Both Bretibart news and James O'Keefe believed Roy Moore's accusers, and yet they attacked them anyway in the name of politics.

Breitbart editor in chief explains that he believed Moore accuser Leigh Corfman but that they had to discredit her to protect Trump. https://t.co/ACeAGaFpd5

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) December 22, 2017

Courtesy of CNN Money: 

Though Marlow concedes that Breitbart made coverage decisions around protecting Trump, before the sexual misconduct allegations against Moore, Breitbart had been hammering the news media and Hollywood for supposedly protecting individuals like Harvey Weinstein. Asked about the view from critics that Breitbart had done exactly that with Moore, Marlow claimed the website has been "much more careful" than other outlets when covering ongoing allegations of sexual harassment and assault, saying the website looks for "certain factors," such as "a certain level of detail" in allegations. 

Marlow also stressed that he was personally uncomfortable with the behavior attributed by The Post to Moore, and noted that he did believe the accusations from Leigh Corfman, who said Moore assaulted her while she was 14 -- they were "not perfect," he said, but had "a lot of credibility." He also noted that he, and much of the Breitbart audience, initially supported Mo Brooks in the Republican primary, and only shifted support to Moore because of his opposition to Strange as the establishment candidate. But he said he saw political motivations behind The Post's reporting on Moore and wanted to home in on the "coverage of the coverage."

So the editor-in-chief of Breitbart actually believed at least one of Moore's accusers, but because the Washington Post was accurately reporting on the allegations, and it hurt the conservative candidate, he thought it was appropriate to attack their credibility?

Now does somebody justify that while arguing that they should be taken seriously as a news outlet?

And it should come as no surprise to any of you that James O'Keefe, who you may remember had a woman pretend to be one of Roy Moore's victims in order to discredit the Washington Post reporting,  had essentially the same attitude.

I spoke with James O'Keefe and he said he *actually believes* Roy Moore's accusers, even though he payed a woman to pretend to be a rape victim in a failed effort to discredit the allegations https://t.co/86E4WonAzJ

— Caleb Ecarma (@calebecarma) December 22, 2017

Courtesy of Mediaite:

After initially dodging questions regarding the credibility of the at least nine women who have accused Moore of sexual misconduct and predatory behavior, O’Keefe admitted to believing these claims during a sit-down interview with Mediaite. 

“Yes [I believe them], but it’s not my subject matter,” said O’Keefe. “That’s not what my investigation was about. It wasn’t about the victims, it was about the bias in the media.” 

Just let the irony that these two outlets justify these tactics because they are convinced that the MSM reports "fake news" sink in a little.

Do you feel that wave of nausea?

I inoculated myself against it by purchasing subscriptions to both the Washington Post and then New York Times.

We need to support factual reporting at every opportunity.

That is the only way we get our country back.