WaPo Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist from a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
WaPo Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist from a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/
58 comments
There is compelling evidence from serious sources that Russia spreads propaganda and misinformation, but that doesn't let PropOrNot off the hook, nor WaPo for giving them a platform.
It's a sleazy, amateurish operation. Look how they accuse sites critical of regime change in Syria as supporters of Assad (https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720). "McCarthyite" may be hyperbolic, but smearing leftists or those critical of war and imperialism as loyal to our "enemies" is very much in the tradition of McCarthyism. It's ugly stuff, and it's depressing to see start to become mainstream again.
It's a sleazy, amateurish operation. Look how they accuse sites critical of regime change in Syria as supporters of Assad (https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720). "McCarthyite" may be hyperbolic, but smearing leftists or those critical of war and imperialism as loyal to our "enemies" is very much in the tradition of McCarthyism. It's ugly stuff, and it's depressing to see start to become mainstream again.
> It's a sleazy, amateurish operation.
If I still believed The Intercept article, I'd agree. But after reading the Wash Post article myself, I found The Intercept was deceitful and don't trust anything in it. I'd need to (and would like to) see other evidence.
> Look how they accuse sites critical of regime change in Syria as supporters of Assad (https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720)
I don't see anything wrong with that tweet, which doesn't say that opponents of regime change are Assad supporters (EDIT: though it implies complicity). First, the tweets it responds to:
1) Rudolf E. Havenstein @RudyHavenstein Nov 24: The one common denominator in the PropOrNot @WashingtonPost "fake news" list is opposition to disastrous neo-Con military interventions.
2) Rudolf E. Havenstein @RudyHavenstein Nov 25: Obviously @NatCounterPunch and NakedCaptalism (and other sites PropOrNot listed) are not pro-Trump, but they are anti-war. @washingtonpost
And then the tweet itself:
3) PropOrNot ID Service @propornot: @RudyHavenstein @NatCounterPunch @washingtonpost They're not anti-Putin/Assad/etc-wars, though! They love those
Sounds like a good, fair point to me - if true (which I don't know).
If I still believed The Intercept article, I'd agree. But after reading the Wash Post article myself, I found The Intercept was deceitful and don't trust anything in it. I'd need to (and would like to) see other evidence.
> Look how they accuse sites critical of regime change in Syria as supporters of Assad (https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720)
I don't see anything wrong with that tweet, which doesn't say that opponents of regime change are Assad supporters (EDIT: though it implies complicity). First, the tweets it responds to:
1) Rudolf E. Havenstein @RudyHavenstein Nov 24: The one common denominator in the PropOrNot @WashingtonPost "fake news" list is opposition to disastrous neo-Con military interventions.
2) Rudolf E. Havenstein @RudyHavenstein Nov 25: Obviously @NatCounterPunch and NakedCaptalism (and other sites PropOrNot listed) are not pro-Trump, but they are anti-war. @washingtonpost
And then the tweet itself:
3) PropOrNot ID Service @propornot: @RudyHavenstein @NatCounterPunch @washingtonpost They're not anti-Putin/Assad/etc-wars, though! They love those
Sounds like a good, fair point to me - if true (which I don't know).
> Sounds like a good, fair point to me - if true (which I don't know).
"They love war when it's propagated by Assad or Putin," isn't a remotely fair or true assessment of those sites, which is why I called it sleazy. Criticism of a particular intervention (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq) doesn't make you loyal to the other side (e.g. communist, baathist). Implying such is a means of silencing dissent.
"They love war when it's propagated by Assad or Putin," isn't a remotely fair or true assessment of those sites, which is why I called it sleazy. Criticism of a particular intervention (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq) doesn't make you loyal to the other side (e.g. communist, baathist). Implying such is a means of silencing dissent.
>If I still believed The Intercept article, I'd agree. But after reading the Wash Post article myself, I found The Intercept was deceitful and don't trust anything in it. I'd need to (and would like to) see other evidence
The fact here is that the WaPo article cites Wikileaks as "fake news." That should tell you who not to trust, if it doesn't already scare you enough.
The fact here is that the WaPo article cites Wikileaks as "fake news." That should tell you who not to trust, if it doesn't already scare you enough.
> the WaPo article cites Wikileaks as "fake news."
