Recall that when President Donald Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he allowed Russian photographers to take pictures but not photographers from the American NLMSM.

Now the Washington Post is claiming that President Trump “revealed highly classified information to [the] Russian foreign minister and ambassador” in that Oval Office meeting.

What’s being ignored in the manufactured hysteria over this is that WaPo very carefully used only anonymous sources for their claims: current and former US officials and officials and a US official familiar with the matter and a former senior US official and an official with knowledge of the exchange and a former senior US counterterrorism official and [a] former intelligence official and on and on.

The WaPo didn’t offer a single named, on the record source.  Not one.

The only personnel present in the meeting, besides the two Russians, were Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, NSA Director HR McMasters, and NSA Deputy Director Dina Powell.

What’s being downplayed by the NLMSM is McMaster’s statement after WaPo published its (to repeat: wholly unsubstantiated) claim:

A brief statement for the record. There is nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president of the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed. The president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of the state, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Going on the record should outweigh the anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn’t happen. Thanks, everybody.

Do WaPo‘s “sources” even exist?  Even if they exist, how would they know what was discussed when they were not present in the meeting?  Journalistic standards used to hold that anonymous sources were OK, but their claims had to be corroborated by two or more named, on the record sources.  No more, for the NLMSM.

This smacks of payback because the NLMSM was not included in the prior photo op.  Which demonstrates the uselessness of including the NLMSM in such opportunities.

More importantly, it illustrates the dishonesty and so uselessness of the NLMSM.

2 thoughts on “Payback

    • What’s your basis for assuming (as Martin does not) that those sources exist? They may, but nowhere is their existence corroborated, nor is there any place where their claims are corroborated.
      Eric Hines

Leave a Reply to eehines Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *