![](\"https:\/\/cdni.rt.com\/files\/2018.12\/thumbnail\/5c07f420fc7e936e678b4579.JPG\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
The Guardian\u2019s \u2018bombshell\u2019 story that ex-Donald Trump adviser, Paul Manafort, met with Wikileaks Julian Assange is falling apart, as outlets fail to corroborate the claims, some even questioning the paper\u2019s standards. <\/p>\n
On November 27, the Guardian splashed with an eye-catching article, claiming that its journalists had seen an Ecuadorian intelligence agency document detailing that Manafort and Assange had met three times in the London Ecuadorian embassy, including during the run-up to the 2016 US Presidential Election.<\/p>\n
READ MORE:\u00a0Russia again! Twitter mocks nameless CIA agent who blames Kremlin for dubious Manafort-Assange story<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n The piece suggested that \u201cRussians<\/em>\u201d were also guests at the embassy, though it failed to identify any individuals in question. The article also didn\u2019t include any non-anonymous sources nor did it reproduce, in any capacity, the document in question.<\/p>\n The story didn\u2019t quite have the impact desired, instigating an ongoing debate even among the most ardent members of so-called \u2018Resistance.\u2019<\/p>\n I love the Guardian. And this needs to be resolved. Did Assange meet Manafort? Who are the sources? If you can’t say then doubt. Anonymous sourcing is dangerous at best. https:\/\/t.co\/PR6YQt6I0g<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Jimmy Wales (@jimmy_wales) November 27, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Not all use of anonymous sources is valid or persuasive to the public. If we don’t draw the line somewhere, then we have to believe anyone who claims that “Oh, I have a source”. Judgment is needed.<\/p>\n \u2014 Jimmy Wales (@jimmy_wales) December 3, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n It wasn\u2019t only the article\u2019s contents that were called into question. The piece, penned by Luke Harding, the paper\u2019s one time Russia correspondent, and Dan Collyns, was written in collaboration with Fernando Villavicencio a self-styled Ecuadorian journalist\/activist. While Villavicencio\u2019s name appeared on the byline in the Guardian\u2019s print version, it wasn\u2019t included in the more widely read online iteration.<\/p>\n Guardian hid third author of fabricated front page story “Manafort Held Secret Meetings With Assange in Embassy” from international public — as revealed by direct digital archive library. Compare to the online version. Villavicencio background:.https:\/\/t.co\/KX80IrScyl<\/a>pic.twitter.com\/8uVqA8eLm5<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 3, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n The discrepancy could be due to claims, referenced by journalists Ben Norton, among others that the Villavicencio has faced \u2018repeated accusations of fabrications.\u2019<\/p>\n This is wild: The Guardian concealed that its “report” on Manafort supposedly meeting Assange (which @WikiLeaks<\/a> revealed is false) was co-written by Fernando Villavicencio, an anti-Correa opposition activist who has been repeatedly accused of fabricationshttps:\/\/t.co\/Lj03mdSyQT<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 4, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n While criticism from Wikileaks, who have a long-standing feud with the Guardian is unsurprising, the publication is now facing attack from fellow liberal outlet the Washington Post, among others.<\/p>\n Veteran Post reporter Paul Fahri raised issues with the Guardian, writing that the story could well be \u201ca dud<\/em>,\u201d adding that \u201cNo other news organization has been able to corroborate the Guardian\u2019s reporting to substantiate its central claim of a meeting.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The criticism comes as an ex-Ecuadorian diplomat Fidel Narv\u00e1ez slammed the story, telling the Canary: \u201cI find it incredible that the Guardian allows these people [Luke Harding and Dan Collyns] to repeatedly damage the paper\u2019s credibility and reputation.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The Guardian has made an attempt to dilute the story, changing the original article by inserting qualifiers. For example, \u201cthe meeting\u201d<\/em> between Assange and Manafort, became \u201cthe apparent meeting,\u201d<\/em> while the headline was changed adding in \u201csources say<\/em>\u201d from the more definitive original: \u201cManafort held secret talks with Assange.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n