The WaPo article doesn't mention Wikileaks. I just searched the page to verify my memory of it. Feel free to check for yourself:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-prop...
The WaPo article doesn't mention Wikileaks. I just searched the page to verify my memory of it. Feel free to check for yourself:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-prop...
From the article:
> The article by reporter Craig Timberg – headlined “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say” – cites a report by a new, anonymous website calling itself “PropOrNot,” which claims that millions of Americans have been deceived this year in a massive Russian “misinformation campaign.”
Here is the WaPo's source: http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html
There they list Wikileaks as "Russian Propaganda," what the WaPo called in their article "Fake News."
> The article by reporter Craig Timberg – headlined “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say” – cites a report by a new, anonymous website calling itself “PropOrNot,” which claims that millions of Americans have been deceived this year in a massive Russian “misinformation campaign.”
Here is the WaPo's source: http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html
There they list Wikileaks as "Russian Propaganda," what the WaPo called in their article "Fake News."
In case you're wondering, here is a list of all news sites that PropOrNot has flagged as being pro-Russian propaganda:
http://pastebin.com/YRrkrfTZ
I just can't take them seriously. Their tweets sounds like lulzSec
http://pastebin.com/YRrkrfTZ
I just can't take them seriously. Their tweets sounds like lulzSec
> here is a list of all news sites that PropOrNot has flagged as being pro-Russian propaganda:
If I understand correctly, they are flagging them for repeating Russian propaganda - including as unwitting 'Useful Idiots'. They aren't saying all those sites are trying to spread it.
Skimming the list briefly, I don't see any that surprise me. I think the propaganda has been very effective and Americans don't seem to have skepticism about it.
> Their tweets sounds like lulzSec
I agree that their tweets, as presented by The Intercept, are disturbing. But after reading The Intercept and then the WaPo articles, I no longer trust The Intercept - their portrayal of the WaPo article is deceitful.
If I understand correctly, they are flagging them for repeating Russian propaganda - including as unwitting 'Useful Idiots'. They aren't saying all those sites are trying to spread it.
Skimming the list briefly, I don't see any that surprise me. I think the propaganda has been very effective and Americans don't seem to have skepticism about it.
> Their tweets sounds like lulzSec
I agree that their tweets, as presented by The Intercept, are disturbing. But after reading The Intercept and then the WaPo articles, I no longer trust The Intercept - their portrayal of the WaPo article is deceitful.
> Skimming the list briefly
I was surprised to see CounterPunch on the PropOrNot list. One of my favorite authors from the 2000s, Werther, wrote for CounterPunch.
http://www.counterpunch.org/author/werther/
However, I haven't read CP in a long time and skimming articles mentioning Russia, PropOrNot may have a point.
I was surprised to see CounterPunch on the PropOrNot list. One of my favorite authors from the 2000s, Werther, wrote for CounterPunch.
http://www.counterpunch.org/author/werther/
However, I haven't read CP in a long time and skimming articles mentioning Russia, PropOrNot may have a point.
> I agree that their tweets, as presented by The Intercept, are disturbing.
I went straight to the source (https://twitter.com/propornot). I found this tweet vaguely interesting:
Pretty much anybody hating on Soros is echoing Russian propaganda. It's a good rule of thumb. http://ind.pn/2g5wcC3
I'm a leftist myself and admirer of Soros, but saying 'hating' on him is tantamount to being a 'useful idiot' is rubbish. They spend a lot of time defending Soros...hmmmm
For an independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs, they sound anything but professional.
I went straight to the source (https://twitter.com/propornot). I found this tweet vaguely interesting:
Pretty much anybody hating on Soros is echoing Russian propaganda. It's a good rule of thumb. http://ind.pn/2g5wcC3
I'm a leftist myself and admirer of Soros, but saying 'hating' on him is tantamount to being a 'useful idiot' is rubbish. They spend a lot of time defending Soros...hmmmm
For an independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs, they sound anything but professional.
Curiously, why would you admire Soros?
This article from The Intercept is even more misleading than the article it criticizes. The Intercept has been pretty lax editorially in the short time it has been running. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/02/the-intercept-...
A real pity because the intercept might be saying something important buried in the over/under emphasis, hyperbole and unnecessarily agitating tone. But it's hard to tell and harder to take seriously.
