Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A 12-Month Campaign of Fake News To Influence Elections Costs $400K, Says Report (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the money-is-power dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bleeping Computer: A 77-page report released today by cyber-security firm Trend Micro explores the underground landscape of fake news, where anyone can buy influence and create artificial trends to serve personal interests. An examination of Chinese, Russian, Middle Eastern, and English-based underground fake news marketplaces reveals a wide range of services available on these portals. The report explores several websites where customers can purchase services ranging from "discrediting journalists" to "promoting street protests," and from "stuffing online polls" to "manipulating a decisive course of action," such as an election. According to researchers, the typical clients of such services are interested in warping the way others perceive reality. These services are usually used for character assassination, swaying political trends, or creating fake celebrities. Trend Micro has compiled a "fake news" price catalog in its report, which is imbedded in Bleeping Computer's article. Some of the most expensive services include $200,000 for helping to instigate a street protest via fake news articles, $50,000 to discredit a journalist, and $400,000 to influence elections.

31 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Propaganda on a budget by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Winning the hearts and minds of the populace has always been a dirty business. From Machiavelli to Goebbels to the more recent trend of powerful men buying up newspapers that are not profitable in the traditional sense.

    When paying for influence goes on sale, does it not lessen the importance of the elite?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  2. How much would it cost... by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...To fund proper investigative journalistic institutions, non-commercial like the BBC, that could identify, shame, and counter such efforts?

    The journalistic system we have today is basically a self-standing set of dominoes - basically competing to generate attention-getting emotions - looking for any excuse to re-trigger their sequence. It isn't new - yellow journalism has an amazing and lengthy history, but increasingly tabloid coverage is the only news for most folks.

    It's not a moralistic thing that's the problem here - it's informational vulnerability. Like folks growing up in a 'company town' or a cult, it becomes statistically likely that without a path to a wider source of information, that folks will be unable to break out of objectively wrong information and will become willing victims to pure exploitation.

    Even here, lots of folks have given up on the idea of pursuing truth as a societal good. Down that path lies a deep stagnation and victimhood.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:How much would it cost... by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a bit dangerous to create a reliance on large institutions that can easily be turned into the purveyors of fake news themselves. You can look at it with only good in mind, perhaps like the BBC and think that they're more good than bad, but you can just as easily get something like RT (Russia Today) which (from my own subjective perspective at least) seems to be a bit more slanted. I'd be remiss to give the state anything that could approach a monopoly on the news. If you create a power structure like that, eventually you'll find it filled with the kinds of people who want to abase and abuse it for their own ends.

      As you point out, yellow journalism has been around forever in some form or another. I think that people just haven't quite learned to understand the internet or online media yet, as I suspect that a lot of the people who get duped by so-called "fake news" are the same who would scoff at someone believing something that they read from the National Enquirer or any of those other tabloid rags that line the check-out aisles in grocery stores. It's a bit like exposing a population to a new disease, or a new strain of an old one. We haven't developed a resistance or defenses against this at a societal or cultural level yet, so it seems like a big problem.

      Fundamentally, I think the problem is rooted at a deeper level of human nature. We prefer to seek out things which confirm our beliefs rather than challenge them, and this cuts across more than just the news. Without taking time to train ourselves not to fall into those cognitive traps, we're never going to solve the problem. Seeking the truth is a difficult task, not only because the path is fraught with peril, but because when you get to the end, the truth is often incredibly ugly. How often are people so disgusted by what they discovered that they shut it away completely or only let out parts of it?

    2. Re:How much would it cost... by nine-times · · Score: 3, Informative

      How much would it cost to fund proper investigative journalistic institutions, non-commercial like the BBC, that could identify, shame, and counter such efforts?

      There isn't really any amount of money that could fund enough journalism to counter propaganda. And really, let's call it "propaganda". The term "fake news" makes it sound trivial, and diminishes the danger this stuff represents. "Propaganda" has become a dirty word because it conjures images of authoritarian dictators performing mass manipulation, but the thing is, that's exactly what's going on.

      You're never going to completely counter the ability to disseminate propaganda. There will always be some people who believe it. And no amount of journalism alone can counter it.

