Thanks for posting this. We have remember, that even now the press does not cover Trump with the intensity that is required. Trump called CNN fake news on foreign soil and no reporter at that press conference objected to Trump’s refusal to answer a question from CNN.

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/07/13/claws-out-cnn-exec-blasts-john-roberts-over-statement-says-show-some-class-in-the-moment/

I am puzzled, I don't see what good this will do unless it also makes the "blogosphere" and news junkies in general stop loving themselves some whistleblowing docudumps which became so popular that Julian Assange saw big opportunity there.

Remembering how Josh Marshall used to solicit volunteers from the audience to scour through new ones...

There is a very clear difference between publishing faked news, not vetting the sources, and items from real hacked docudumps.

Are bloggers gonna "just say no" to the next Panama Papers?

The very nature of whistleblowing these days depends on leaked documents whether gotten by hacking or other means.

If mainstream reporters stop looking at docudumps, all that is going to happen is that the blogosphere will complain they are not doing their job. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I doubt it's going to work using the rule "oh I'm not going to look at that stuff, because that stuff was hacked from the good guys."

The real lesson going forward I think is that we ALL can no longer trust docudumps to be fully authentic. Every little bit has to be verified the good old traditonal way.

There is the old maxim "don't say anything you wouldn't want to see on the front page of the New York Times".

I guess what I really want to say, PP, is that after hanging around blogosphere news junkies since 2003, bashing "the MSM" has now grown super tiresome, and what's more there's this guy amping that way way up, he uses that, he's always used that, since his days feeding P.R. about himself to NYPost's Page Six:

I think it's time we let go of Iraq and Vietnam, where there's this new answer to "which side are you on, brother, which side are you on?"

All good and fine to pick on sloppiness, but let's stop making MSM media bashing a left "thing". The heroic people's reporting movement has gone bad, real bad, on Facebook and Twitter. Somebody's got to vet stuff and the vetters are not always going to be perfect. But getting news from the ground up, that's not worked out, not at all. Let's push journalism as a profession, yes, criticize those that do it unprofessionally, but not expect miracles. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Yeah, if you're working as a reporter for USA Today, your creds are probably not sterling, we all know that, even a lot of non-news-junkies know that USA Today is mostly a big nothingburger. So thank god they use the A.P. and Reuters more than their own probably poorly paid reporters. I think everyone should sign up for a least one subscription like NYTimes and WaPo, or donate to The Guardian. Subscriptions are the only way they are able to pay the better reporters, clicks don't cover the cost. Best thing one can do to fight Trump.

The reality of our current situation: what does someone like Rachel Maddow mostly do? She talks nearly every night about this or that breaking story from NYT, WaPo, or The Guardian.

Rmrd using a Raw Story link reminded me of how Raw Story and Buzz Feed, while having gotten some professional journalist religion in the last few years were progenitors of the problem. Their original raison d'etre was to furnish unvetted "raw" unfiltered data, or as in the latter "buzz", and let the readers decide. But to do it unashamedly with a general political motive.in it. I.E., let's all listen to Joe and Jill Iraqi Jihadi working for Motaqa, he's telling the truth that our government is lying about.

My point: how is that model working out now?