Slashdot Mirror


Are We Seeing Propaganda About Russian Propaganda? (rollingstone.com)

MyFirstNameIsPaul was one of several readers who spotted this disturbing instance of fake news about fake news. An anonymous reader writes: Last week the Washington Post described "independent researchers" who'd identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda" that they estimated were viewed more than 200 million times on Facebook. But the researchers insisted on remaining anonymous "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers," and when criticized on Twitter, responded "Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject -- they're so vewwy angwy!!"

The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, calling the Post's article an "astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site Truthdig on the group's dubious list of over 200 "sites that reliably echo Russian propaganda," along with other long-standing sites like Zero Hedge, Naked Capitalism, and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda."

The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets (including USA Today), and included an ominous warning that "The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."

22 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's funny when the Right screams voter fraud, the left calls them all stupid because they have no evidence.

    When he Left screams voter fraud from Russian hackers that they have zero evidence of, we have to waste millions of taxer payer money with lawsuits and recounts.

    1. Re:Yes by admin7087 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right vs. left, just stop that nonsense. There has been no right and no left for at least a decade. The divide is between extremists and people who stand with both feet on the ground. Unfortunately, it looks like extremism has become more popular.

    2. Re:Yes by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it's anti-establishment nationalists vs. establishment globalists.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Yes by buss_error · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Right vs. left, just stop that nonsense. There has been no right and no left for at least a decade. The divide is between extremists and people who stand with both feet on the ground. Unfortunately, it looks like extremism has become more popular.

      I'm not sure I agree with you completely. I agree that extremism is more easily found, I'm not sure if that's because it's more popular or if it's simply because more individuals are willing to express it.
      I do believe that both the right and the left engage in logical facilities (you should pardon the pun) left and right. A few examples:

      Death penalty and abortion

      Reducing taxes and budgets passed

      Objecting to "nanny state" (vis a vi public support) by calling it racism, bemoaning food assistance while cutting access to birth control (Family Planning funding)

      Loss of constitutional freedoms vs. gun legislation vs. disenfranchisement

      Effectively limiting consumer protections (by Strengthening monopolies) while claiming to be pro-consumer

      Preventing private right of action and forcing consumers to use binding arbitration (Might as well not even bother, you're not going to win even if you are right)

      and on and on and on. I think the average US person has simply either gone nuckin' futz or they are lied to so completely and pervasively as to have no worthwhile information to base a rational decision on. It's so bad that I don't even bother talking to people anymore (haven't for the last 20 years). It's so bad that I am seriously limiting even discussion in fora such as here. Worse, it's no better in other countries, and even worse in some.

      I blame it on the commercialization of journalism, actions by special interests, and the lack of critical thinking skills being taught in public (and many private) education. The only answer I've found so far is to simply smile, nod, and back slowly away from the more vitriolic of them, and to not bother with media news outlets anymore.

      NPR, PBS, BBC and a few others are attempting to get people talking to each other. So far, I've witnessed this devolve into brutal beatings twice. Yeah. Like I'm going to go "have a reasonable discussion with someone I don't agree with".

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    4. Re:Yes by zapadnik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not really.
      The Left is all about Big State solutions, which comes under the rubrik of "Statist Collectiivism" at the state level and "globalism" at the international level.
      The Right (at least in the US, but increasingly internationally) is all about Individual Liberty. Since there can be no Individual Liberty without decreasing State power it means the Right is about limiting the power of government and letting citizens and the Free Market of voluntary exchange work out solutions. This is because power (the ability to enforce your will on the unwilling) is a zero sum game - the State only gets power by taking it from individuals, and vice versa

      Of course there is a consensus that all States now require governments that can use force and coercion to take the wealth of the citizens. In this sense there is a "Uniparty" where political parties clothe themselves in the rhetoric of "Left" and "Right" but the implementations always require more taxation and more power for the State - which means the Uniparty has been drifting further and further Left. To dissent with this and assert citizens should be in charge is labelled "extreme".

      What is considered "extreme" merely reflects what is outside of the fashions of the self-selection sociopaths who are the State (the State is an abstract entity, what the term actually means is the group of sociopathic 'elites' who claim the mantle of "State" to impose their will on others). The divergence between what the 'elites' (and their media sychophants) consider "extreme" and the bulk of the citizenry consider "extreme" has been increasing rapidly as the State moves further and further to the Left (Big State solutions). To the 'elites' and media who consider themselves to have transcended such things as family, borders, traditional culture, conventional morality, national sovereignty anyone who believes in these things is "extreme" - but only of they are Westerners. Any other nationality wanting these this is considered normal, just not for Westerners.

      Hence we have the phenomena of Brexit and the latest US Presidential election where the 'elites' and media have views vastly different from those of the general population. What the elites consider normal and desirable (dissolution of nation states and creation of a single World government which pushes their agenda) is considered "extreme" by at least 160 million Americans, and conversely the media and 'elites' consider the desire for preservation of national sovereignty and individual choice that dissents from the elite's views to be "extreme". As always it is simply a matter of perspective.

