In the ongoing debate over the role of fake news both before and after the election, there has been a prevailing notion that there’s a clear red (or blue, if you prefer) line between the “fake news” websites and the “real news” websites. If you read the New York Times, for example, it’s easy to assume that all the “fake news” websites are created by hucksters in faraway places like Georgia (the country, not the state). Or maybe Macedonia. But always someplace vaguely un-American.

But what happens when mainstream, respected media outlets dip their toes into the waters of fake news?

Perhaps the best place to see this disturbing dynamic work itself out is in the current media coverage of Russia. When you view Russia through the filter of Russophobia, every article in the mainstream media becomes tainted with at least a slight whiff of bias.

Try this experiment for yourself: Which enrages you more — Donald Trump doing an interview with Russia’s “propaganda” TV network, or vote recount leader Jill Stein of the Green Party doing an interview with Russia’s “propaganda” TV network on the day before Thanksgiving — perhaps the most American of all holidays?

Which boils your blood more — Donald Trump’s shadowy dealings with Russian businessmen, or Hillary Clinton’s shadowy dealings with Russian businessmen as part of the Clinton Foundation? What makes you want to puke more — Russian hackers stealing Donald Trump’s tax forms or Russian hackers stealing Hillary Clinton’s emails?

Depending on your political bias, I could have probably predicted your answer to any of these questions. Tell me who you voted for, and I’ll predict what you think about Russia.

You can see immediately how this plays itself out in the mainstream media: any left-wing, liberal media will attempt to paint Trump as a stooge of Russia, while any right-wing, conservative media will attempt to paint Clinton as a stooge of Russia. (She did sign off on the ill-fated “reset,” right?)

Where it gets complicated is when this inherent media bias against Russia gets combined in mysterious ways within the fake news sausage factory. And, now, given the inherent Russophobia and bias in the Western media, we’re quickly getting to the situation where “fake news” featuring Russia is getting mixed with the inherent media bias about Russia to create new and troubling narratives where it’s almost impossible to distinguish between “real news” and “fake news.”

The reason is that there are different levels of “fake news.” There is the obviously fake news — stuff that’s made up out of lies and is obviously false. There’s the fake news that’s built around stories that we so much want to be true, but just can’t seem to be true. And then there’s the fake news that’s built on shoddy reporting and lazy editorial oversight.

What you get in this last case is something like this — a piece from the Washington Post on the role of Russian propaganda in the fake news industry. This is either highly disturbing or just f****** brilliant. It combines all of the mainstream media’s fears about Russia into one huge shareable, likeable story! It combines the “Russian hacker” story with the “Russia weaponizing information” story that was popular after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Call Hollywood — a shadowy leader in Moscow is the ultimate puppet master, able to control elections in the U.S. to within a few thousand votes! In case you missed it, Russia hacked the election after all — and they did it with fake news! (And they were smart enough to forget about Florida and focus on Wisconsin!)

So let’s dive into this Washington Post story and do a bit of fact-checking here. The idea of Russian propaganda sources in Moscow using fake news to manipulate a U.S. election sounds, quite frankly, like a fake news article to me. How is it any different than the “Hillary Clinton is dangerously sick” stories that purported that Hillary Clinton was on her deathbed or that she suffered from some disease? In both cases, they are based on a few known facts, and combined with innuendo and bias into a much bigger story. In some cases, they include pseudo-scientific reasoning. (Check out the “Hillary Clinton has Parkinson’s” or “Barron Trump has Autism” YouTube videos if you’re not convinced)

Let’s take a look at one of the purported sources for the Washington Post — it’s a completely shadowy, anonymous source known as PropOrNot that was created in August 2016 (just in time for the election!). The name of the source (“Propaganda or Not?”) is some weird web reference to Hot or Not (remember that?) — that should have been the first tip-off. Who knows, maybe this is the same group of Macedonian or Georgian hackers everyone is so worried about? This PropOrNot source then came up with a list of 200 websites that either helped coordinate a Russian propaganda blitz in the U.S. — or willingly abetted this effort as “useful idiots” of the Putin regime.

But, take a look at the types of sites that are listed as Russian propaganda sites — there are a few of the usual suspects — RT and Sputnik, yes — but also a list of random sites that range the gamut from left-wing to right-wing nutjobs. There’s the Drudge Report. There’s a financial blog everybody loves to hate — Zero Hedge. And there’s also a roundup of “gold bug” and “natural food and health enthusiast” websites. (Because, you know, if they’re talking about gold or organic food, they must be on Putin’s payroll!) Here’s the description of which sites are listed as propaganda:

Both source and repeater outlets target a wide range of audiences: US military veterans, Wall St. insiders and finance specialists, natural-food and health enthusiasts, goldbugs, African-Americans, white Americans, peace activists, religious people, 9/11-”truthers”, and politically-active Americans across and outside the political spectrum.

Using this very broad and expansive definition of anti-American propaganda, basically any website that had anything good to say about Trump or Russia or anything bad to say about Clinton can be suspected of “Russian propaganda.” Even “religious people” talking about going to Whole Foods after a Sunday sermon. Joseph McCarthy must be smiling somewhere. (Coincidentally, he started with a list of 200 names, just like PropOrNot)

You can see how obviously absurd all this is. And yet the Washington Post ran the article. And no doubt, it picked up its shares of likes and shares on social media for the same reason that all fake news articles pick up likes and shares — it’s something we want to believe is true, even if we can’t seem to find the best proof for it. In short, it’s a goldmine if you’re looking for a viral story. (Oops, I used the word “goldmine,” I hope PropOrNot doesn’t think this post is meant to appeal to #goldbugs)

The disturbing part in all this, of course, is that the Overton Window has been pushed way the f*** open. We’re so numb as a society to rumor-mongering, name-calling and issue-baiting, that we don’t really question anything but the most egregious examples of fake news on the Internet. We can say anything about the Russians, and people would believe it.

We all knew that if Trump lost the election, he was going to say it was “rigged.” We were ready for that. But what we weren’t ready for was Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton saying the election was “rigged.” The current narrative is that Russia “rigged” the election. Russia “hacked” Clinton. Then it “hacked” voting machines — but only in 3 states. (And not Florida!) The reason why the vote was so close in places like Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania was because THE RUSSIANS DID IT. Naturally. “We lost because of the Russians.” F***** commies.

Be very aware going forward — “fake news” is here to stay. It’s so powerful and effective, especially if it’s used as a propaganda tool by the left or right, not to mention by foreign governments. The truth is so malleable these days, and even the fact-checkers are no longer immune to this pernicious disease. And now, it appears, even the mainstream media is no longer immune to this corrosion of the truth. And now it’s time for me to retreat back into my comfortable, winter-insulated filter bubble, where I won’t have to listen to anything that contradicts my view of the world for the next few months.