SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-just-don't-know-what-to-believe-anymore dept.
From rt.com:
Facing threats of legal action, the Washington Post has been forced to add an editor's note distancing the paper from a dubious website, PropOrNot, which it had initially endorsed as a group of nonpartisan experts on "Russian propaganda."
The Post came under fire on social media for its provocative hit piece which claimed that "Russia's increasingly sophisticated propaganda campaign" actually influenced the US presidential election.
[...] Jim Moody, an attorney representing the website, stressed in a letter to the Washington Post on Sunday that the newspaper "did not provide even a single example of 'fake news' allegedly distributed or promoted by Naked Capitalism or indeed any of the 200 sites on the PropOrNot blacklist."
From fair.org:
That a group of Cold Warrior hacks would publish such a blacklist is not a surprise; that one of the most established names in American news would uncritically parrot it was. Its reporting, writing-up and referencing is a prime example of how fake real news on real fake news spreads without question.
USA Today (11/25/16), Gizmodo (11/25/16), PBS (11/25/16), The Daily Beast (11/25/16), Slate (11/25/16), AP (11/25/16) The Verge (11/25/16) and NPR (11/25/16) all uncritically wrote up the Post's most incendiary claims with little or minimal pushback. Gizmodo was so giddy its original headline had to be changed from "Research Confirms That Russia Played a Major Role in Spreading Fake News" to "Research Suggests That Russia Played a Major Role in Spreading Fake News," presumably after some polite commenters pointed out that the research "confirmed" nothing of the sort.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @09:24PM
> That's a pretty broad set of powers to censor, which was based upon a questionable story,
Don't to try play us like that. HR 6393 [congress.gov] was introduced on Nov 22nd. That means it was written even before that. The WaPo story that you neglected to link to was published on Nov 24th. As today's reporting on the CIA disclosures indicate, the problem was already being taken seriously enough to involve congress back in september. [crooksandliars.com]
> I try not to editorialize excessively and let people draw their own conclusions,
Oh bullshit. Your choice of sources and your choice of quotes wasn't just editorializing it was full-blown pushing an agenda. Trying to pretend that because you used other people's words to say what you wanted to say somehow makes you neutral is insulting.
> And the Washington Post article was the very first link in the second story.
Cop-out excuse. The WaPo story was the focus of your entire submission. Leaving it out was a deliberate choice to discourage people from investigating further.