      If you want to counter is as thoroughly as possible, first, you need a good education system. People need to know what propaganda is, and how it works, so they can spot it. They need people to know enough history to understand when and how propaganda has been used in the past, and for what reasons. You need people to know enough logic to spot poor arguments, and enough philosophy to understand why a logically consistent argument might still lead you astray. You need this kind of education to be widespread and free, so that as many people receive it as possible.

      Then, yes, you also need journalistic institutions that at least attempt to be unbiased. They also need to be set up to avoid turning into tabloids, chasing the most sensationalistic stories rather than informing the public. You need extensive fact-checking, in order to make sure everything said is as accurate as possible. The information they provide needs to be open and freely available. I'm not sure how you accomplish those things.

      You also need good communications infrastructure, so people can talk to each other. Here's where it gets hard: You need public forums that also attempt to be free of bias and sensationalism. Computerized social networks, which are becoming the popular public forums, aim to get their audience to feel the need to constantly review their feeds, and because of that, they're designed to elicit and promote controversy. Facebook and twitter may be the worst things ever to happen to public discourse.

    3. Re:How much would it cost... by nine-times · · Score: 2

      You're absolutely correct that the state should never be allowed to have anything resembling a monopoly on the news. However, that doesn't mean that public news sources can't be valuable, and relatively unbiased. I would say that, in my experience, the BBC, PBS, and NPR are all more reliable and unbiased the Fox, CNN, or MSNBC.

    4. Re:How much would it cost... by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...To fund proper investigative journalistic institutions, non-commercial like the BBC, that could identify, shame, and counter such efforts?

      A lot, because no one would watch it. Take into account the 24 hour news cycle and its inherent need for filler content, the ability for people to access multiple outlets of news in search of one that reflects their own beliefs or bias, and the fact that news outlets are competing with reality TV or entertainment mags or sporting events for eyeballs and entertainment, and you see that news outlets almost have to run news that is "exciting"-blood, bombs, disasters, suffering, etc. Face it, traditional journalism and reporting is boring. Important, but boring. And in this day and age, boring simply can't survive. Especially when the driving force behind operating a news outlet is income based on advertising. Which is why it would cost a lot, because a news outlet producing traditional journalism would require a benefactor with very big pockets to survive.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  3. Au contraire...way more was spent by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.

    This isn't talked about, because it was in the Democrats' favor.

    1. Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.

      On the bright side, CNN is now launching a real news site for those interested in things that actually happened.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by ckatko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It wasn't talked about because of the insane amount of existing bias in the media. Just like the media curiously didn't cover the 1996 Telecommunications Act--Thanks, Bill Clinton!--that allowed the media to go from over 200 owning companies to 5. 5 companies control 90% of all information the typical US citizen sees. That should scare anyone. It's easy as hell to buy off 5 companies.

      Imagine if Facebook was the only company that anyone got their news from. Would you magically start trusting Facebook to give people fair news? We're already heading that direction.

      Likewise, why has Bill Clinton not had wall-to-wall news coverage? Bill COSBY probably raped women and he got wall-to-wall coverage. But Bill CLINTON also raped tons of women in the same way, in the same numbers (or higher), and nobody talks about it. There's no wall-to-wall coverage. There's no investigative journalism prying deeper and deeper. Nope.

      Which means we're left with two options: The media is allied with/owned by the Clintons and Cosby (who criticizes Black America) is a threat. Or, the media is racist as fuck and defends a powerful white man, and goes balls-to-the-wall to throw a successful black man in jail the same way they hunted Michael Jackson without proof. (Fun fact: If you actually read up on MJ, you'll find a complete lack of plausible case against him.)

  4. Re:Educated population by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Time for me to spend some karma (as I will do) pointing out that the Religious Reich is always trying to shit on public education because nobody would believe any of their shit if they had a grounding in logic and critical thinking. The single strongest negative correlation to religion is education. Church membership is plummeting faster than any time in history. Churches all over the western world are going out of business (being merely businesses that sell... hope) and the buildings being turned into homes and coffeeshops, and good riddance.

    Religion is a plague that retards progress.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Re:Educated population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Good thing we have such awesome government schools. Without the top notch critical thinking skills these havens of learning provide, our population might be susceptible to these shallow disinformation campaigns.

