We know factually that Clapper, Brennan, Johnson, McCabe, and Comey have never said they actually heard or saw Putin directly saying he wanted Trump to win.  Yet now, almost one year after the investigation got started, another anonymous source from the Obama administration comes forward to the Washington Post saying not only did this person know that Russia wanted Trump to win, but intelligence actually heard Putin say it.  Of course, all the networks and newspapers that didn't have contact with this source just repeat what they read.  Are we supposed to believe it more because it is a long article?  Fiction books are long also.

We also know factually that no reporter from the Post or anyone else could possibly have heard the tape and verified the story. 

We also know that Comey said previous stories at CNN and New York Times were false, and those stories were also widely reported, so why should we believe this anonymously sourced story?

Journalism students should be taught that stories should be verified before they are written or told, but today it seems that most reporters are just willing to repeat what they are told without verification.  It doesn't matter if it is a fake rape story, a fake "hands up, don't shoot" story, a climate change story, or a story trashing Trump.  The stories are spread through the public domain like manure as long as they fit an agenda.  The difference is that manure has a legitimate purpose – to help things grow – and the garbage that the media willingly spread today is meant to destroy and kill a presidency and an agenda. 

My guess is that a lot of this story is false since it sprang up almost a year late and did not come from a known source.  Reporters are pretty worthless today if they just repeat what they are told without investigating whether it is true.  It is no wonder the public has such a low rating of the media.