WTF MSM!? is a newsletter that puts a dose of sunlight on the mainstream media and exposes how the media twist facts, selectively report, and outright lie to advance their left-wing agenda. You can sign up for the WTF MSM!? newsletter here.
In a Friday news dump, the State Department released the findings of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business. State found nearly 600 violations of sending classified information over the unsecured server. Thirty-eight people were identified as having done wrong. But you wouldn't know that if you consumed just MSM headlines.
Here's how a variety of news organizations headlined the story:
- NY Times: "State Dept. inquiry into Clinton Emails finds no deliberate mishandling of classified information"
- Washington Post: "State Department probe of Clinton emails finds no deliberate mishandling of classified information"
- Politico: "State Dept. finds no 'systemic' classified violation in Hillary Clinton private-server emails"
- Vox: "Clinton's email practices were risky but not malicious, State Department finds"
You get the idea. Clinton really didn't do anything wrong. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin apologized, " As a journalist, I regret my role in blowing this story out of proportion."
Note the mostly buried news that State Dept closed @HillaryClinton email probe with this verdict: no big deal. As a… https://t.co/LmI6zFBHgG— Jeffrey Toobin (@Jeffrey Toobin)1571662736.0
Out of proportion? Nearly 600 pieces of classified information were sent unsecured over the internet. But in Toobin's words, "no big deal."
This is how the government and media collude to run their narrative on a story, folks.
U.S. attorney's investigation 'not clear' …
On Saturday, NBC News reported that the Department of Justice's probe into the origin of the Russian collusion narrative has expanded. Its reporting is full of blatant bias calling into question the legitimacy of the probe.
This is how they do it. Here's the subhead of the article, "If U.S. Attorney John Durham is conducting a criminal investigation, it's not clear what allegations of wrongdoing are being examined."
"A review launched by Attorney General William Barr into the origins of the Russia investigation has expanded significantly amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or factual basis," is how the lede is worded.
John Durham is one of the Department of Justice's most successful U.S. attorneys at rooting out corruption. But the media wants you to think he's running a rogue investigation.
What type of investigation would you trust? One that had frequent leaks like the so-called Russian collusion investigation? Or one where the lead attorney keeps the media in the dark and goes about his job?
- MSNBC panel: Gabbard didn't 'deny being a Russian asset'
- Jake Tapper calls out top Republicans avoiding his show for 4th week in a row, 'shirking' their duties of accountability
- CBS drama 'God Friended Me' shares beautiful pro-life, pro-adoption message
- Facebook and Twitter create two sets of rules for free speech, one for politicians and one for us
- Quentin Tarantino won't recut 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' for China
- Matthew Boose: No, the Biden-Ukraine story is not a 'conspiracy theory'
- Associated Press secretly edits article defending Bidens from Trump Jr. criticism
- Maine columnist suggests Sen. Susan Collins deserves death threats
You can sign up to receive the WTF MSM!? newsletter here.