I have long wondered why rock star columnists at the nation's most prestigious media outlets haven't outed the sources that led them, by the hand, down the primrose path to "Russiagate."

Here's a professional journalist asking this same question far more eloquently than me.

Considering the numerous instances in which the press published bogus information from "informed sources" during Russiagate, one has to ask why they continue to serve as vehicles for falsehoods. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a dozen times and you're not fooling me — we're acting in concert.  As RCI editor Tom Kuntz has argued, journalistic integrity demands, at the very least, that these organizations tell their audience who exactly had misled them. Confidentiality agreements should not protect liars.

Among the more prominent purveyors of Russiagate disinformation was the Washington Post's David Ignatius.  This link returns a treasure trove of not only Mr. Ignatius's shoddy Russiagate work, but more recent efforts to smear those who were actually seeking the truth.  Mr. Ignatius is still hiding behind anonymous sources, likely the same ones from his original Russiagate stories, as like him, they too are trying to cover their tracks and escape accountability.

David Ignatius is far from being the only media hack guilty of abusing his status as a "trusted journalist" to shill for Deep State media manipulators and Democrat party operatives (excuse the redundancy) and smearing, criminalizing, impeaching, and prosecuting their political opponents, but I don't think it's unfair to make him the poster boy for it.  Rachel Maddow, Honorable Mention...

As such, I'd like to pose a simple question directly to Mr. Ignatius.  As stated in the quoted block above, "journalistic integrity demands, at the very least, that these organizations tell their audience who exactly had misled them. Confidentiality agreements should not protect liars."

The internet is littered with your disinformation.  If you were a man of integrity or an ethical journalist, you would have outed the sources who fed you the bogus stories you were only too happy to attach your byline to long ago.  And if your employer, the Washington Post had an ounce of integrity or ethics they would have forced you to do so or terminated their relationship with you for protecting those obviously, unreliable sources.  You and the WaPo owe that to your readers who misguidedly trust you. 

But here we are and neither has happened.  Instead, Ignatius doubled down with the same kind of shoddy reporting using the same political activist government sources to go after all who would state what is obvious to everyone outside of our modern political class, those whose only currency is proximity to power: "But the emperor has no clothes."

Mr. Ignatius is no cub reporter being played for a dupe, as, could be argued, his WaPo predecessors Woodward and Bernstein were in the Watergate saga.  As alluded to above, he isn't being fooled by his Deep State handlers, he is a co-conspirator with them.

Here is another link that may be of some interest.  America's trust in media remains near the record low.  That's the sound of the universe speaking directly to you, Mr. Ignatius.  Your credibility is in tatters, and in all honesty, there is nothing you could do to restore it as far as I'm concerned, but I never believed you in the first place.

At least some in the corporate media, like the Columbia Journalism Review, are trying to climb that long hill back to credibility, journalistic integrity, and ultimately, trust.  But it isn't going to be an easy climb.  Perhaps Ignatius should jump on that train while he still can.

Image via Pxhere.