The Washington Post made a massive correction Monday to a January report about a phone call between then-President Donald Trump and a Georgia elections investigator, as the liberal paper admitted multiple quotes attributed to Trump based on an anonymous source were inaccurate.
The corrrected story was a hot topic on cable news and talk shows that helped spread the Post’s flawed report and media watchdogs feel it points to larger problems with agenda-driven anonymous sources and liberal outlets that rush to “confirm” them. Read Fox News article
There’s a really big difference in the false allegation of:
Trump telling an official working in Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office to “find the fraud” in the state, which he lost narrowly to Joe Biden, and that she would be a “national hero” if she did.
and the true story …
Trump said she would be “praised” when the “right answer comes out” and encouraged her to closely examine mail-in ballots in heavily blue Fulton County.
The video montage in this article put together by Tom Elliot shows how the mainstream media jumped to put out the first (false) version before doing their proper vetting first. My question is, how many of these damaging stories from “anonymous sources” are really valid in the first place?