Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday January 02 2017, @10:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the poor-sources-of-information dept.

Glenn Greenwald reports via The Intercept

The Washington Post on Friday [December 30] reported a genuinely alarming event: Russian hackers have penetrated the U.S. power system through an electrical grid in Vermont. The Post headline conveyed the seriousness of the threat:
[Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, officials say]

The first sentence of the article directly linked this cyberattack to alleged Russian hacking of the email accounts of the DNC and John Podesta--what is now routinely referred to as "Russian hacking of our election"--by referencing the code name revealed on Wednesday by the Obama administration when it announced sanctions on Russian officials: "A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials."

The Post article contained grave statements from Vermont officials of the type politicians love to issue after a terrorist attack to show they are tough and in control.

[...] The article went on and on in that vein, with all the standard tactics used by the U.S. media for such stories: quoting anonymous national security officials, reviewing past acts of Russian treachery, and drawing the scariest possible conclusions ("'The question remains: Are they in other systems and what was the intent?' a U.S. official said").

The media reactions, as Alex Pfeiffer documents, were exactly what one would expect: hysterical, alarmist proclamations of Putin's menacing evil.

[...] The Post's story also predictably and very rapidly infected other large media outlets. Reuters thus told its readers around the world: "A malware code associated with Russian hackers has reportedly been detected within the system of a Vermont electric utility."

What's the problem here? It did not happen.

There was no "penetration of the U.S. electricity grid". The truth was undramatic and banal. Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all its computers and found the code in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.

Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic claims, so Burlington Electric had to issue its own statement to the Burlington Free Press, which debunked the Post's central claim (emphasis in original): "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization's grid systems."


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:11AM (#448830)

    I think you'll find little of that except maybe on comedy sites or on the Onion. What you've just said is that REAL fake news (real scottsmen?) must not only contain false 'facts', but that the author had to have KNOWN that they were false at the time he/she wrote them. That means that you have to know what they actually knew when they wrote. NOT what they SHOULD have known; what they KNEW.

    Yes, that is literally what the term "fake news" means. I know people like to pretend it means something different, but if the author doesn't know they are making stuff up, then it's poor journalism (good old-fashioned yellow journalism [wikipedia.org]), not fake news. They are different. Words mean things. And there are plenty of hoax news sites (what I remember them being called before the election; whoever choose the term "fake news" instead of "hoax news" or something else more clear did a terrible job unless they were intentionally trying to create this confusion). I have seen people share links on Facebook with comment threads informing them that the site they liked is a hoax site. Unlike the Onion, they are written like real news sites, sometimes typo-squatting real news sites and using the same layout.