Taibbi on the Russian story

In this piece Taibbi thinks that "the case that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee now appears fairly solid." But as of inauguration day, according to former National Intelligence Director Clapper, there was no evidence of collusion between the Twamp campaign and Russia on their influence in the election. So the danger lies in the continual media hype about possible collusion, in that if not ever proven then it strengthens Twamp and further sullies the press's reputation for accurate and factual reporting, thereby reinforcing the 'fake news' meme. While the collusion story might yet be true, the cost of harping on it if not true could do irreparable damage to the press.

I say it's a reasonable trade-off that needs to be hounded until the very end. And in a way Taibbi's reluctance could translate into a timid press that doesn't do the sort of tough investigative journalism that Taibbi himself is famous for. He's debilitating his own modus operandi in a backhand way. Plus he doesn't apply this 'shoot first and get the facts later' criticism to his peers like Greenwald, who makes wildly paranoid accusations against the intelligence community with zero evidence. In which case, it can certainly call into question the very type of investigative journalism Taibbi does if not proven.