The so-called “Russian intervention” has become for the United States a kind of scary fairy tale that Washington frightens the Americans when the “democracy” demands. Local mass media also do not miss opportunities in this vein, which sometimes costs them a share of reputation.
The Intercept portal decided to remind about a dozen of the most acclaimed and most disgraceful punctures of American publications devoted to “Russian intervention”.
The 10th place was taken by an article from Fortune magazine, published on January 12, 2017. It was dedicated to how “Russian hackers from the RT channel” allegedly captured the American broadcasting network C-SPAN. In fact, the ten-minute cessation of broadcasting by C-SPAN1, on which Fortune wanted to “hack”, turned into a shame for a publication inspired by ironic comments from Americans on the web, because all these 10 minutes people could watch RT. In the publication, of course, they admitted their mistake, and the scandalous title was hastily changed, but the shame was no longer to be laundered.
An article by The Washington Post on how Russian hackers hacked into an electricity grid to freeze Vermont has settled at number 9. The article was published on December 30, 2016. And, given the authority of the publication, she could not but have a reaction from the American society. People were indignant, and politicians didn’t even disdain frank threats.
But all this came out side by side. The experience of publication, of course, allowed them to level the scandal. So, clarifying materials began to appear in The Washington Post. And the latter was devoted to the fact that the malware had nothing to do with either Russia or the power grid.
8th place, suddenly, again fell to The Washington Post. In the fall of 2016, the publication published a sensational material about “the introduction of the Russian Federation into American politics through social networks.” The authors of the relevant study was a certain group of experts “PropOrNot”, to which the authors referred with full confidence. And in vain.
Under the defeat of the publication got about two hundred sites of the most different directions. Many threatened to sue. But after two weeks there was a long editorial clarification, by which The Washington Post disclaimed responsibility, putting all the blame for the slander on all the same researchers unknown to anyone.
CNN and a report dated January 22, 2017, costing careers to three correspondents, ranks 7th in the ranking. The material was devoted to the communication of Trump’s adviser Anthony Scaramucci with the Russian Direct Investment Fund, however, it all turned out to be a lie.
The statement by Ken Dilanian, a correspondent known for his connections with the CIA, that Russia was allegedly guilty of several “attacks” on American diplomats in Cuba, made it possible to divide 6th place in NBC News and MSNBC. Paphos stories were betrayed by Dilagnan’s stories about the “microwave weapons”, which even the US intelligence services were unable to track.
The rout began after the verdict of the doctors about psychosomatic disorders, but not about the weapon. And some “strange sounds” that were heard by diplomats issued a local variety of crickets.
At the 5th place is an article from the Slate publication, which, on October 31, 2016, “walked” through The Trump Organization, accusing it of having a server that allowed the 45th President of the United States to communicate with Moscow. Even Hillary Clinton did not miss the opportunity to publish on this article, however, she and “Slate” already the next day disappointed “The Washington Post”, “Fortune” and, in fact, “The Intercept”, dispelling the myth.
The article on the “meetings” of the former head of the election headquarters of Trump Paul Manafort with WikiLeaks creator Julian Assange in London allowed the British newspaper The Guardian to take 4th place in the rating. On the Internet, the article became very popular, which led to its defeat. In the end, I had to admit that such meetings would not have gone unnoticed. The material appeared on January 27 last year, and during this time no one has confirmed the information.
And CNN reappeared in the rankings, revealing the top three of the most disgraceful fakes on July 27 last year, dedicated to the ex-president’s lawyer Michael Cohen and his “confessions” that Trump had known about the Trump Tower construction meeting. The problems began with the fact that CNN caught in outright lies. The channel claimed that lawyer Cohen Lanny Davis declined to comment on the situation, although it was he who became the source of information for this material. Finally, Davis denied all the accusations of CNN, which, however, did not force the TV channel to remove the material.
The BuzzFeed edition, known for its loud headlines, turned out to be on the 2nd line of the ranking after publishing that Special Prosecutor Muller has evidence of Trump’s words, which demanded that Cohen lie to Congress regarding the construction of the Trump Tower. Although even Muller himself did not confirm such statements by the media.
Finally, CNN and MSNBC, which on December 9, 2017 launched the “most humiliating performance” in the history of the country’s media, were infamously in the first place.
“Trump Junior had access to the electronic correspondence of the National Committee of Democrats, published later on WikiLeaks,” said CNN in a loud voice, where they still wonder how all the “informed sources” managed to distort the realities, because, as it turned out later, Trump to the younger one, they accidentally sent information and, of course, already published in the archives of WikiLeaks.