The so-called “mainstream” media is furious they failed to elect Hillary Clinton as President.

Instead of dealing with their own ideological biases that caused an ever decreasing number of Americans to trust their reporting, these “journalists” have decided “fake news” is to blame for Clinton’s loss.

And the Washington Post ran an article promoting a list of websites smeared as “fake” in an effort to censor their sites.

Liberal journalists have honed in on the right-of-center media to try and close off the sources of opposition to their biased reporting.

Critics argue the point of labeling news as “fake” is to convince readers their news sources are illegitimate and to turn back to the legacy media that overwhelmingly leans left.

If Americans are only presented news through a liberal frame, the left’s agenda stands a better chance come election time.

To that end, the Post promoted a list put together by a mysterious group called “ProporNot” that smeared the Drudge Report, the Ron Paul Institute, and WikiLeaks – as well as left-wing sites that were critical of Hillary Clinton, such as Naked Capitalism, Truthdig, and Truthout – as so-called “fake news”.

The point of the Post’s article was Russia supposedly flooded American social media with “fake” news from these sites and others, which was the reason Hillary Clinton lost.

But a report from the Intercept points out that all the sites labeled as “fake” have one thing in common – they reject the establishment consensus in Washington.

The Intercept reports:

The group eschews alternative media outlets like these and instead recommends that readers rely solely on establishment-friendly publications like NPR, the BBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Buzzfeed and VICE. That is because a big part of the group’s definition for “Russian propaganda outlet” is criticizing U.S. foreign policy.

The Intercept also notes the group “ProporNot” does not disclose any information on how they arrived at the conclusion that pieces of “Russian propaganda” were shared 213 million times on social media.

Nor does the group provide any information on who works there, its leadership team, nor their credential “experts”.

The Intercept also reports:

“In casting the group behind this website as “experts,” the Post described PropOrNot simply as “a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.” Not one individual at the organization is named. The executive director is quoted, but only on the condition of anonymity, which the Post said it was providing the group “to avoid being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers.”

The credentials of this supposed group of experts are impossible to verify, as none is provided either by the Post or by the group itself. The Intercept contacted PropOrNot and asked numerous questions about about its team, but received only this reply: “We’re getting a lot of requests for comment and can get back to you today =) [smiley face emoticon].” The group added: “We’re over 30 people, organized into teams, and we cannot confirm or deny anyone’s involvement.”

Thus far, they have provided no additional information beyond that. As Fortune’s Matthew Ingram wrote in criticizing the Post article, PropOrNot’s Twitter account “has only existed since August of this year. And an article announcing the launch of the group on its website is dated last month.” WHOIS information for the domain name is not available, as the website uses private registration.

More troubling still, PropOrNot listed numerous organizations on its website as “allied” with it, yet many of these claimed “allies” told The Intercept, and complained on social media, they have nothing to do with the group and had never even heard of it before the Post published its story.”

Readers should look skeptically on the Post’s – and other so-called “mainstream” media – rush to label alternative news sources as “fake”.

The leading producers of fake news during the 2016 election were the liberal media.

Outlets such the Post, the New York Times, and CNN created fake news stories about how Donald Trump couldn’t win the election and that Hillary Clinton was a cinch for victory.

When the alternate reality they created during the campaign was revealed to be a hoax on Election Day, these outlets trained their sights on media outlets that told the truth to their readers, in effort to discredit them.

But smear tactics like this are why fewer and fewer Americans trust the so-called “mainstream” media.