    I received a better education from public school than private school, and I'm rather aware that:

    - Trump is actually doing shit. Congress has not stopped. Legislation is passing.
    - Hillary isn't fucking going to prison.
    - Trump isn't getting impeached.

    Meanwhile, my ol' private school pals either believe Pelosi is in her basement looking for the impeachment she took off the table, or that Clinton and friends will be frogmarched down Pennsylvania avenue in orange jumpsuits within the week.

    Our education system, as a whole, blows asschunks. The government has demonstrated an unbelievable inability to fix it, but that magic free hand of the market hasn't come up with shit, either.

  6. Re:But trump told me by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mr trumpy told me that this itself is a #fakenews and could never happen in soviet america!!!

    It could never happen in Soviet America. Never. But if it did, from everything I'm told, there would be nothing wrong with that.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  7. Re:Only the commercial monetization is new by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I can respect that these people are wrestling this power from the hands of media conglomerates and making it a commercial service."

    Yes, people subverting the course of democracy for personal profit should be respected.

  8. Re: Only the commercial monetization is new by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure it's not the only reason for U.S. politics becoming so partisan, but the Soviet Union fell in '90-91. Before that, the Democrats and Republicans may have not gotten along, but they had the the "common enemy" of the USSR.

    Once it was out of the picture.... without that common enemy, it was inevitable that they would turn on each other, more or less. Then throw in that news programs are ratings driven these days, and there's no incentive for the news to calm things down.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  9. Re:Only the commercial monetization is new by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're right that the concept of a propagandist is not new at all.

    However you're incorrect in saying that only the commercial monetization is new. The social media technologies in use globally bring an entirely new dimension to propaganda, namely: customization and targeting of the message on a user-by-user basis. No longer do you have to think about crafting propaganda which will appeal to a broad base of people, you can write several different angles on the same story and disseminate them so that different versions are only visible to a target audience that's most likely to buy that version of it. Quoting the report itself:

    We didn’t directly interact with Boryou’s sales agents, but we can understand their pricing models by measuring it against a comparable service, the Yunjing Public Opinion Monitoring System, Yunjing's service monitors news sites (Chinese and English), forums, blogs, search engines, and regional sites and applications like Weibo, a popular Chinese microblogging site, and WeChat, China’s prevalent social media platform. It claims to be capable of analyzing Weibo in order to find or create “opinion leaders” and provide customers information that include their region as well aspost, repost, and comment count.

    Yunjing charges its customer per keyword. The price ranges from RMB 12,800 ($1,850) for 10 keywords to RMB 28,800 ($4,175) for 20 keywords. The service comes packaged with analytics reports for WeChat, Weibo, and special or customer-defined topics.

    This level of segmentation of your target audience would never have been possible in the age of tv or newspaper lead propaganda. Also crowdsourcing has now entered the game:

    What’s notable in the Russian underground, however, is how it leverages crowdsourcing to manipulate public opinion. It works just like any crowdsourcing effort would—funding projects by sourcing them from the contributions of a sizeable number of people—except that the contributions amount to the promotion
    of profiles, subscribers, and likes. By adopting this model, the barriers of entry for disseminating fake news and manipulating public opinion are practically lowered to completing tasks and promoting other content with little to no monetary capital involved.

    Case in point: VTope—a multiparty, online collaborative system with a throng of over 2,000,000 mostly real users and support for platforms such as VKontakte (VK), Ok.com, YouTube, Twitter, Ask.fm, Facebook, and Instagram. Its workflow comprises implementing tasks (liking or following a profile or a post, joining a
    group, etc.) that incentivizes users with points, which they can resell or use for self-promotion. VTope’s service is initially free of charge, and participants can earn points by completing tasks. Points can also be purchased as coupons that can be bought on-site, but they are also widely available in underground marketplaces where they're often cheaper than on VTope. For instance, a coupon worth 10,000 points is sold for RUB 1,190 ($21) on VTope, and RUB 500 ($8) in the underground. A coupon worth 50,000 points costs RUB 3,490 ($62). - -

    like4u takes crowdsourcing up another notch by touting its capability to control the speed of promotion and set up time limits for tasks, which helps avoid bans from the media. Such tasks per time limits come in a choice of 5 or 15 minutes, or 1, 4, or 24 hours. like4u’s customers can also decide between using dedicated bots or real people for their promotional efforts. It similarly uses a point system, which can be bought from RUB 11 to RUB 4,500. ($0.2 to $80).

