Adam Johnson — Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited ‘Fake News’ Blacklist?

Despite respected media critics taking the report to task, the Post’s spurious claims are being cemented as conventional wisdom, all the while the writer of the story and his editor refuse to answer direct criticism or reveal who this anonymous person or persons is. What are their motives? Who are their funders? Why is “useful idiot” being propped up by a major news outlet as a useful distinction? Why weren’t those on the blacklist asked to comment? Despite numerous inquiries by The Intercept, Rolling Stone and The Nation (11/28/16), all these questions remain unanswered.

One would think reports on “fake news” would themselves be held to the highest possible editorial standards, if not out of some instinctual desire to avoid high doses of irony and cognitive dissonance, at least to shield against charges of blatant hypocrisy. But increasingly, as the moral panic surrounding “fake news” reaches fever pitch, the standards of skepticism and sourcing employed by some of our most trusted news sources have inversely sunk to tabloid levels.

I would change, "the standards of skepticism and sourcing employed by some of our most trusted news sources have inversely sunk to tabloid levels," to, "the standards of skepticism and sourcing employed by some of our most trusted news sources have inversely sunk to crude propaganda levels."

FAIR – Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited ‘Fake News’ Blacklist?
Adam Johnson