Russian propaganda effort helped spread "fake news"

[Storebought]

It would have been nice if this had been reported before the election (detailed evidence, and not just innuendo), but here it is anyway:

From the Washington Post

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ApatheticAustrian]

if something similar happens in russia the country is in a war-like-state.

if something like that happens in the US, no one cares.

[Storebought]

It seems that real news generates no interest compared to click-bait and conspiracy theory, even on this very site. But I will post another article from the Washington Post about the more than casual link between US conspiracy theories and Soviet disinformation before I let this thread die. The article directly mentions HIV denialism as being borne directly from anti-American propaganda, but others like the Apollo moon landing hoax and the nuclear-free movement of the 1970s were clearly engineered from the Kremlin as well.

[EnglishPete]

It would have been nice if this had been reported before the election (detailed evidence, and not just innuendo), but here it is anyway:

From the Washington Post

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From Glenn Greenwald (no Trump supporter he)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Full article: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

Of course you didn't need Glenn Greenwald to tell you all that. A few moments examination of the story would have lead to to the same conclusion. But because it confirmed your prejudices and because it came from a liberal news outlet whose ideological direction matches your own you eagerly posted the story without checing its veracity. Fake news indeed.

[The_Doctor]

Yet it is not in dispute that major government intelligence and national security agencies believe that Russia willfully information to Wikileaks to advance the election of Donald Trump and to defeat Hillary Clinton. Their intervention as a foreign policy to influence our elections is quite painfully clear.

[EnglishPete]

Yet it is not in dispute that major government intelligence and national security agencies believe that Russia willfully information to Wikileaks to advance the election of Donald Trump and to defeat Hillary Clinton. Their intervention as a foreign policy to influence our elections is quite painfully clear.

Its not under dispute except that its totally under dispute

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The very next sentence is also of interest:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The word “confirmed” does not appear anywhere in this statement.

So when HRC stated the “17 intelligence agencies have confirmed” I was anticipating what that would turn up in the “fact checking” apparatus, which allegedly exists to objectively test the assertions of both candidates in real time.

The “fact checking” around this statement would be comical if not infuriatingly Orwellian: ABC called it “a true fact”[/quote]
Full article and links here : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/fact-17-intelligence-agencies-confirmed-russia-behind-email-hacks-isn%E2%80%99t-actually%E2%80%A6a-f

So this looks an example of a fake news story pushed by the head of a country's intelligence to help influence an election. Like the WaPo story this '17 agencies' story looks like a 'fake news' story that purports to be about fake news but is really an example of fake news.

[Cashew]

So this looks an example of a fake news story pushed by the head of a country's intelligence to help influence an election. Like the WaPo story this '17 agencies' story looks like a 'fake news' story that purports to be about fake news but is really an example of fake news.

We need to shut down the Washington Post until we can figure out whats going on!

[Badger]

"it's under dispute because when the entirity of our miliary and civilian intelligence sources said it was clear cut, The Donald said he didn't believe it because reasons." )

F&^k off Pete Piotr

[The_Doctor]

"it's under dispute because when the entirity of our miliary and civilian intelligence sources said it was clear cut, The Donald said he didn't believe it because reasons." )

F&^k off Pete Piotr

Indeed. I'll try to write a substantive answer when I can but the evidence is significant.

[JJC]

This might be the single most ironic moment in 'journalist' history.

Fake news about there being 'fake news' spread by political ideologues masquerading as journalists to fit their confirmation bias.

And the MSM wonders why they aren't taken seriously anymore? This whole BS 'story' is literally made up and being pushed by the MSM to advance their political agendas.

I know it's not even worth mentioning anymore, but journalism in this country is DEAD.

[ApatheticAustrian]

"the media" (aka accountable media companies filled with people whose name you know and who try to get things right OR correct themselves if they get something wrong, aren't taken "seriously" by people who prefer information from sources without accountability and without names and without corrections.

[EnglishPete]

"it's under dispute because when the entirity of our miliary and civilian intelligence sources said it was clear cut, The Donald said he didn't believe it because reasons." )

F&^k off Pete Piotr

Indeed. I'll try to write a substantive answer when I can but the evidence is significant.

Well go on then. What is this 'substantive' evidence?

[EnglishPete]

"it's under dispute because when the entirity of our miliary and civilian intelligence sources said it was clear cut, The Donald said he didn't believe it because reasons." )

F&^k off Pete Piotr

Me: Here's some interesting analysis that indicates that the WaPo article has many of the characteristics of propagandistic fake news that it accuses others of.

You: Muh Trump Muh Russia Muh Putin!

[ApatheticAustrian]

if everybody lies, nobody lies. ^^ the major goal of nowaday russia media policy

[EnglishPete]

if everybody lies, nobody lies. ^^ the major goal of nowaday russia media policy

Not at all. Some news outlets are clearly more reliable and trustworthy than others. Wikileaks  for example is generally seen as more reliable than the Washington Post.

[EnglishPete]

If you want another example of some media outlets being more reliable and trustworthy than others here's an example of Breitbart showing itself to be more reliable than CNN in its reporting of a story about CNN. CNN even got its coverage of itself wrong

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/25/fake-news-cnn-accidentally-falsely-admits-it-aired-pornography-for-30-minutes-on-thanksgiving/

[The_Doctor]

Breitbart is reliable? Really? To who? White anti-semitic nationalists?

I just needed to pop in to say that but the longer reply is coming.

