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: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Saturday December 10 2016, @12:30PM
Now those russkies employ true facts against the west! Can you get any lower than that?
(this post brought to you by russian reverse psychology evil disguised as western counter-counter-counter-counter-propaganda machine)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Bot on Saturday December 10 2016, @12:31PM
And note parent comment id...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 10 2016, @12:37PM
This is exactly the kind of thing that happens when Jews run your media.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @12:34PM
You MORANS still don't get it. The WaPo was JOKING and it was very funny. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM.
/sarcasm
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:24PM
Jokes on you!
RUSSIA was only joking. YOU DON'T GET SARCASM. Russia very sarcastic country!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @01:45PM
If only there were a term to describe news that has no truth or substance to it...
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday December 10 2016, @02:36PM
If only there were a term to describe news that has no truth or substance to it...
So we're arguing about whether this news about "Fake News" news being fake, is fake... Ow. my head. No wonder people have been voting for the politicians with fake tan.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @04:46PM
I know that I'm playing bait here, but it actually took me a moment to think of the word... What do you call it when there are (fake) stories reporting on (fake) stories without substantiation?
PACK OF LIES. They are LIES. ALL of them.
Everyone involved should be both shamed and ashamed.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Francis on Saturday December 10 2016, @06:32PM
The term for that is "Fox News."
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by jmorris on Sunday December 11 2016, @12:42AM
You do realize that is exactly why you guys were total idiots to attempt this. After years of shouting "Faux News" at a news source a lot of people trust, as the legacy media's levels of trust and approval have been falling toward single digits, your credibility is shot. It was entirely obvious when this "Fake News" meme was launched that it would quickly be reversed upon you. It is far more likely that the average person, if forced to pick between CNN and DrudgeReport as "fake" will pick CNN. Drudge generally just points you to stories that aren't covered widely, CNN gets caught lying pretty regular.
This was entirely obvious to all of us on the Right who squealed with glee when it was launched, all instantly realizing this was a desperation tactic from an enemy about to be destroyed at long last. Equally obvious was that it was a coordinated and planned attack since it sprung from from almost every legacy outlet in a 24 hour span, which means the leaders of the Left didn't realize this was a dumb move. We give thanks for the incompetence of our foes.
Yes there will be damage to our side as you go through your death struggle, but when it over we will be here. Will twitter? Will MSNBC? Newsweek is already walking dead, wave bye bye to em.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Francis on Sunday December 11 2016, @01:57AM
Wait, what?
Who says I have any respect for CNN, MSNBC or any of the non-Fox news stations. Plus, the only reason we're in this mess is because Fox went to court to get itself ruled as non-news. None of the other channels did that.
Also, since when is there a leftwing news media? They've all been rightwing slanted for as long as I can remember.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @07:28PM
Truthiness?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @02:26PM
You know what is weird about this submission?
No link to the actual WaPo story.
You'd think that would be pretty central to the story, right? Instead the we get Russia Today's opinion. The one site on the web that is indisputably a russian mouthpiece.
So, to help people get a more complete picture of the issue, here's the actual WaPo story being discussed. [washingtonpost.com] And for good measure, here's the editor's note from the top of the page:
Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Saturday December 10 2016, @03:04PM
The Bezos Post has fallen greatly in quality and valuable reporting in favor of clickbait headlines like:
Trump era confronts organized labor with gravest crisis in decades [washingtonpost.com] which leads us to ask "What crisis?" He's calling out companies by name, which is actually a very pro-worker thing, but it doesn't enrich those who live off union dues and influence.
One of Disney’s most popular brands has investors really worried [washingtonpost.com] is more clickbaity than Disney's ESPN viewership decline worries investors.
Donald Trump is actually a fascist [washingtonpost.com] which will be read and shared by all the people who were never going to vote for Satan-Trump to begin with.
How Trump and the GOP will try to turn the entire country into Dixie [washingtonpost.com] because that's not a dog whistle there.
Just count the weasel words in those links. The Bezos Post has become just another poor-quality Salon knock-off.
The longer the Democrats continue their denial about the problems in their party the longer it will take to fix it. Hillary was a poor retail campaigner, she wasn't likeable, she didn't rally the enthusiastic base of Bernie supporters by making him the VP candidate, and assumed she was going to be crowned. [politico.com] None of that was engineered by Putin. Nor was her "What difference does it make?" comment on Benghazi or decision to use ClintonEmail.com or her "deplorables" comment engineered by the big bad Russians.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @03:27PM
> The Bezos Post has fallen greatly in quality and valuable reporting in favor of clickbait headlines like:
Ermagad! Juicy headlines. Its the death of journalism!
