used in its flurry of articles about the Russian hack\u2014two of which (11\/24\/16<\/a>; 12\/31\/16<\/a>) have already had to be retracted or significantly \u201cclarified,\u201d due to what one might call \u201csignificant factual error and\/or obvious contradictions.\u201d If one applied the same standards to the Post<\/b>\u2019s own reporting on the Russian hack, the paper would fail Fact Checker\u2019s Pinocchio test.<\/p>\n

The article also questions the claims of a hacker named Guccifer 2.0, who presented himself on Twitter<\/b> as a Romanian hacker responsible for the hack. How this debunks Assange\u2019s claim is hard to understand. Even if one accepts the claims\u2014still based more on US intelligence assertions than on public evidence (Democracy Now<\/b>, 1\/5\/17<\/a>)\u2014that the Russians hacked into the DNC, that does not prove that Guccifer 2.0 was part of that operation, or that he had any connection to WikiLeaks<\/b>. As Lee notes (emphasis added), \u201cindependent analysts suspected <\/i>that Guccifer 2.0 was linked to the Russian groups that hacked the DNC,\u201d though they \u201cdid not have hard evidence<\/i> because the documents were posted anonymously.\u201d \u00a0The article is filled with this kind of inconclusive language, such as \u201csome experts believe,\u201d and “independent analysts suspected.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even proving that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian hacker would still fall short of proving he was the WikiLeaks<\/b> source. As noted, the Post<\/b> completely ignores that Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks<\/b> associate and former British diplomat, denied that Russia was involved; said the emails were leaked, not hacked; and provided by internal \u201cwhistleblowers\u201d who had legal access to the emails (Daily Mail<\/b>, 12\/14\/16<\/a>).<\/p>\n

“Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents WikiLeaks<\/b> published did not come from that,\u201d Murray \u00a0said. Of course, the paper should not simply take Murray\u2014or anyone else\u2014at their word. (See Empty Wheel<\/b>\u201412\/15\/16<\/a>\u2014for a critical analysis of Murray\u2019s account.) But it is rather one-sided to ignore these statements entirely, while amplifying so many other unproven allegations against WikiLeaks<\/b>. \u00a0This, though, is the approach Fact Checker chose to take.<\/p>\n

\u2018All In<\/b>\u2019<\/strong> on Russian Hacking Story<\/b><\/h3>\n

The Assange \u201cfactcheck\u201d is part of the \u00a0Washington Post<\/b>\u2019s relentless coverage of the Russian hacking allegation. The Post<\/b> has gone \u201call in\u201d on these Russian hacking allegations with an odd certitude and a scary deference to intelligence officials \u00a0(FAIR.org<\/b>, 1\/4\/17<\/a>). \u00a0The paper\u2019s editor, Marty Baron, even retweeted<\/a> (which he does very selectively) the paper\u2019s article (11\/24\/16<\/a>) that amplified a McCarthyite blacklist from an anonymous group of \u201cresearchers\u201d (FAIR.org<\/b>, 12\/1\/16<\/a>). Despite the editor\u2019s note added to the story, the tweet remains, with no mention of the article\u2019s flaws.<\/p>\n

The latest Fact Checker article is particularly worrisome because 1) it demonstrates that the paper\u2019s understanding of what qualifies as a \u201cfact\u201d is extremely dubious, and 2) it comes at a time when the outlet is as militant as ever in advancing a narrative\u2014which may or may not be true\u2014that will increase tensions between two nuclear powers with an ugly history.<\/p>\n

Given the recent history of media failings covering intelligence and national security prior to the war in Iraq (Washington<\/b> Post<\/b>, 8\/24\/04<\/a>; FAIR Action Alert<\/b>, 3\/19\/07)<\/a>, it is important that outlets undertaking to \u201ccheck the facts\u201d also undertake to use facts, and not merely \u00a0innuendo and allegations, to do so.<\/p>\n

\n

Michael Corcoran\u00a0is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for the Boston Globe<\/strong>, The Nation<\/strong>, the Christian Science Monitor<\/strong>, Extra!<\/strong><\/a>, NACLA Report on the Americas<\/strong> and other publications. Follow him on Twitter<\/strong>: @mcorcoran3<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Messages can be sent to the Washington Post <\/strong>at letters@washpost.com<\/a>, or via Twitter<\/strong> @washingtonpost<\/a>. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.<\/em><\/p>\n

This piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News<\/a> with permission from FAIR<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Washington Post (1\/5\/17) “factchecks” Julian Assange’s claims without either proving or disproving them. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (Fox News, 1\/3\/17) again denied that the leaked e-mails he published during the election came from Russia\u2014an assertion contradicted by many anonymous US intelligence officials. \u201cWe can say, we have said repeatedly over the last two months, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2521,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[519],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-289684","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-newswire"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/289684","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2521"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=289684"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/289684\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=289684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=289684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=289684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}