I hope they think about tweaking their editorial standards.
I hope they think about tweaking their editorial standards.
>in the over/under emphasis, hyperbole and unnecessarily agitating tone
I agree. Greenwald Tweeted not long after the WaPo article came out that the article was "journalistic garbage, and people were passing out around uncritically because it served political agendas." An emotional response from Greenwald.
Greenwald is an absolute godsend in today's world of 1984, but he is not perfect and his writing style can and has been much better than this.
I agree. Greenwald Tweeted not long after the WaPo article came out that the article was "journalistic garbage, and people were passing out around uncritically because it served political agendas." An emotional response from Greenwald.
Greenwald is an absolute godsend in today's world of 1984, but he is not perfect and his writing style can and has been much better than this.
What about the other referenced article from Fortune? http://fortune.com/2016/11/25/russian-fake-news/
"Fake News" is just the newest thing to scream in order to convince yourself that censorship is OK. At least they're not trying to continue beating the "If you don't agree with me then you're racist!" dead horse.
Did you expect liberal elites to just take the election loss lying down? Of course they're going to start trying to discredit the alternative media outlets that lead to their loss. The more people they can drive away from Drudge / Breitbart to CNN / Comedy Central, the more people that can control.
Did you expect liberal elites to just take the election loss lying down? Of course they're going to start trying to discredit the alternative media outlets that lead to their loss. The more people they can drive away from Drudge / Breitbart to CNN / Comedy Central, the more people that can control.
This is a pretty ridiculous article, and I'm sad to say, indicative of what seem to be increasingly 'fast-and-loose' editorial standards on theintercept.com. As was mentioned by another commenter[0], the authors make some rather misleading allegations of their own without ever fully supporting them. Instead preferring to leap to extremes with cries of 'McCarthyism!', with seemingly little mind for it's significance, failing to draw any parallels between events reported and the Army-McCarthy hearings of the '50s. Not that the WaPo article was any good, but this is the pot calling the kettle black.
Heavy rhetoric with maximum volume; light on facts or any real point, other than being outraged or condescending. Seems like the way all US political and cultural discourse is conducted nowadays, so not surprised really. Sad though. Even (re)defined a whole lexicon to describe this narrow projection of the world. Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Caucasian, African-American, Libertarian, Patriot, et al. All subtlety reduced to a set of meaningless labels that denote nothing but your "team". Invoking nothing other fear, rejection, aggression, and anger from any "opposition".
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13045686
Heavy rhetoric with maximum volume; light on facts or any real point, other than being outraged or condescending. Seems like the way all US political and cultural discourse is conducted nowadays, so not surprised really. Sad though. Even (re)defined a whole lexicon to describe this narrow projection of the world. Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Caucasian, African-American, Libertarian, Patriot, et al. All subtlety reduced to a set of meaningless labels that denote nothing but your "team". Invoking nothing other fear, rejection, aggression, and anger from any "opposition".
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13045686
i checked and ycombinator.com is not approved by PropOrNot (/s)
Joking aside, it's not ridiculous to castigate a piece of bad journalism by a renowned paper. I suppose the McCarthy remark is a bit tongue-in-cheek, given how cold-war-like this situation is, but despite the hyperbolic title , the article is not full of hyperbole.
Joking aside, it's not ridiculous to castigate a piece of bad journalism by a renowned paper. I suppose the McCarthy remark is a bit tongue-in-cheek, given how cold-war-like this situation is, but despite the hyperbolic title , the article is not full of hyperbole.
Drudge Report and Wikileaks are on the PropOrNot list. Do you believe that they're propaganda?
The list is of sources that repeat Russian propaganda, IIRC. If so, Wikileaks certainly belongs on the list, having published information very likely provided to them by Russian intelligence. Drudge would not surprise me, as it is already a propaganda site for the a U.S. political group.
> Russian propaganda
While it might be to their interests , podesta's emails were not russian propaganda per se.
While it might be to their interests , podesta's emails were not russian propaganda per se.
> While it might be to their interests , podesta's emails were not russian propaganda per se.
