Welcome to the mainstream media opposite land, where a headline such as “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House” is contradicted by the following admission in the very same article:
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said.
This repeated attempt at manipulating readers into following a preferred narrative occurred right after the same publication embarrassed themselves by citing unverified unscrutinized conjecture coming from an anonymous group with no credibility or journalistic track record, prompting the editor to add the following admission preceding the article in question:
The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.
This matters in a lazy headline culture where people don’t bother to examine facts and evidence behind sensationalistic claims, and before you know it you find yourself invading sovereign nation that has done you no harm.
The CIA outright says they “do not have specific intelligence” tying Russia to email leaks. Fake News on Steroids.https://t.co/gG6yn9kPHi
— Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux) December 10, 2016