Who's Worse—Julian Assange or the New York Times and Washington Post? | Roger L. Simon

Who's Worse—Julian Assange or the New York Times and Washington Post? | Roger L. Simon
"...Ironically, not a peep has been heard from the same people (or almost anybody for that matter) thus far about another recent egregious misuse of journalism that resulted not in arrests but in the awarding of its most famous prize, the Pulitzer. 
As Beth Baumann noted for Townhall:
Let's not forget that The Washington Post and The New York Times won the 2018 Pultizer Prize for their national reporting of President Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia. 
They were awarded $15,000 in a joint prize.
...They received the award "For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. 
...Deeply sourced?  
What a laugh.  
As we now know post-Mueller report, these "respected" journalists were simply trafficking in collusion lies whispered to them by biased informants.  
In other words, they were a bunch of gullible, over-zealous propagandists.  
For that they received their Pulitzers, as yet unreturned...
So, in other words, these mainstream media reporters have gotten off with nary a slap on the wrist (indeed received fame and fortune) for lying while Julian Assange may be headed for prison for telling the truth.  
There's a bit of irony in that, no?...
Read all.