      Is the West being propagandized? yes, massively. Western media's best and most subtle propaganda technique is not in telling direct falsehoods, although that has become increasingly common, but more in what facts they choose to omit, They include any facts that follow their chosen 'Narrative' and leave out any facts that would shred that Narrative. Hence, reasonable people who don't check all points of view based their conclusions on half the facts and end up believing the media perspective (the perspective of the ruling 'elites'). Those that read more widely or have alternative sources of information that give more of the facts end up with different conclusions - mostly against the memes of the media and 'elites'. Once you understand that the propaganda comes through what is chosen to be talked about and more importantly what is not said, then you see an extremely consistent pattern - which means this is deliberate. Unfortunately this is invisible to most people, so they end up adopting the media and globalist positions very stridently and attack their fellow citizens, when it is the latter that is in possession of the more relevant facts.

      So yes, the "Russian propaganda" meme comes from the media and elites. It may or may not be true, that is actually irrelevant. What it does is reinforce the chosen Narrative of the media and elites and provides them the excuse they want to crush

    5. Re:Yes by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ahh yes. "My side is sensible. The other side is extreme/insane/[insert slur here]." That's some well-reasoned analysis there.

      Does your side actually do things to help the people whose votes you want? Maybe telling them to vote for you because you helped them might work better than telling them to vote for you because otherwise you'll call them names.

    6. Re:Yes by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The biggest sign of extremism for me is when someone takes a stand and declares their side to be the right one and the other side to be the wrong one. Loyalty to a party of faction should come dead last in priorities, Put loyalty to fellow citizens first, even if they have different political stances.

    7. Re: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If you think the Right in the US is about Liberty and Freedom for each individual to live as he/she wants, I'd like to have the phone number of your drug dealer. It's good stuff he gave you (granted, the Left is no better)

    8. Re:Yes by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think you no longer have the right to call yourself "anti-establishment" when your man is about to be POTUS and his party will have majorities in the House and Senate.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    9. Re:Yes by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like I'm going to go "have a reasonable discussion with someone I don't agree with".

      How would anyone know whether they disagreed with you? A "reasonable discussion" requires explanations of your thoughts. A list of half-articulated observations isn't something people can "reasonably" discuss.

      I'm sure some people will react and emote with you though. And congratulate themselves for being righteous because ... well, mostly because they enjoy thinking they're righteous and better than other people.

    10. Re:Yes by Kirth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're pretty much right in regards of the analysis what is happening, but you've subscribed to some propaganda on who is doing what. Because the forces at play in the US are first and foremost authoritarian and to the right (the latter of which doesn't really matter in the scheme of things).

      I think this here shows this neatly:
      https://www.politicalcompass.o...

      "left" and "right" are solely economic points of view. You could also call them "socialist" and "capitalist". There's nothing in there about "liberty".

      If you think there is some great conflict between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" at play there (or even "the Left" or "the Right" are on the side of "liberty"), you've just become the playball of propaganda. Because the only side here that's even playing is authoritarian, and it has won, it sets the policies, and orchestrates the propaganda. Of course it's nice to be able to constantly blame "the other side" for the shit you're doing. Which is what happens. Even if the other side happens to be firmly in your own camp.

      Yes, there are people in the US fighting for liberty, but they're not "the Left" or "the Right", they're the ones that don't run your country. At all.

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
  2. Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's just another "Not our fault!" lie from Hillary! supporters.

    "Look! a RUSSIAN squirrel!!!!"

    Hillary! lost 2008's Democrat nomination to an upstart from nowhere despite the process being rigged for her.

    Hillary! damn near lost the 2016 Democrat nomination to someone who wasn't even a Democrat despite the process being rigged for her.

    Hillary! lost the 2016 Presidential election despite the media doing its damndest to help her.

    Hillary! might have had a chance had if she weren't an unlikable corrupt harpy and if she had some accomplishment to her name other than marrying Bill.

  3. PropOrNot by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The secret group PropOrNot also listed as "allies" many journalists and publications that have never heard of the group before the article. as is evidenced by their twitter responses.

    When this came to light, PropOrNot edited their web page to list them only as "related projects."

    To translate what really happened here is:

    The Washington Post was duped by a fake article about fake news, and then other publicans were duped by the Washington Post's article about the fake article about fake news.

    Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.

    Investigative journalism is now only done by independent folk with hidden cameras, and released on youtube. Thats what exposed Clinton's campaign tactics and voter fraud methods, its what exposed and subsequently destroyed ACORN, and so on.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:PropOrNot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      From the list of examples you gave, which you insist are verified facts, I gather you're a Trump supporter and Fox News/Breitbart reg.

      Talk about pathological liars and fake news.

    2. Re:PropOrNot by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To translate what really happened here is:

      The Washington Post was duped by a fake article about fake news, and then other publicans were duped by the Washington Post's article about the fake article about fake news.

      Not quite a "fake article", but an article based on a report that used a questionable method for identifying "Russian propaganda".

      Basically a site was labelled as distributing Russian propaganda if it regularly posted articles that reproduced current Russia propaganda narratives.