[ApatheticAustrian]

if everybody lies, nobody lies. ^^ the major goal of nowaday russia media policy

Not at all. Some news outlets are clearly more reliable and trustworthy than others. Wikileaks  for example is generally seen as more reliable than the Washington Post.

wikileaks is not news.

wikileaks is a possible source for news.

[EnglishPete]

Breitbart is reliable? Really? To who? White anti-semitic nationalists?

I just needed to pop in to say that but the longer reply is coming.

You're whole argument is based on a particularly dodgy Washington Post article. Are you seriously suggesting that WaPo is a more trustworthy and reliable news organisation than Breitbart? LOL

[EnglishPete]

if everybody lies, nobody lies. ^^ the major goal of nowaday russia media policy

Not at all. Some news outlets are clearly more reliable and trustworthy than others. Wikileaks  for example is generally seen as more reliable than the Washington Post.

wikileaks is not news.

wikileaks is a possible source for news.

Well you can say its a 'possible source of news not news itself' (i.e. its a news organisation)  but then you could say exactly the same thing about WaPo, the difference being that Wikileaks is generally seen as a much more reliable 'source of news' (i.e. news organisation).

Now you might assert that its easier for Wikileaks to be more accurate than WaPo because WL just publishes the raw unedited source material rather than adding its own analysis (I suspect that was the distinction you were trying to draw). However other news sources like Breitbart also do their own analysis but they don't seem to have the tendency of publishing fake news stories that the Washington Post does.

[Wells]

Breitbart is reliable? Really? To who? White anti-semitic nationalists?

I just needed to pop in to say that but the longer reply is coming.

You're whole argument is based on a particularly dodgy Washington Post article. Are you seriously suggesting that WaPo is a more trustworthy and reliable news organisation than Breitbart? LOL

Yes, the Washington Post is a better source than Breitbart. That is unquestionable, and since you have the audacity to laugh at that then it just shows that you aren't trustworthy or reliable.

Have a nice day, I hope you manage to find the time to read this article or maybe even this one.

[EnglishPete]

Breitbart is reliable? Really? To who? White anti-semitic nationalists?

I just needed to pop in to say that but the longer reply is coming.

You're whole argument is based on a particularly dodgy Washington Post article. Are you seriously suggesting that WaPo is a more trustworthy and reliable news organisation than Breitbart? LOL

Have a nice day, I hope you manage to find the time to read this article or maybe even this one.

A couple of stories there. One saying that Breitbart made a journalistic error which it then corrected. The second saying that the NAACP complained about a report in Breitbart. Now the NAACP is a left wing organisation whose leadership is aligned with the Democratic Party. The fact that they complained about a news story in a right wing news outlet is hardly unexpected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL. OK I'll give you one other example of where Breitbart made an error and compare it with WaPo's coverage of the same story.

After the Florida Republican primary this year then Breitbart journalist Michelle Fields attended a Trump press conference. After the press conference she approached Trump as he was leaving, proceeded to cross between him and the secret service and made physical contact with him whilst asking him a question. Now doing this to someone who is under Secret service protection is against all security protocols and is in fact a felony. Trump had, and has, received a huge number of death threats (presumably from disgruntled and possibly violent leftists). She was asked to move away, she failed to do so, Trump's then campaign manager, Cory Lewendowski, then took the appropriate action of moving her out of the way and restoring the appropriate security protocol.

Fields, who has a history of faking stories about herself (see here http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/04/01/hoaxer-michelle-fields-falsely-accused-3-men-of-crimes/ ), then cooked up a fake story about being almost thrown to the ground in an unprovoked attack by Lewendowski. She was joined in this by WaPo reporter Benn terris and they both published fake news stories about it in their respective publications (you can read all about it here http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/03/29/how-michelle-fields-conned-prosecutors-into-charging-corey-lewandowski-with-battery/

Now what comes next really show the difference between Breitbart and WaPo. Breitbart's editors became suspicious of the story and refused to automatically back her claims, she left the publication shortly after. they made a mistake (in employing this dishonest attention seeker in the first place) but corrected it when it came to light. WaPo by contrast continued to back this fake news story even after it was debunked and has published a long line of fake news stories throughout this election season, the above linked one about alleged Russian disinformation being just the latest.

That is the difference between the two. Can anyone honestly maintain that WaPo isn't less reliable and trustworthy than Breitbart in the face of facts like these?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There's lots of garbage news from all over, and the MSM should not be casting stones. I like the strategy one of my friends took: you read from the mainstream (CNN), the left (HuffPo), and the right (Breitbart). At least that way you get a variety of views, even if they are still highly biased, if not outright junk.

[ApatheticAustrian]

     There's lots of garbage news from all over, and the MSM should not be casting stones. I like the strategy one of my friends took: you read from the mainstream (CNN), the left (HuffPo), and the right (Breitbart). At least that way you get a variety of views, even if they are still highly biased, if not outright junk.

doing so makes you a high-information-consumer anyway and far better secured against all kind of biases.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There's lots of garbage news from all over, and the MSM should not be casting stones. I like the strategy one of my friends took: you read from the mainstream (CNN), the left (HuffPo), and the right (Breitbart). At least that way you get a variety of views, even if they are still highly biased, if not outright junk.

doing so makes you a high-information-consumer anyway and far better secured against all kind of biases.

     Reading things that you don't necessarily agree with also teaches you how to read critically. It's important to not find yourself being stuck in an echo chamber.