There is something more than a little ironic about you spazzing out over mildly hyperbolic headlines, especially "headlines" in the opinion pages.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday December 11 2016, @12:43AM
If their so-called newspaper is only going to run opinion above the fold what should I link to? The still-slanted "news" they bury on their site?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jelizondo on Saturday December 10 2016, @07:32PM
HRC and her team behave like spoiled brats: it never, ever is their fault; always is someone else’s fault.
Not only the examples you mentioned but many others: It’s the FBI’s fault, not her fault for using a private email server; it’s the Russian’s fault, not the DNC for rigging the election in favor of HRC over Bernie and it becoming public. Never their fault.
Now, when asked about throwing a bone to Bernie’s supporters, she replied “I’M WINNING” [youtu.be] That is, until she lost.
I really feel sad for HRC. I don’t know if Trump is the worst candidate ever or not, but losing to him must really sting…
And I’m happy she lost, because as you point out, she thought she was going to just waltz in to her coronation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Saturday December 10 2016, @08:06PM
You know what's even weirder? HR 6393.
You have a piece of legislation that has given the government:
Title V - Matters relating to foreign countries
501.Committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments
Active measures by Russia to exert covert influence
The term active measures by Russia to exert covert influence means activities intended to influence a person or government that are carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly, including the following:
(A)Establishment or funding of a front group.
(B)Covert broadcasting.
(C)Media manipulation.
(D)Disinformation and forgeries.
(E)Funding agents of influence.
(F)Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.
(G)Assassinations.
(H)Terrorist acts.
That's a pretty broad set of powers to censor, which was based upon a questionable story, which was re-published unqestioningly by several fairly established media outlets, and seemingly is based on little more than the say so of a questionable group.
I try not to editorialize excessively and let people draw their own conclusions, and get that people may not share my sense of humor (the asses are puckered pretty tight here) about a Russian news agency reporting about the legitimacy of Russian news.
And the Washington Post article was the very first link in the second story. So much for people investigating further, and not taking things at face value.
(Score: 2) by Max Hyre on Saturday December 10 2016, @08:49PM
Innocuous-sounding, no? That's the weasel wording that allows the President to tell them to do whatever he wants, so long as it can be construed to be a ``purpose of this section.'' It's one way the intel agencies have over-reached to their present power.
Congressional oversight, anyone? Don't make me laugh.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by quintessence on Saturday December 10 2016, @10:31PM
What's interesting is that the entire review was lead [washingtonpost.com]by James Clapper [youtube.com]
In light of Clinton having a private email server, allegations of Russian hacking, lying about mass surveillance, and an overly broad law being proposed; the whole thing just reeks.
And especially with all of the concerns over Trump, giving him that much power while arguing that fake news needs to be controlled is absurd, and parallels nicely with the lead up to the Patriot Act.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @12:13AM
Did you just cop to being a truther?
Jesus christ, that explains a lot...
What soylent needs is a way to tag other users to help keep track of who are the gullible conspiracy sheeple.
I'd actually create an account and use it if that were an option
(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.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday December 11 2016, @07:18AM
Active measures by Russia to exert covert influence
It's an international communist conspiracy! [youtu.be]
(Score: 2) by tisI on Saturday December 10 2016, @02:51PM
McCarthyism.
Our new national pastime of finger pointing.
I don't watch news.
It's always:
Who's the bigger sinner today?
Life is more important.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @02:54PM
> Life is more important.
As if paying attention to national and world events precludes you from a life.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday December 10 2016, @06:53PM
I think ironically, I pay more attention to world events when enjoying life, rather than just struggling to survive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @07:20PM
Our new national pastime of finger pointing.
Similar news in Russia, just more anti-west and amplified even more. Pretty sad actually.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday December 10 2016, @03:50PM
The WAPO is good for:
Starting fires.
Making paper hats.
Making paper boats.
Wrapping fish.
Confetti.
Letting puppies pee on.
What the WAPO sucks at:
News.
Truth.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday December 10 2016, @04:27PM
Suppose Russian interference caused Trump to be elected instead of Clinton. What does Russia get out of that? Discovery that they rigged the US election is a huge negative. Could a secret like that be kept for 4 or 8 years? Better have a bigger payoff to justify such a move.
