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'."

Comments

Examples?

[meta-monkey]

It would be really amazing if someone could show me a single piece of this propaganda they can trace to the Russians. Where is the evidence?

Re:Examples?

[cfalcon]

I mean, it's bullshit for the reason the summary said- they basically accused Ron Paul of being a KGB agent. If the Russian propaganda machine is secretly vigorously promoting conservative libertarians, free market libertarians, and every right wing blog they can name, give me a fucking break. Just like when they made a list of "fake news" sites that somehow included every single right wing website except fox news, and it was some liberal professor who made the list. Just because the right has loonies doesn't mean that the left loonies should be dug up and given a grand platform to blather.

Re:Examples?

[dave562]

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.

Re:Examples?

[William Baric]

So a 13-year-old girl declared she was gang rape. A journalist picked up the story and some Russian TV channel talked about it, without making sure the rape was real. This kind of sloppy journalism is common everywhere. I live in Quebec and here absolutely all mainstream media will do it (the only difference is our media will hide the ethnicity of the alleged rapist if he's black or Muslim).

Then Russia's Foreign Minister made a comment implying the German police could try to minimize the case to protect asylum seekers. Considering the German police did exactly that after the Cologne attacks (as well as other multiple attacks in other German cities), also considering that the police admit it was at least statutory rape, yet try to minimize this as "child abuse", I'd say the comment was justified.

Then, the BBC decided to use this story about this sloppy journalism and a somewhat legitimate comment from a Russian Minister to try to spin it into some kind of "Russian propaganda".

The truth is this article is an example of anti-Russian propaganda, not an example of the supposed Russian propaganda. This BBC story is an example of the typical "fake news" that plagues our mainstream media. And the fact that you can't see it is frightening.

No, comrades, it's doubleplusgood

[Theaetetus]

... at least, according to the people who stand to make $160 million over the next two years "fighting propaganda" by reading blogs and blacklisting any they disagree with.

Fortunately, they won't come for Slashdot. This is News for Nerds, we never discuss things like politics or rights or surveillance...

Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[cfalcon]

Well, Americans didn't stay home.

CNN right now says Trump has 62,693,993 votes in the popular vote. That's more than any Republican has ever gotten in the popular vote (closest was George Bush in 2004, with 62,040,610). Obviously, these numbers are influenced by there being more Americans than before, and Trump is at 46.3% of the popular vote, while GWB's reelection was 51%. It is off by a few percent only, however- whatever the magnitude of Trump's thing, it still only affected a couple voters out of every hundred.

For comparison, Obama got 69.5 million votes in 2008, and 66 million in 2012, to Clinton's 65 million.

I feel that the solid performance of the 3rd parties this time around is the big thing not being talked about. Gary Johnson in 2012 set yellow team records for a Libertarian with 1.3 million votes. In 2016, he got over 4 million votes- Wikipedia says it is "more votes than the previous eight Libertarian presidential tickets combined", and was over 3%. The Greens got .36% of the vote in 2012, and 1% of the popular vote.

The reason that the 3rd party tickets are interesting is that *both are the same candidates as in 2012*. It is implausible that Johnson and Stein quadrupled and tripled in popularity- it is much more likely that many voters who consider themselves leaning towards the libertarians or the greens, but who usually vote for republicans or democrats, instead did not, driven away by the candidates.

America didn't seem to stay home, is my point- they definitely chose third party options a lot more than normal, though.

PropOrNot

[Rockoon]

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.

Wait...

[Rick Zeman]

...could we be seeing propaganda about propaganda about propaganda?

Somebody mod this story down

[smooth wombat]

This story presents facts about Russia's troll factory in St. Petersburg, just as I have done in numerous previous postings and got hammered by the Russian trolls. Go ahead, check my most recent postings to see how the trolls mindlessly mod me down for reporting facts about this troll factory, about the continuing shipments of cargo 200 from Ukraine (i.e. dead Russian soldiers), the terrorists in Ukraine who openly admit Russian soldiers are fighting there and supplying them with arms and munitions, or the Russian soldiers who state they have been sent to Ukraine and have fought there, and finally, the law which Putin signed which bars Russian mothers from talking about their sons who have died while fighting in Ukraine or even talking with other mothers about these deaths. Or course the graves of these dead Russian soldiers say otherwise, as do reports from eyewitnesses and families.

This story need to be modded down in like fashion. Wouldn't want the Russian trolls to have to see the facts of their dear leader's propaganda industry.

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[cfalcon]

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.

Re:Yes

[admin7087]

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.

Wait a minute

[willoughby]

I admit I don't keep up with this stuff. I thought the North Koreans were the bad guys I was supposed to be terrified of. Now it's the Russians? The vodka people? Damn, I only have so much time to be afraid. Make up your minds.

Re:Cave

[cfalcon]

> We are all in a cave, strapped to a stone. Everything is an illusion.

Right, but my iStone is smoother and thinner than yours.

Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Kohath]

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".

Re:Yes

[meta-monkey]

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

Re:satire is dead

[meta-monkey]

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

Re:It's simpler than that

[Tempest451]

It was never one thing. The GOP had 8 years to craft a strategy against HRC. They knew she would be running after Obama and keeping the negative spot light on her was second only to discrediting the Obama administration. Clinton was no "shittier" than any other politician, so the only way for the GOP to win was to indict politicians as a whole. This lead to Trumps win and even thought it was not the way they wanted it, they were more than willing to jump on the bandwagon.

Re:Yes

[buss_error]

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".

They let the ban on propagandizing citizens expire

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Three and a half years ago the US government, under the Obama administration, let the ban on propagandizing US citizens expire - and immediately began writing and spreading "fake news".

From an FP article dated July 14, 2013:

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. governmentâ(TM)s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.

So the only thing new here is US citizens noticed one of the government's renewed, official, domestic propaganda operations.

Re:Yes

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Yes

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:They let the ban on propagandizing citizens exp

[vel-ex-tech]

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.

Re:Yes

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Yes

[Kirth]

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.