Today's the 1-week anniversary of @guardian's blockbuster Manafort/Assange story:
* No other media outlet has confirmed
* No photos or video evidence has emerged
* The @guardian refuses to answer questions
* Ex-diplomat in Embassy said story is "fake" thecanary.co/exclusive/2018…
* No other media outlet has confirmed
* No photos or video evidence has emerged
* The @guardian refuses to answer questions
* Ex-diplomat in Embassy said story is "fake" thecanary.co/exclusive/2018…
The @guardian's whole editorial process for @lukeharding1968's story - the sourcing, the slimy post-publication alterations with no explanation, the papering over of the "Manafort not registered in the log" hole - was hideous. But it's shocking that this paragraph was printed: 
One problem is many journalists, who are supposed to critique & hold powerful institutions to account, refuse to do that with media corporations even though they're *very* powerful because it can hurt one's future career. But I believe there's some big reporting coming on this.
The reality is that for people & groups sufficiently hated in Washington, it's deemed acceptable to dispense with all journalistic standards to publish negative stories about them. In other words, media outlets know there's no price for false stories about ostracized-in-DC people
People across the ideological spectrum - including those who hate WikiLeaks & are True Believers in Trump/Russia collusion - raised numerous doubts & questions about the @guardian story. Yet, the reporters & top editors have barely tweeted since then, opting to stonewall.
This highlights a bizarre & warped dynamic: journalistic outlets demand transparency and accountability from others when they're at the center of scandals, yet so often refuse to provide any for themselves. The @Guardian's posture is to hide, ignore questions & hope it goes away.