As a technical point, real emails absolutely can be propaganda. Good propaganda isn't all lies, or even mostly lies. It needs to be believable, like a good con. This comment says it well:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13045955
As a technical point, real emails absolutely can be propaganda. Good propaganda isn't all lies, or even mostly lies. It needs to be believable, like a good con. This comment says it well:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13045955
ok i love me some propaganda then
> Joking aside, it's not ridiculous to castigate a piece of bad journalism by a renowned paper.
Of course it isn't ridiculous, unless you do it in a thoroughly ridiculous manner.
I read the article on TI first then the WaPo, and have to say it fell well short of expectations raised by the former. I was expecting something out of Pravda C1922. The article is almost entirely hyperbolic, to the point of imagining the motives of PropOrNot, and then analogising said motives (with an added twist of sinister for effect).
Of course it isn't ridiculous, unless you do it in a thoroughly ridiculous manner.
I read the article on TI first then the WaPo, and have to say it fell well short of expectations raised by the former. I was expecting something out of Pravda C1922. The article is almost entirely hyperbolic, to the point of imagining the motives of PropOrNot, and then analogising said motives (with an added twist of sinister for effect).
So basically anything critical of standard US foreign policy or centrist neoliberalism is all a big Putin conspiracy. Got it.
There does appear to be some kind of Russian propaganda machine online but it's voice is mixed in with all the rest of the noise.
There does appear to be some kind of Russian propaganda machine online but it's voice is mixed in with all the rest of the noise.
IMO this is part of the Wapo's editorial board agenda for a neoconservative [1] plan in Syria.
The Washington Post editorial was instrumental in convincing the public of the Iraq war, "From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," [2]
A regime change in Syria has become difficult with such a visible backing of Russia. Unless we use the pretext of Russia interfering in our elections to equate confronting Russia abroad as fighting back for our democracy.
Wapo's editorial board never liked Trump [3]. This new push of Russian agenda, is killing two birds with one stone. Delegitimizing Trump while building the narrative of regime change in Syria or anything Russia is backing.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt
[2] http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2016/10/13/the-clo...
The Washington Post editorial was instrumental in convincing the public of the Iraq war, "From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," [2]
A regime change in Syria has become difficult with such a visible backing of Russia. Unless we use the pretext of Russia interfering in our elections to equate confronting Russia abroad as fighting back for our democracy.
Wapo's editorial board never liked Trump [3]. This new push of Russian agenda, is killing two birds with one stone. Delegitimizing Trump while building the narrative of regime change in Syria or anything Russia is backing.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt
[2] http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2016/10/13/the-clo...
The WaPo's ownership changed between the Iraq war and today, though I don't think Bill Moyers' statements are reliable sources of fact in any case. Yes, the Post opposed Trump (as did almost every newspaper in the U.S., conservative, moderate, or liberal).
The rest is pure speculation and conjecture; their motives, good and bad, could be anything, and likely have little to do with your particular concerns.
The rest is pure speculation and conjecture; their motives, good and bad, could be anything, and likely have little to do with your particular concerns.
if you had the chance to look at my Wikipedia reference, you'll see Hiatt is still the editor. You will also see there many references that he has shifted the paper into more of a neoconservative leaning paper.
To be honest, I don't look at Wikipedia references. I think Wikipedia is the prime example of people's willingness to accept misinformation on the Internet.
I would expect the owner, not the editor, determines the politics of the editorial page. Newspapers don't change their political stances significantly when they change editors, but they do when they change owners.
I would expect the owner, not the editor, determines the politics of the editorial page. Newspapers don't change their political stances significantly when they change editors, but they do when they change owners.
The editor sets the voice. If the owner wants to change that they would change the editor.
Not at all.
PropOrNot outlines eight steps to manually identify Russian propaganda [0].
Of course it's not an exact science, but it's a lot more rigorous than just "anything critical of standard US foreign policy".
[0] http://www.propornot.com/p/the-yyycampaignyyy.html
PropOrNot outlines eight steps to manually identify Russian propaganda [0].
Of course it's not an exact science, but it's a lot more rigorous than just "anything critical of standard US foreign policy".
