A blatant example of outright reliable media lying.
This stuff happens constantly.
The only thing reliable about the entire game is that useful idiots like Finding, The King and Quack will swallow the lies and defend them.
Let me give you an example of how dishonest the Washington Post is. The problem isn't that social media is depriving them of attention, as Bezos suggests. The problem is that they lie. Nothing will change unless they fire everyone and start over.
On December 9, 2016, when President Obama announced that he had commissioned an Intelligence Community Assessment to investigate the 2016 election, the Washington Post published an article reporting that the assessment had begun.
A few hours later, the Washington Post stealthily edited not only the headline but also the entire article, including the names of its authors. The URL remained unchanged.
Suddenly, the Washington Post claimed to know the outcome of the assessment, specifically asserting that Putin had orchestrated Trump's election. Recall that, according to the Washington Post's own reporting just a few hours earlier, the assessment had only just begun.
How did this happen? It is almost certain that corrupt intelligence officials were dissatisfied with the original article's straightforward reporting. They needed to preemptively sabotage Trump's presidency, so they ordered the Washington Post to revise the article, this time incorporating the intelligence community's preferred narrative. Despite being aware that the assessment had only just begun, the Washington Post was more than willing to comply. They promoted the intelligence community's narrative, which they knew, at the very least, to be premature and likely recognized to be false.
You can see the two different versions of the article below. Please note that these are not two separate articles. One is the original, while the other was inserted in place of the original a few hours later.