My apologies, dear readers, for having duped you all, although unintentionally, about my allegations concerning an apparently mythical Russian Bear. Hat tip to MsGrin, who provided me with proof of the error of my ways: proof of the error of my ways.

I realize that once, when trust is breached, it is hard to reclaim. But I will take my chances with this humane community. Expiating circumstances led to the revelation of my gross misrepresentation of True Facts (as opposed to WaPo and NYT "facts"). As you know, my source for telling me about the Third Russian Bear (Sloppy), told me she knew that this bear existed; that she had proof but that I was not allowed to see it. Instead of waiting for her the source's production of Real Facts (sometimes referred to as evidence), I propitiously decided to break the story in a timely fashion (just as is done in that great journalistic organization called the New York Timely).

Oh, the shame! My source was wrong but she swore it was true. Because my source is as trustworthy as Donna Brazile, I uncritically took her at her word (and, no, my source was not Donna Brazile, a woman who has reliably been unreliable, but very good at deflection).

Then, with aroused curiosity, another story appeared revealing the Real reasons that the Washington Post ran the Fake story, which in turn engendered my Fake story: the real reason that WaPo runs Fake stories.

In the tradition of the MSM, this retraction is now publicized. I would have hidden this on page 7--but alas this report is only a one-pager.

So, now having sated my conscience by admitting error, contemplation was in order.

Contemplation:

How does one know when a publication of dubious reputation, such as WaPo or NYT, know is generating Real News as opposed to Fake News?

Using the Socratic method of teaching, I pose this question for you to ponder: You are given a delicious chocolate chip cake and are told that only some of the chocolate chips are poison but the rest of the cake is alright; how do you eat the cake?