[0] http://www.propornot.com/p/the-yyycampaignyyy.html
These are some of the steps they use to identify propaganda:
Check to see whether the social-media account/commenter/outlet has a history of generally echoing the Russian propaganda "line" by using themes, arguments, talking points, images, and other content similar to those used by obvious Russian propaganda outlets. These themes include:
1. How terrible, weak, aggressive, and corrupt the the opponents of Russia and their friends are: The US, Obama, Hillary Clinton, the EU, Angela Merkel, NATO, Ukraine, Jewish people, US allies, the "mainstream media", and democrats, the center-right or center-left, and moderates of all stripes. Investigate this by searching for mentions of, for example, "NATO", on their site by Googling for "site:whateversite.com NATO" and seeing what comes up.
2. How dangerous standing up to Russia would be: It would inevitably result in "World War 3", nuclear devastation, etc, and regardless of who shot first or is bombing civilians where now, would be the West's fault. Russian propaganda never suggests it would just result in a Cold War 2 and Russia's eventual peaceful defeat, like the last time.
This is the criteria for being a russian propaganda outlet? Basically, anyone who parrots 'Crooked Hiliary' is now part of it. This is hogwash
Check to see whether the social-media account/commenter/outlet has a history of generally echoing the Russian propaganda "line" by using themes, arguments, talking points, images, and other content similar to those used by obvious Russian propaganda outlets. These themes include:
1. How terrible, weak, aggressive, and corrupt the the opponents of Russia and their friends are: The US, Obama, Hillary Clinton, the EU, Angela Merkel, NATO, Ukraine, Jewish people, US allies, the "mainstream media", and democrats, the center-right or center-left, and moderates of all stripes. Investigate this by searching for mentions of, for example, "NATO", on their site by Googling for "site:whateversite.com NATO" and seeing what comes up.
2. How dangerous standing up to Russia would be: It would inevitably result in "World War 3", nuclear devastation, etc, and regardless of who shot first or is bombing civilians where now, would be the West's fault. Russian propaganda never suggests it would just result in a Cold War 2 and Russia's eventual peaceful defeat, like the last time.
This is the criteria for being a russian propaganda outlet? Basically, anyone who parrots 'Crooked Hiliary' is now part of it. This is hogwash
That algorithm is an exercise in bias confirmation; it's ludicrous, IMO. Any criticism of current orthodox ideology is interpreted as a point in favour of Russian propaganda.
Could it possibly be that some people have the genuine thought that starting a new cold war with Russia wouldn't be a very good idea? Or is that simply impossible without it being a Russian propaganda plot?
IMO this is all heat that obscures what's going on. There's a new culture war afoot. IMO this site (PropOrNot) is a paranoid reaction to the rejection by a certain segment of the American population to an orthodox groupthink. Instead of people talking to one another and trying to communicate, they're polarizing. It's no good.
(I flagged the article, FWIW.)
Could it possibly be that some people have the genuine thought that starting a new cold war with Russia wouldn't be a very good idea? Or is that simply impossible without it being a Russian propaganda plot?
IMO this is all heat that obscures what's going on. There's a new culture war afoot. IMO this site (PropOrNot) is a paranoid reaction to the rejection by a certain segment of the American population to an orthodox groupthink. Instead of people talking to one another and trying to communicate, they're polarizing. It's no good.
(I flagged the article, FWIW.)
In this fake news era, Im glad for the intercept and greenwalds journalistic integrity.
I appreciate Greenwald and The Intercept, but nothing in this piece addresses the real question -- are high-traffic US sites disseminating Russian disinformation?
Yes, it's true that the PropOrNot site is new.
Yes, it's true that the people behind PropOrNot are anonymous.
Yes, it's true that the Washington Post's article on PropOrNot didn't seem very rigorous.
None of this speaks to whether sites like Drudge, Zero Hedge, Alex Jones, etc. are actively disseminating Russian propaganda.
PropOrNot lists eight steps to manually identify propaganda and disinformation, and they seem pretty useful to me.
http://www.propornot.com/p/the-yyycampaignyyy.html
Yes, it's true that the PropOrNot site is new.
Yes, it's true that the people behind PropOrNot are anonymous.
Yes, it's true that the Washington Post's article on PropOrNot didn't seem very rigorous.
None of this speaks to whether sites like Drudge, Zero Hedge, Alex Jones, etc. are actively disseminating Russian propaganda.