    And so on. The game is changing rapidly because traditional news channels are no longer the primary channel of information delivery to most people. If you can get a piece of propaganda out on social media before commentary hits on the news, you have a huge advantgae: you've already primed the targeted audience with preconceptions

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  10. Re:Only the commercial monetization is new by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    It has always been done for the acquisition of money or power. This just makes it more accessible.

    Instead of it being the exclusive domain of 7-8 large, international companies or nation-states, the game is open to 6 figure level players.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  11. good grief, Slashdot, cut the crap by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The page you point to talks about campaigns on VK, a Russian social media site. And even then, the article just provides fact free assertions like "According to researchers, the typical clients of such services are interested in warping the way others perceive reality. These services are usually used for character assassination, swaying political trends, or creating fake celebrities."

  12. Citation needed [Re:Au contraire...way more wa...] by XXongo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.

    I'm not at all a fan of the Huff, but if you're going to state that they and CNN publish articles that are "patently false," some documentation showing specific examples (and more than one example: you said "articles") would be needed. Right now, my summary of what you said is "they published stories that don't support my pre-existing opinion, therefore I will state that these articles are patently false."

    Or, to quote wikipedia: citation needed.

  13. Re:Educated population by Tranzistors · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [..]nobody would believe any of their shit if they had a grounding in logic and critical thinking[...]

    I guess you are not familiar with the theological traditions of Abrahamic religions, which are not strangers to logic or critical thinking. The problem is not lacking those skills, it's the lack of domain knowledge. I used to believe a lot of bullshit (Who am I kidding? I still believe a lot of bullshit, I just don't know which ones are bs), but rarely have I got rid of false beliefs because I learned De Morgan's laws, or found out about yet another fallacy. If you don't know anything about chemistry and biology, “structured water” sounds as credible as quantum cryptography.

  14. Re:Is FAKE NEWS the new advertising? by moeinvt · · Score: 2

    "Are we just looking for a set of information (true or not) that supports our preconceived ideas?"

    Yes. Everybody is doing that. We all see the world through our own reality tunnel & are seeking information to validate our ideas while discounting anything that might contradict them. It's very easy to spot this in others, but extremely difficult to detect in ourselves. There's no real way to turn it off either. The best we can do is be aware that our minds are operating this way & from time to time, try to see the world through some other person's reality tunnel.

  15. Re:Is FAKE NEWS the new advertising? by pastafazou · · Score: 2

    It's funny, in primary school they teach the kids about Nazi Germany's use of propaganda to coerce public opinion, but they then leave it at that, like propaganda died when Germany was defeated. Propaganda is alive and well in our modern media.

  16. Re:Educated population by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    Neither is civility.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  17. Re: But trump told me by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

    How are you supposed to draw your own conclusions when all your facts are wrong?

  18. Re:Is FAKE NEWS the new advertising? by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

    We just accept that most of the stuff we will be told is bullshit

    I wouldn't say we accept it flat out, otherwise there wouldn't be any truth-in-advertising laws. But yeah, we tolerate mass manipulation far too readily. Probably because we're all chained to the same capitalistic and exploitive yoke.

  19. Re: But trump told me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Several problems with your statement. The number one person discussing fake news more than anyone was born decades before millenials or even baby boomers for that matter. And a bunch of people who fall for and believe most of the fake news out there voted for him.

    If all news is fake how and who can do research to uncover the real facts and truth?

    Finally. Very few people, probably less than 0.5% go out of their way to draw their own conclusions. Most find a news source that strikes with them and they believe without hesitation what that news source tells them.

    There is a real problem with fake news. People believe it. This isn't the onion but someone actually telling bold face lies and people believe it.

  20. Re:Educated population by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Religious Reich is always trying to shit on public education

    Your term "religious reich" conjures images of flat-earthers and young-earthers trying to change school boards to ban actual science. As you point-out, real actual science is the cure. Fair enough, but do not make the mistake of believing that this problem only exists on the right: the far left is doing the same thing.

