Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.

### Instruction:
identify whether following news is true or not

Input:
REALLY FAKE NEWS: New York Times Finally Retracts Its ’17 Intelligence Agencies’ Claim on Russia Hacking US Elections;21st Century Wire says Back during the 2016 election, 21WIRE declared with confidence how the US government and mainstream media s  Russian Hacking  meme as hoax. It turns out   we were right. More than mere canards however, these type of media disinformation talking points are how the establishment manufactures public consent for corrupt and dysfunctional policies. Once these fabricated talking points are circulated through the media, they later make their way into the mouths of politicians who repeat them incessantly, and in the case of the Senate and Congressional committee hearings on Russia and cabinet confirmation hearing   use the fake canards to bully people who are testifying on Capitol Hill. The fake  17 intelligence  agency claim was used by nearly everyone who used the hearings to grandstand and act tough on Russia, including pro-war Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio, Adam Schiff and countless others. It was also employed by Hillary Clinton, along with ever single panel  expert  on CNN and MSNBC who used the lie to prop-up their contrived and politicized narratives about how Russia hacked and influenced the 2016 election.What s more crucial though, is to realize the absolute key role to New York Times plays in this process of giving fake news the venire of officialdom at a government and mainstream level. They are a pivotal distribution point in the western propaganda dissemination machine   as nearly every US broadcast network across 4 time zones will routinely reference the New York Times as their primary source. 21WIRE has chronicled their exploits in helping to promote a series of illegal US-waged wars around the world.Consortium News Exclusive: A founding Russia-gate myth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked into and distributed Democratic emails, a falsehood that The New York Times has belatedly retracted, reports Robert Parry Robert Parry  Consortium NewsThe New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards   that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails   is false.On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.In the Times  White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie Haberman mocked Trump for  still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected. However, on Thursday, the Times   while leaving most of Haberman s ridicule of Trump in place   noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence  assessment was made by four intelligence agencies   the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community. The Times  grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a  special intelligence community assessment  (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI,  a coordinated product from three agencies   CIA, NSA, and the FBI   not all 17 components of the intelligence community,  the former DNI said.Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were  hand-picked  from the CIA, FBI and NSA.Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you  hand-pick  the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided reportthat they did.Politicized IntelligenceIn the history of U.S. intelligence, we have seen how this selective approach has worked, such as the phony determination of the Reagan administration pinning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and other acts of terror on the Soviet Union.CIA Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates shepherded the desired findings through the process by putting the assessment under the control of pliable analysts and sidelining those who objected to this politicization of intelligence.The point of enlisting the broader intelligence community   and incorporating dissents into a final report   is to guard against such  stove-piping  of intelligence that delivers the politically desired result but ultimately distorts reality.Another painful example of politicized intelligence was President George W. Bush s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq s WMD that removed State Department and other dissents from the declassified version that was given to the public.Since Clapper s and Brennan s testimony in May, the Times and other mainstream news outlets have avoided a direct contradiction of their earlier acceptance of the 17-intelligence-agencies canard by simply referring to a judgment by  the intelligence community. That finessing of their earlier errors has allowed Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats to continue referencing this fictional consensus without challenge, at least in the mainstream media.For instance, on May 31 at a technology conference in California, Clinton referred to the Jan. 6 report, asserting that  Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election. The failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about the 17 agencies may have contributed to Haberman s mistake on June 25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the Important People in Washington just knew to be true.But the Times  belated correction also underscores the growing sense that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.That, in turn, plays into Trump s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a  witch hunt  led by the  fake news  media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).READ MORE RUSSIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire RUSSIA FilesSUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV;June 30, 2017

### Response:
Fake news

### End