      That sounds legit, but the problem is that a lot of anti-establishment sites push the same kind of narratives. A story getting pushed by RT as Russia propaganda might also be pushed by an independent site as their own fight against the establishment. And they get labelled as promoting Russia propaganda, which they technically are, but that wasn't their intent.

      Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.

      You know I actually thought you were being sarcastic when you wrote that first sentence.

      The WP article got some secondary reporting, and then it got questioned, typically by those same secondary sources.

      Note the first publication in the summary, Rolling Stone, is considered pretty damn progressive. The WP themselves even commented on the matter, though it a much less direct way than I'd like (hopefully their still refining their follow up piece).

      Investigative journalism is now only done by independent folk with hidden cameras, and released on youtube. Thats what exposed Clinton's campaign tactics and voter fraud methods, its what exposed and subsequently destroyed ACORN, and so on.

      Ahh, so when you say "investigative journalism" you mean actual fake news.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  4. Hillary lost because people don't like her by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "fake news" narrative is getting old. She didn't lose because of "fake news", she lost because people don't like her and because poor folks don't see Democrats in power and think "my problems will be solved" any more.

    No one is going to vote any different based on telling stories about Russian influence, even if they're true stories. And you won't be able to censor the Internet effectively. If you try to, it will backfire on you.

    If you want the next Democrat candidate to win, here's a suggestion for Democrats: help people. Don't just pick fights. Don't just point and jeer. Actually do something to genuinely help. Do it with a motivation to help rather than to get even with people you hate and maybe help someone in the process. Help Americans to get votes from Americans. Help a broad, inclusive population of people if you want votes from a broad population of people.

    If you don't want Democrats to win, then just keep fighting. Keep calling everyone a racist or some other name. Cater exclusively to SJW crybullys who want to scream about transgenger microaggressions and cultural appropriation. Keep doing nothing for regular people. And keep telling yourself you lost because of "fake news".

  5. Re:Somebody mod this story down by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That there are Russian shills on the internet is an undeniable fact. That they are on forums steering the conversation when they can is almost assuredly the case- I've seen such cases myself. But that doesn't mean that every piece of right wing journalism is magically fake news nor Russian spies.

  6. Re:satire is dead by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "They're looking at someone else's fake news instead of our fake news! It's not fair!"

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  7. Re:Examples? by dave562 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would not be so skeptical. I used to read a lot of Zero Hedge. I still read RT.com from time to time. If you accept that ALL news has a bias, it becomes apparent. In the case of ZeroHedge, their bias is that economy is about to crash, again. And the price of gold is about to skyrocket, any day now. And the American political system sucks, which they are actually correct on.

    Propaganda is entwined with the reality of nation states. The United States puts out propaganda about Russia. They do the same in return.

    With the internet, the propaganda is more obvious and easier to spread.

    The older I get, the more I realize that everyone has an agenda. Zero Hedge has an agenda. The Washington Post has an agenda. The Communist Party of China has an agenda.

    The thing is, life is short. At this point, I do not have time to focus on other people's agendas unless they intersect with and further my own.

    This whole "Russian Hackers Fucking with Democracy" is the greatest propaganda coup of all time. It still blows my mind that the media managed to completely obfuscate all of the evil shit that the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton were up to by bringing the Russian bogey man out of the closet. (Not that it matters, but I didn't vote for Clinton or Trump).

    In my brief 40 years as an American, I was born into a world where we were supposed to be scared of Russians. To being told that the Russians weren't a threat. To being told that the Islamists that the CIA funded to fight the Russians were the threat. To now being told that the Russians and the disciples of those we trained to fight the Russians are a threat.

    To be honest, I think the biggest threat to America at this point is America. Between the ignorance of the electorate and the iron grip that the military industrial complex has on the economy and the government, we are like the big, retarded bully who doesn't even know why he's angry, but sure as hell is going to beat the shit out of anyone who calls him retarded.

  8. Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Jill Stein is running a scam

    Liar.

    Jill Stein has said precisely what the excess will be used for. It's not a scam if the money is going where she says it's going.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  9. Re:Examples? by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looks more like a story claiming there was "propaganda" on a Russian news outlet.

    Pretty sure a Russian news outlet isnt targeting any propaganda at Americans, and in this case the "truth" behind the "propaganda" is that the girl in question was merely the victim of child abuse instead of..... rape?

    I'm going to assume that your citation categorically represents what someone would find if they tried really hard to find evidence via google, and that everyone that tried really hard, but you, realized that they couldnt find any.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  10. Re:They let the ban on propagandizing citizens exp by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe I'm dense, but isn't it Congress' job to renew laws that have expiry dates? I skimmed the article but it didn't seem to clarify what I'm confused about. Is it the case that the R team did their right honorable duty as true statesmen to renew that law and Obama failed to sign it? The R team did have a majority in at least one branch of Congress in 2013, didn't they? My memory is hazy.

    I mean, good grief. The president isn't a dictator. That's also why I'm not very worried at all about Trump! Trump! Trump! or even Darth Pence.

    Also a good reason to have contempt for the D team when it had control of both houses of Congress 2008-2010. They could have passed something less corrupt than Obamneycare.