What's Happening at the Washington Post?

First the "fake news" debacle, now this.

The Washington Post late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: the key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.

These unnamed sources told the Post that [the CIA concluded that Russian sources interfered in the 2016 elections with the express purpose of getting Donald Trump elected.]

[...]

A second leak from last night, this one given to the New York Times, cites other anonymous officials as asserting that “the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.”

[...]

[T]he purpose of both anonymous leaks is to finger the Russian Government for these hacks, acting with the motive to defeat Hillary Clinton.

[...]

Recall that the top echelon of the CIA was firmly behind Clinton and vehemently against Trump, while at least some powerful factions within the FBI had the opposite position.

  Glen Greenwald

Boy, that couldn't cause any problem, could it?

Apparently, what's happening at the Post is also happening at the Times. We are awash in secret, unnamed sources leaking contradictory and inflammatory information unaccompanied by actual evidence. Come to think of it, that's not all that new.

That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory.

[...][I]t is critical to keep in mind some basic facts about what is known and, more importantly, what is not known:

Click here to go to the article for that breakdown.

Most important of all, the more serious the claim is – and accusing a nuclear-armed power of directly and deliberately interfering in the U.S. election in order to help the winning candidate is about as serious as a claim can get – the more important it is to demand evidence before believing it. Wars have started over far less serious claims than this one.

It's okay, Glenn. We like wars. They keep us in business.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.