PropOrNot lists eight steps to manually identify propaganda and disinformation, and they seem pretty useful to me.
http://www.propornot.com/p/the-yyycampaignyyy.html
Truth is not the absence of propaganda; propaganda thrives in presenting different kinds of truth, including half truths, incomplete truths, limited truths, out of context truths. Modern propaganda is most effective when it presents information as accurately as possible. The Big Lie or Tall Tale is the most ineffective propaganda. Here's more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
I'm very wary of this attempt to silence "fake news"
I'm very wary of this attempt to silence "fake news"
> Truth is not the absence of propaganda ...
Well put and essential; thanks
> I'm very wary of this attempt to silence "fake news"
But then the comment seems to slide into a propaganda talking point. 1) It's not being "silenced", just identified, and such exaggeration or hyperbole is a standard technique; 2) it presupposes this extreme relativism where there is no fake news; and 3) criticizing news sources is a very common, normal part of a health marketplace of ideas. Look at the criticism the NYT and Fox take, for example.
Well put and essential; thanks
> I'm very wary of this attempt to silence "fake news"
But then the comment seems to slide into a propaganda talking point. 1) It's not being "silenced", just identified, and such exaggeration or hyperbole is a standard technique; 2) it presupposes this extreme relativism where there is no fake news; and 3) criticizing news sources is a very common, normal part of a health marketplace of ideas. Look at the criticism the NYT and Fox take, for example.
> the Washington Post's article on PropOrNot didn't seem very rigorous
The article was based on many sources, despite the Intercept's characterization of it. PropOrNot is just one of many:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13045686
The article was based on many sources, despite the Intercept's characterization of it. PropOrNot is just one of many:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13045686
Yes, but there are also high traffic sites disseminating US propaganda, corporatist propaganda, etc.
The idea of journalistic integrity is pretty much dead at this point, given the monetary value of tapping into/catering to people's echo chambers/confirmation bias.
So is it possible that news sites that distrust certain elements of government will run stories that affirm that distrust? Certainly.
But we also don't really know the degree of what criteria were being used to measure this dissemination. What if the trackers labeled any of the primary source material from the email hacks as "propaganda"? Then anyone that discussed the contents and not only the source of the hacks (clearly the government's spin of the story) would be considered propagandists or "useful idiots."
Further, there's a huge difference between unsubstantiated fake news propaganda and stories that check out factually but have an agenda. We have no idea if the latter was included in the list of "propagandists."
There is a list we should put together for news sites. Namely, a list of which sites do a decent job of verifying their stories before publishing, and which ones have issues with accuracy. But that list should apply without regard to agenda. The Intercept piece rightly calls out the Post for being a mouthpiece for the WMD agenda a decade ago. That was certainly an instance where facts mattered, and tough questions should have been asked before publishing, but weren't. We need to demand greater accountability from our news sources, but obscure blacklists with obscure methodology and backing is not what's needed.
We need a (or several) "Snopes" for news, paid for by publishers/aggregators and preferred by readers over competitive publishers/aggregators who skimp on story verification. Without a solution like that, I have a hard time seeing anything change.
The idea of journalistic integrity is pretty much dead at this point, given the monetary value of tapping into/catering to people's echo chambers/confirmation bias.
So is it possible that news sites that distrust certain elements of government will run stories that affirm that distrust? Certainly.
But we also don't really know the degree of what criteria were being used to measure this dissemination. What if the trackers labeled any of the primary source material from the email hacks as "propaganda"? Then anyone that discussed the contents and not only the source of the hacks (clearly the government's spin of the story) would be considered propagandists or "useful idiots."
Further, there's a huge difference between unsubstantiated fake news propaganda and stories that check out factually but have an agenda. We have no idea if the latter was included in the list of "propagandists."
There is a list we should put together for news sites. Namely, a list of which sites do a decent job of verifying their stories before publishing, and which ones have issues with accuracy. But that list should apply without regard to agenda. The Intercept piece rightly calls out the Post for being a mouthpiece for the WMD agenda a decade ago. That was certainly an instance where facts mattered, and tough questions should have been asked before publishing, but weren't. We need to demand greater accountability from our news sources, but obscure blacklists with obscure methodology and backing is not what's needed.
We need a (or several) "Snopes" for news, paid for by publishers/aggregators and preferred by readers over competitive publishers/aggregators who skimp on story verification. Without a solution like that, I have a hard time seeing anything change.
