P.J. Gladnick, November 14th, 2021

Remember when Christopher Steele's dossier supposedly incriminating President Donald Trump was treated as almost infallible holy writ by much of the mainstream media, especially CNN? Well, now that the primary source of that dossier has been indicted for lying to the FBI, where are the corrections to the record by those same media outlets? The Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple is now holding CNN to account and wonders when very specific members of that organization's staff will publicly retract their assertions about how the Steele dossier was corroborated as you can see in his Friday column, "Does CNN still stand by its reporting on the Steele dossier?"

A week ago, CNN covered the indictment of Igor Danchenko, the primary source for the discredited Trump-Russia dossier compiled in 2016 by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The document, which stems from special counsel John Durham’s probe into the Russia investigation, alleged that Danchenko lied to the FBI about interactions with sources as he gathered material for Steele.

However, Wemple noticed that there was one important thing absent in the discussions about that indictment:

There was one thing missing from that discussion: CNN’s long-standing claim that the Steele dossier had been at least partly corroborated. Last year, the Erik Wemple Blog chronicled numerous such comments from CNN hosts and reporters. A typical one came from host Don Lemon in November 2017: "Listen, so we haven’t reported here on CNN the salacious details of that dossier, but much of the dossier has been corroborated.”

Lemon wasn’t freelancing; his assessment originated from a February 2017 report by Perez and chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto, indicating that U.S. investigators had “corroborated some of the communications” in the dossier. The “intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials,” noted the story. But even that report couldn’t confirm “whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump” and noted that “officials did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations or meetings between Russian officials and US citizens, including associates of then-candidate Trump.”

Narrow though the reporting was, it served as a springboard for broader expressions of confidence in Steele’s work. “CNN, by the way, has corroborated some elements of that dossier," said anchor Wolf Blitzer in June 2017. “A lot has been been verified,” said CNN anchor John Vause in January 2018. If nothing else, the dossier demonstrates how undisciplined cable chatter can amplify a tightly worded print story.

Wemple asked CNN for comment but apparently, rather than correct the record, it seems they will continue to stand by its historical record of fake news on this topic.

In light of the recent developments, we asked CNN if it still stands by its “corroboration” reporting and, if so, to which specific parts of the dossier does that apply? We received no response. So, we’ll have to repeat the statement that the network provided for our 2020 story: “CNN stands by our reporting. Our approach to the dossier has been consistent since day one. CNN only reported details when they were corroborated, part of a government filing, or publicly discussed by officials or those mentioned.”

Consistent? Yes, to its credit, CNN covered the Danchenko indictment with a smattering of reports last Thursday. There was also a CNN.com piece. By contrast, the “corroboration” story of February 2017 received saturation coverage at a network programmed to hype all Trump-related items. That brand of asymmetry helps explain why many people mistrust CNN.

snip

https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad...-steele-dossier

This Just In!!!,

WaPo Issues Massive Correction About Steele Dossier, Says It Can Not Stand By The Accuracy Of Two Stories

BRIANNA LYMAN, November 12, 2021

The Washington Post reported Friday it deleted and corrected portions of two articles about the Steele Dossier after the paper decided it “could no longer stand by the accuracy of those elements of the story.”

The outlet “took the unusual step of correcting and removing large portions of two articles” that were published in both March of 2017 and February of 2019 “that had identified a Belarusan American businessman as a key source of the ‘Steele dossier’.”

The Post said they changed the headline and several sections identifying businessman Sergei Millian as the source of the Steele dossier were removed. An editor’s note attached to the 2017 article clarified that while The Post originally believed Millian was the source of the dossier, “that account has been contradicted by allegations contained in a federal indictment filed in November 2021 and undermined by further reporting by The Washington Post.”

The Post said the original story was published because two individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity but one of the sources “now says the new information ‘puts in grave doubt that Millian’ was a source for parts of the dossier.”

The 2019 article referenced the 2019 report and those references have since been removed, per the editor’s note.

Critics of the infamous Steele dossier had their suspicions vindicated when authorities arrested Russia-born Igor Danchenko and made his indictment, which detailed a series of lies and fabrications in constructing the document, public.

Danchenko, the primary researcher for the dossier, was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI and is responsible for compiling a trove of information about former President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia.

The FBI had previously concluded in 2017 that the “reliability of the dossier was completely destroyed,” after Danchenko made several contradictory statements about the dossier, according to Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Danchenko was identified as the primary source for the dossier in 2020.

In their explanation, The Post said following Danchenko’s arrest, “new reporting by the newspaper has ‘created doubts’ about Millian’s alleged involvement.”

“The Post’s decision to edit and re-post the Millian stories is highly unusual in the news industry,” The Post said, noting other outlets might add corrections to stories rather than entirely scrapping sections. “It’s rare for a publication to make wholesale changes after publication and to republish the edited story, especially more than four years afterward.”

https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/12/washi...ossier-stories/