 So last week on the program we talked about the Washington Post's bogus fact check of Bernie Sanders where a long story short They claimed that it was wrong for him to say 500,000 medical bankruptcies occur each year and in this fact check They even reached out to the author of the study that Bernie Sanders cited and asked if Bernie interpreted his study correctly He then said yes Yet they still claimed that Bernie Sanders was wrong and the author himself even accused them of Misrepresenting his study. So if you want to see the full story, I will link you to the video I did on that down below But basically the reason why I'm talking about this again is because we have an update the Washington Post after a week Has finally issued a correction So they're going to correct the record with regard to one component of this story and then They're gonna double down as journalist Andrew Perez points out the Washington Post updated It's very wrong fact check to include comment from the researchers They smeared the researchers noted the post falsely implied their editorial wasn't peer reviewed But the post says we stand by our three Pinocchio rating It took the post five days to update its piece and the update is incredibly insufficient The post fact checking team the fact checking team is trying to he said she said their way past their own glaring factual errors a Total disgrace keep in mind They are trying to get around correcting mistakes in a piece that baffingly accused Sanders of omissions and twists. So I mean, what else do you say about this? This is an embarrassment and really out of all of the yellow journalism that you see from these corporate owned news outlets The one area where we should theoretically trust them where they should be the most objective is when it comes to fact checking Because this is a service that they should be providing people as a news agency I mean, I Disagree with a lot of the opinion pieces published by the Washington Post When it comes to progressive politics and partisan politics But the one area would be really nice if they were objective was when it comes to fact checking But the fact that they've essentially weaponized fact checking as a means of criticizing Bernie Sanders and attacking Bernie Sanders It really is a disgrace This isn't just bad for a journalism and it doesn't just drive down trust of Media, but I mean it's just it makes everyone worse off if they're choosing to do this and Jeet here of the nation did a great job breaking down Why this is a problem in an article titled democracy dies from bad fact checking The Washington Post is feeding into Trump's agenda by turning fact checking into an ideological weapon And he writes about how they did this not too long ago as well So the Washington Post has fallen into the habit of accusing Bernie Sanders of misleading the public Even in cases where the evidence is strongly on the side of the Vermont senator back in July post fact checker Glenn Kessler Objected to a statement Sanders made in the first debates in the Democratic presidential primaries Quote three people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America Kessler acknowledged that this snappy talking point is based on numbers that add up But then he added that it's also a question of comparing apples to oranges according to Kessler It makes no sense to compare rich apples like Jeff Bezos who owns real capital With millions of poverty shriken oranges who possess only debt and Kessler's words quote people in the bottom half have Essentially no wealth as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have now here then goes on to Describe the latest kerfuffle when it comes to the Washington Post and their bogus fact check and he explains Why this really is an issue? He's talking about the story that I've been talking about with regard to Bernie Sanders claim that 500,000 medical bankruptcies occur per year He adds what these polemics disguised as rebuttals the post is discrediting the entire journalistic genre of fact checking This is dangerous in a way that goes beyond any damage It does to Sanders as a presidential candidate in truth Sanders has little to worry about the fact checks are so Ludicrous that they are unlikely to sway any voters What they are more likely to do is feed into a pervasive distrust of the mainstream media Which is bad for democracy the mainstream media has already lost the MAGA heads who agree with Trump's crusade against fake news Now it might also lose the millions of Americans who recognize that Sanders presentation of economics is closer to the mark than the Post's bizarre exercises and politically motivated nitpicking so what he is describing here is How the Washington Post is willing to tank their own credibility in order to weaponize fact checking Against Bernie Sanders because they have a political agenda and that is a damn shame Because he's right here here is absolutely correct. We may not like corporate media We may not like mainstream media, but really there's no other substantial alternative you can talk about The benefits of independent media, but most Americans don't get their news from indie news outlets Most Americans get their news from a capitalist corporate-owned source So even if they are flawed, you know democracy cannot survive Unless there is that check from the media the media is oftentimes referred to as the unofficial fourth branch of government Because you know in the same way that the supreme court is a check on the president and congress and congress is a check on The president I mean we need the media to be a check on government as well But if they are choosing to sink their credibility so they can affect elections in a way that benefits them personally That's a problem That calls fact checking from the washington post into question where i can't just say well, you know what The washington post gave donald trump or bernie sanders x amount of panocchios here So i'll take their word You actually have to dive into the details really read it more thoroughly and most people just don't do that See what the washington post is banking on here is you know people will see the headline They'll see that bernie sanders was wrong and they won't actually read the details Where even the washington post kind of inadvertently disproves their own fact check and disproves the notion that bernie is incorrect But since most people read past the headlines They're kind of rolling the dice and expecting people to not really check them But this story in particular has actually got a lot of traction It could hurt them, but they don't care they doubled down They have decided that attacking bernie sanders is a greater prioritization than doing actual good journalism and producing fact checks That are objective and not riddled with just these types of flaws Where they reach out to the author of the study and ask hey is bernie citing your study correctly? And then after that author says yes, they still say well bernie's wrong I mean it's comical. It's absolutely Comical and if you really want to get nitpicky with bernie sanders you can say you know what even though the author says this I think that bernie sanders could be more correct and worded in uh in this way But instead they're just saying no false three pinocchios It's bad. Um, it's absolutely bad and you know, it's comical that They have the nerve to Call bernie sanders conspiratorial when he calls out the bias of the washington post because they're owned by jeff bezos It's almost like you're kind of showing your cards and you're proving bernie sanders, right? You're proving that you do have an agenda And here speaks to that in this article for the nation which you should absolutely check out And he talks about the institutional bias within the washington post that is subtle because you know This is comprised of journalists who are elites who are well off or in that dc bubble But you know, they can do what they want But it's hurting their credibility and it's hurting aggregate journalism It's hurting this idea that fact checks are committed to objectivity You know, you'd expect this from fox news or the daily caller Um, but you'd expect at least a little bit better from the washington post even if they are owned by jeff bezos But I guess that you know, um in a hyper capitalistic late stage capitalism environment That's too much to ask for and expect