Could Trump have cut a deal with Putin? That why they're such good buddies? Like, in exchange for winning the election, he'll dump NATO, let Russia do whatever it wants in the Ukraine, buy lots of Russian hydrocarbons, get nastier with China (hello Taiwan!), and open up some business opportunities. How's Gazprom drilling for oil offshore in Alaskan waters sound?
All that is small, short term thinking of the sort Wall Street greedsters understand. Long term, we still have this teensy little problem known variously as Global Warming, Climate Change, and Climate Disruption. It's the height of folly to be working a swindle when the house is on fire. All the worse that the occupants are armed to the teeth. Lions don't stop to kill and eat when every animal is fleeing from a wildfire. Running a con during an emergency can only undermine the trust and cooperation needed to deal with the problem, as well as put the con artist on very shaky ground. It's as if the people in one of the lifeboats of the Titanic had decided to wait for everyone else to freeze so they could pick the pockets of the dead afterwards, and hadn't considered how they were going to be rescued, and if they were rescued, how they were going to explain the boat happening to contain more loot than survivors. How will Russia explain rigging the election when they are eventually caught, or could they really think they can cover it up forever? So maybe they never did it.
How's this conspiracy notion sound? Maybe Wall Street rigged the election, planning to frame Russia for it all along. The stock market has done amazingly well since the election. And seems Wall Street does have plenty of immoral money grubbers capable of stooping that low.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @04:56PM
> What does Russia get out of that? Discovery that they rigged the US election is a huge negative.
Its win, win either way.
If it isn't discovered, Trump has been loudly more friendly to Russia. He even changed the official GOP platform to be softer on Russia. [politifact.com]
If it is discovered the US is thrown into chaos and neutralized on the world stage until all the shit gets worked out of the system. That gives Russia way more latitude to pursue their agenda unopposed.
Here's the thing about the russia theory -- it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Reporting on Russia's Troll Army started before the election and coverage has come from many sources. If russia is going to the effort of running a covert propaganda operation, doing a hack-and-grab and then only releasing material useful to their goals isn't even a leap, its expected.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @06:09PM
Now we just have to somehow pretend that Hillary didn't sign off a bunch of uranium to Russia in exchange for a nice big Russian bribe.
When we pretend that didn't happen, our special Russian conspiracy theory is complete!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @07:04PM
> Now we just have to somehow pretend that Hillary didn't sign off a bunch of uranium to Russia in exchange for a nice big Russian bribe.
No need to pretend. All you gotta do is resume your membership in the reality-based community.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/ [politifact.com]
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/ [factcheck.org]
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/ [snopes.com]
The author of “Clinton Cash” falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had “veto power” and “could have stopped” Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. In fact, only the president has such power.
At the time of the sale, Clinton was a member of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which is required by law to investigate all U.S. transactions that involve a company owned or controlled by a foreign government. Federal guidelines say any one of nine voting members of the committee can object to such a foreign transaction, but the final decision then rests with the president.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 10 2016, @09:10PM
Federal guidelines say any one of nine voting members of the committee can object to such a foreign transaction, but the final decision then rests with the president.
There's your veto power. If Clinton had chosen to object, then the transaction is blocked until the president looks at it. Sure, it's not as extreme as presented by the author selling the book, but it is there.
Also it's worth noting that most of the donations happened when she was running for president in 2008. If she had become president, she would have had the ability to veto such a transaction, by having one or more of her underlings (the entire committee was such) object as above and then block it herself. Funny, how a group with a huge interest that potentially could go in front of Hillary Clinton thought it was a good idea to donate $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
What I find particularly embarrassing about this whole episode is the behavior of the fact-checkers. They were willing to dispute relative minor issues like the characterization of the veto power that Clinton wielded as Secretary of State, and completely ignore the obvious conflicts of interest that arise from someone giving $145 million to your personal non profit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @09:44PM
> There's your veto power. If Clinton had chosen to object, then the transaction is blocked until the president looks at it.
The obvious rebuttal is that none of the other 8 members of the cabinet chose to object. None of whom were her "underlings."
> Also it's worth noting that most of the donations happened when she was running for president in 2008. If she had become president
That makes no sense at all. She was 'bribed' because she was going to be president and then when she wasn't president she's still guilty for not objecting when none of the other 8 independent agencies saw any reason to object either?
The obvious rebuttal is that you are a connoisseur of conspiracy theory logic where she's obviously guilty so anything that backfits into that conclusion is damning evidence and anything that says otherwise is of no import.
> your personal non profit.
