Washington Post Lies, Calling Its Story "Exclusive" & "Breaking News" Despite Knowing Another Journalist Published The Same Information (And Much More) In June 2021

Breaking WaPo: On Jan. 6, around the time the Trump mob swarmed the Capitol, a top Trump appointee at the State Dept. met with two election denial activists.https://t.co/zIBmHIpsnT

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 17, 2022

The Washington Post falsely reported the above information today as Exclusive and Breaking News!

However, the Post is well aware that this information was published online -- and in far greater detail -- way back on June 13, 2021 by Seth Abramson, a former attorney and a best-selling author, at Proof. Abramson's June 2021 article was non-paywalled when it was published and numerous Post reporters subscribe to Proof.

(EXCERPT) I would like acknowledgment from the Washington Post for breaking this story a full year before it falsely called it a Washington Post exclusive. pic.twitter.com/XnkRvN5WvS

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 17, 2022

Abramson tweeted today:

I'm not the only person experiencing this. Independent journalists have gotten to basically every single January 6 story before major-media journalists. Then, when award season came around, major media awarded itself a series of crowns and tiaras for its often redundant J6 work.

If I had not been interviewed by the Post multiple times; if I did not know exactly which Post journalists follow the PROOF project; if I did not face grief the Post never has faced over being a hard-working journalist who charges subscription fees; this would be less upsetting.

All @WashingtonPost has to do to make this right is put my name in its story and link to the non-paywalled article at PROOF that reported this news on June 13, 2021, a full year before the Post called the same information a Washington Post exclusive. That is all I am asking for.

One reason the House January 6 Committee reached out to me is that I've consistently published breaking news at PROOF that predated its appearance in major media by 6 to 9 months—or even, as here, a year. Why? Because I find and watch obscure online content major media does not.

(PS) There are 200+ articles at PROOF—nearly all "evergreen" articles as relevant today as when they were published. Approximately 50 of them contain information that is *still* unreported by major media. The others became "breaking news" months after their publication at PROOF.

(PS3) Nor is this good for the Post. This feed ranks #3,366 worldwide for engagement (out of 400 million feeds)—and PROOF is the fourth single-author Substack to reach 10,000 paid subscribers—so a *lot* of folks are seeing this Post "exclusive" knowing they saw it at PROOF first.

(PS4) To try to make it up to you all for all this "me me me" content—I know it's unseemly and renders this thread self-indulgent—I'm now unlocking the *second* PROOF report I wrote on Joe Oltmann, which I published 96 hours after the June 13, 2021 report.

I don't blame Abramson for being pissed off. I have first-hand experience of what it's like to report something new and then see someone come along later, report the exact same thing without attribution, and take all the credit. It's an extremely shitty feeling that never really disappears.

A honest newspaper with professional ethics would give proper credit to the reporter who broke the story 11 months ago. Of course, that would raise the question: Why has the Post ignored this important news for almost an entire year?

If you are interested in the January 6 plot, and you want to know now what everyone will learn 10-14 months from now, subscribe to Proof. It's usually $5/month (which is a hell of a bargain), but there appears to be a special deal during May reducing the monthly cost to $3.54. Seth's coverage of the January 6 Committee's public hearings in June will be required reading.

(Note: This is not a paid advertisement. I'm simply a very satisfied customer with a ton of respect for Abramson's work.)