[deleted]
Although both articles are pretty terrible, having just reread 1984 again, it all seems familiar. It's funny how when the internet began we thought it would make the truth easier to see; what we got instead is this, both the truth and the lies are mixed up and you can't tell one from another. What we need, assuming you can build it given how hard it is to tell them apart, is a technology that can tell them apart. Of course it might also be co-opted and then we can't believe anything.
I always find it amazing how 1984 turned into a how-to manual.
I always find it amazing how 1984 turned into a how-to manual.
I don't see any evidence The Intercept's article is deceitful. The Intercept and Greenwald are almost always credible and legit. Being targeted and harassed illegally by your own government for doing journalistic work on your government is a much greater badge of honour than a Presidential Medal of Freedom or Nobel Peace Prize.
I take issue with the standard of repeating Russian funded organizations talking points as being labeled as propaganda. If that's the case, then aren't American news outlets that push US government talking points also propaganda? Why only blacklist one?
Because this is the "bad" kind of propaganda. CNN telling the public that it's illegal for them to go to wikileaks or that globalism is just a conspiracy theory is the "good" kind.
Don't worry if you're confused, your TV will tell you which is which. You know, just like state TV in North Korea or Cuba does. The idea is to be more like them, right? At least that's what I'm seeing here.
Don't worry if you're confused, your TV will tell you which is which. You know, just like state TV in North Korea or Cuba does. The idea is to be more like them, right? At least that's what I'm seeing here.
Be careful with false equivalence.
US media has many serious faults, but it is not state-controlled as it is in Russia, China and North Korea.
They are not the same.
US media has many serious faults, but it is not state-controlled as it is in Russia, China and North Korea.
They are not the same.
Hey, that's an approach right out of the Washington Post article. Thanks for providing an example!:
“They don’t try to win the argument,” said [former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael A.] McFaul, now director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. “It’s to make everything seem relative. It’s kind of an appeal to cynicism.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-prop...
What you describe isn't something that happens. The U.S. government doesn't control American news outlets. If it did, I imagine that Trump would have received a lot less coverage and Obama quite a bit less criticism!
“They don’t try to win the argument,” said [former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael A.] McFaul, now director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. “It’s to make everything seem relative. It’s kind of an appeal to cynicism.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-prop...
What you describe isn't something that happens. The U.S. government doesn't control American news outlets. If it did, I imagine that Trump would have received a lot less coverage and Obama quite a bit less criticism!
"And so, in 2016, the World news war 1 began, my grandchildren"
Does wapo not enforce its own comment guidelines[1] anymore?
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-post/discussion-...
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/...
We will remove posts that include profanity, hate speech, name-calling and personal attacks.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-post/discussion-...
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/...
Irrelevant to this article, and no comment in your article says she needs to be marched into a gas chamber. I found one comment saying that the people she supports would do that to her.
dominotw(1)
Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist from a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group
Kind've breathless writing there, almost Trumpish. Myself, I discount anything that Greenwald says. Slate has a more sober reaction:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/25/how_russia...
Kind've breathless writing there, almost Trumpish. Myself, I discount anything that Greenwald says. Slate has a more sober reaction:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/25/how_russia...
Greenwald's reporting has always been incredibly inept (to this day, he won't admit how wrong he was about PRISM). The culture of making wild accusations and not interviewing subjects of a story to verify the facts continues to pervade the organization.
in what way(s) was he wrong about PRISM?
He claimed that NSA analysts could read anybody's communications straight off the internet companies' servers. Multiple journalists, bloggers, tech workers, companies, and even the government corrected him and pointed out how he misread the slides, but he continues to make that claim.
* The Foreign Policy Research Insititute
* PropOrNot
* EDIT: The Post also says, The findings about the mechanics of Russian propaganda operations largely track previous research by the Rand Corp. and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
* EDIT: The Post uses yet more sources later in the article.
Unless you read about two-thirds of the long Intercept article, to where FPRI is first mentioned, the impression is that the Washington Post relied only on PropOrNot.
EDIT: In fact, The Intercept seems to misrepresent how propaganda is identified. It's simply information from known Russian gov't sources (e.g., Russia Today (RT)) that is repeated elsehwere. Here is the heart of the Post's report:
....
The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.
PropOrNot’s monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-prop...