She;s not trump. His is a "personal non profit" that actively spent money on his interests and utterly failed to qualify as a charity in any way beyond the legal fig leaf of the paperwork. The clinton foundation is top rated by charity watchdogs like Charity Navigator [charitynavigator.org] and Charity Watch. [charitywatch.org]
And most damning of all: Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States So the uraniaum wasn't going anywhere no matter who owned the mining rates.
You are welcome to return the reality-based community any time you want callow. All you gotta do is stop beating yourself in the head with the stupid stick.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:22PM
> we still have this teensy little problem known variously as Global Warming,
Oil is 70% of Russia's total exports. Over 50% of the russian federal budget is funded by oil revenues.
The country's lack of economic diversity puts it at the head of the line to support climate change denialism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @07:08PM
Maybe Wall Street rigged the election, planning to frame Russia for it all along.
If putin did it and gets caught, the downside is practically zero. What is the US going to do? Impose more sanctions? After the crimea invasion sanctions are pretty much maxxed out.
But if wallstreet gets caught the downside is federal prison. Even if they don't go to prison, they are going to burn years of their life fighting it in court. That's a major opportunity cost. It could also bring harsh scrutiny of the businesses themselves. And wallstreet is so corrupt they can't afford that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 10 2016, @09:32PM
If putin did it and gets caught, the downside is practically zero.
And the upside is considerable. It sows distrust of the Trump administration and internal conflict in the US. There's the possibility for a huge weakening of the US in the long term from this, if Putin plays his cards right and reveals in a believable way Russian manipulation of the election.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday December 10 2016, @11:13PM
If it is true that the Russians hacked both the Democrats' and the Republicans' servers, and gave the Democrat data to Wikileaks, then the Republicans know that the Russians already have their election campaign "dirty laundry" and can get bits of it published at any opportune time.
It will hang like a sword of Damocles over their heads.
By the way, how do the ministries get handed out in the USA?? Is there some kind of auction (only billionaires need apply)?
"Do I hear more than 30 million for the Energy Ministry? No? Sold to the fracking tycoon on the third row!"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 11 2016, @07:37AM
It will hang like a sword of Damocles over their heads.
Well, how sharp is that sword going to be? It wasn't very impressive for the Democrat side once you got past the DNC carrying water for the Clinton campaign.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday December 10 2016, @08:25PM
I don't know what's in it for Russia. I've heard conjectures, but actual motives are uncertain. What isn't uncertain is that they (well, Putin) admit attempting to influence the election in Trump's favor. Of course, he could be lying.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 10 2016, @09:25PM
How will Russia explain rigging the election when they are eventually caught, or could they really think they can cover it up forever?
They wouldn't give a shit. They don't have to explain a thing, unless it's to their advantage. And it doesn't matter if they're caught or not. There are no consequences.
And seems Wall Street does have plenty of immoral money grubbers capable of stooping that low.
And money grubbers are obviously adept at espionage and propaganda, because if you're good at one thing, you're automatically good at another. But they also like Clinton who you might recall has given them a lot of special treatment. Why would they expect a better deal from Trump?
My view is let's use Occam's razor here. What's more likely some nebulous batch of Wall-streeters with little experience in espionage hires the right people to push the right buttons. Or Putin, who has been a spook longer than a fair number of us have been alive has decided to apply the same tactics to this race which he has used for his entire tenure at the top in Russia? Fake news is his propaganda MO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @09:51PM
> Why would they expect a better deal from Trump?
Because he promised to give them a better deal while campaigning. What little his platform actually said, it did say a ton of great things about wallstreet. But it only said that on the website and in restricted-access events he had with the wallstreet billionaire boys club. None of his (so far) 3 goldman sachs and 1 jp morgan appointees is a surprise, he said he was going to do it - he just didn't say it during his rallies.
Meanwhile Clinton had sanders and warren and the entire progressive wing of the party to keep her honest. While nobody in the republican party is going to say no to big banks.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday December 11 2016, @12:55AM
Do you remember when Democrats were honeymooning in Moscow and Republicans were seeing Reds hiding under the bed? And now?
Of course The Soviets were Godless Communists and Putin is (at least making) a show of reviving the Orthodox Church. So maybe nothing really has changed, the Democrats still hate God and all His followers and Republicans still think anybody religious who isn't shouting "Death to America!" probably ain't all bad. Me? I know exactly what Putin is and what he wants, knowing that and realizing we can probably do business makes me cautiously optimistic about the possibility for some old fashioned Real Politick. He is an evil bastard, but he is rational. And it is doubtful that anyone who isn't an evil bastard could long rule in Russia.