>>>Yup. My mistake for misreading the name, though I am pretty sure that the meaning of my comment does not change if you replace one name with the other.
>
>I think it matters quite a lot if the person the story is about, calls it a complete fabrication when they get a chance to respond. For the record, the article described at length a purported feud between Homeland Security (Kelly) and the White House (Bannon) about Trump's immigration order.
>
>Not seeking response from the target/s of a sensational story is more fairly described as a "hit" rather than responsible/non-partisan journalism.

Like I said before, I had no knowledge of that story (is it this one?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?utm_term=.3f779331d518).
It is posted as opinion, but if it was as you say (and I have no reason to doubt it) then I'd tend to agree with you. However, the story was updated. So, even if they're so evil, there must be a trace of responsibility left that one can appeal to, if so inclined.

>Whether the target had the opportunity to respond also is highly relevant when news media is defending a charge of defamation, fwiw.
>
>>>IMO, the MSM moniker is dangerous. Some took it further and now just call it "the media", and then subject it to rules inferred from exceptions like the one you mention above.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secundum_quid
>
>As I noted, this WaPo story is merely the latest in a series of fake news reports. Why call it an "exception" when it's actually become an "expectation?" Sheesh, even the latest "destroy Donald Trump" secret playsheet (that has been leaked, lol) acknowledges the decay of journalism and loss of MSM credibility, preferring to move the planned hits to other venues where they can have more effect.

Sorry, I am not usually reading these stories. Perhaps, being in the US I have access to real time news coverage and I can afford to skip the editorials. If I have to comment, I can only say this:
The media is something that we have to call back to center, and abandoning it as distrustful is not helping. I'd say, ignore dubious opinion, stick to the facts and criticize every deviation from them. Let's stick to specifics that matter. However, to those seeking or fighting outrageous opinions in and from the media, I hope I am not bothering them with such platitudes.
*