Media ignores newly declassified documents that undercut once-hyped Steele dossier
'The hype and the disregard are flip sides of the same biased media coin,' professor says
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}The infamous Steele dossier from the Russia probe barely generated any attention from the mainstream media when it was largely discredited last week -- but critics feel the same pundits who once hyped the story are showing bias by ignoring the latest development.
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday released newly declassified documents that they say “significantly undercut” the “reliability” of the dossier. MSNBC was arguably the most egregious when it came to pushing the Steele dossier, as Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid were two of its most high-profile cheerleaders -- but MSNBC did not cover the latest news from the time it broke on Friday through Wednesday afternoon, according to transcripts.
SENATE REPUBLICANS RELEASE FILES THEY SAY ‘UNDERCUT’ STEELE DOSSIER
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}CNN didn't cover the newly declassified documents either, according to a search of transcripts. ABC's "World News Tonight," "NBC Nightly News" and "CBS Evening News" didn't cover the documents from July 17-20.
Cornell Law School professor and media critic William A Jacobson feels the lack of coverage is simply an example of media bias.
"Media bias involves not only how news stories are covered, but which news stories are not covered. The Steele dossier was hyped uncritically because it fed into anti-Trump media narratives. Now that the narrative has fallen apart, news of that demise is barely covered, if at all. The hype and the disregard are flip sides of the same biased media coin,” Jacobson told Fox News.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}JONATHAN TURLEY CALLS OUT CNN’S ‘TELLING MOMENT OF DISSONANCE’
The first document, which the committee said spanned 57 pages, was a summary of a three-day interview with ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source. Steele authored the unverified anti-Trump dossier of claims about alleged ties between Donald Trump and Russia that served as the basis for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
The source, according to the committee, told the FBI in interviews in January and March of 2017 that the information contained in the anti-Trump dossier was unreliable. The document revealed that the dossier was “unsubstantiated and unreliable,” according to sources who reviewed it, and showed that the FBI was on notice about the dossier’s credibility problems, yet continued to seek further FISA warrant renewals for Page.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}The document also revealed that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not a current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian-based contract employee of Steele’s firm, according to the committee. Moreover, the document demonstrated that the information Steele’s primary sub-source provided him was “second and third-hand information and rumors at best.”
The document also revealed that Steele’s primary sub-source “disagreed with and was surprised by” how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the dossier. All of the newfound issues with the dossier are a far cry from the way the mainstream media promoted it throughout the Russia probe.
DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News that reporting on the documents would “require those media outlets to scrape a lot of egg off their collective faces,” so he isn’t surprised they have stayed away.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}“Most mainstream media outlets went all-in on the Russian collusion story and pushed the narrative for months and months. There was never any real, verified substance on which to base so many stories, but the overall thrust fit with preconceived notions, so many media outlets forged ahead, relying on bold accusations by the likes of Adam Schiff,” McCall said.
“The Steele dossier was a key foundation for the Russia probe generally and the subsequent reporting about it,” McCall added. “To report robustly now on the discredited dossier would require those media outlets to scrape a lot of egg off their collective faces, something they just won't do.”
Washington, D.C.-based communications strategist Drew Holden took to Twitter with powerful evidence of the way the infamous dossier was initially covered by the media.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}“Remember the Steele dossier? It went to hell today, barely making news,” Holden wrote to kick off a lengthy thread. “Now that its been thoroughly discredited, anyone care for a trip down memory lane about how folks on the left & in the media hyped it up because it made Trump look bad?”
Holden then showed multiple examples of CNN, MSNBC and other liberal outlets promoting the Steele dossier:
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Journalist Glenn Greenwald feels the damning Twitter thread would result in significant changes to the media industry if it weren’t for partisan politics and liberal agendas.
“This is a thread that would cause a huge media uproar, editors’ notes, accountability, retractions, self-examinations and professional shame — if the media had any integrity about its stated mission,” Greenwald wrote. “But since the politics here are all wrong, nothing will happen.”
Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.