    I know pseudo-science hippies who take Homeopathic remedies, attend Reiki sessions, bless their water to change it's molecular structure to be happier, and plaster Facebook with articles about how nuclear plants in Japan are causing birth defects in Wyoming. They caution me that I live to close to power lines, then wear magnetic bracelets to improve the flow of their aura.

    The problem is kinda related to religion, but it isn't religion itself. Questioning the origin of the universe, believing in God, and being spiritual aren't problems in-and-of-themselves. I've known suicidal drug-addicts who just needed to know they are loved, who were afraid of death. And religion saved them and gave them productive lives. The real problem is dogma.

    Religion is a plague that retards progress.

    Dogma is a plague that retards progress. It is what organized religion and organized political parties devolve into. But dogma != religion. When people on Slashdot talk about religion, they are rarely talking about God. Instead, they are talking about some particular dogma. It's not God that is the problem, it is humans. Part of the reason we conflate religion with dogma is because the media can't report on healthy normal people having normal religious practices. They can only show the extremists because that is all that is newsworthy.

  21. Re:Educated population by mean+pun · · Score: 2

    I am not a member of the "Religious Reich", and I will shit on public education. Just browsing through the posts here, it is obvious that spelling, grammar, and reading comprehension are no longer a priority.

    I strongly suspect you do not understand the point of the poster you're replying to. Hint: s/he's using 'shit on' in a different way than you do.

  22. In other words, this is Modern Day Propaganda by zifn4b · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For those who are history buffs, you know very well the history of political propaganda. So really, this is nothing new. The only thing that's changed is the medium. Instead of newspapers and posters, social media is now the primary medium. I think most likely many of us forgot about propaganda because we stopped reading newspapers and watching network television in favor of streaming media, websites and social media. The propaganda spinsters finally caught on and are using social media and now we're aware of it all over again. It's the new old thing.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  23. Re:How much did Trump's false flag... by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    GOP having control of power right now as it drives sales down since they can't scare potential customers into thinking the government is going to take the guns away.

    No, certain GOP hating liberals have already routed around that problem. Now they are shooting Republicans for being republicans.

    The link you gave does not offer any political affiliation for the shooter. Yeah, he shot a GOP congress-critter but does that mean he did it because he was himself to the left of said congress-critter? For all we know the shooter could have been an angry tea partier who felt the congress-critter was too much of a compromising centrist.

    After all, if the liberals really want to have guns taken away, why would they be carrying them around? Shooting someone from the party that is most associated with more guns in public would not be a useful step towards gun restriction.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  24. Re:Educated population by orgelspieler · · Score: 2
    I think you're wrong on this one. You are conflating religion in general with whatever this thing we have in America can be called. It's not really religion any more than ISIS is a political party.

    I am a Methodist (now). We believe science and education in general are important. We believe in individual liberties, so we tend to respect other people who don't share our beliefs. We also believe in helping others in need, protecting the resources God gave us, and practicing grace and forgiveness with our fellow man.

    Nothing about my religion makes me act in a way that retards progress. Further, in respect to the arts, religion has historically encouraged progress, just look at anything from the Sistine Chapel to Sagrada Familia, from Praetorius to Messiaen. This could also be extended to historical religions, as well. Now, it's up for debate whether retarding progress, on the whole, is even something bad. But I'll take your premise at face value for now.

    The problem, at least among Christians, is when they stray too far from the red letters. I tend to blame Paul for sowing the early seeds of what we have today. Sure he had some good points "there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, barbarian nor Scythian" (can't remember the exact quote and too lazy to look it up.) But he had some boneheaded ideas, too (especially about gender roles). He simultaneously claimed Jesus freed us from the old law, while making new proscriptions that were suspiciously like the Pentateuch.

    Over the centuries, these competing ideals of love-and-mercy versus shame-and-guilt became ingrained in organized religion. These religions split and evolved and split and evolved. Each successive generation piling on stranger rules and intense emotional baggage. Arguably none of it was in keeping with a simple Nazarene who just wanted everybody to love one another.

    Somehow all of this translated to a little boy in a border town being told he couldn't watch the Smurfs because they are demonic, but the scary-as-fuck "Thief in the Night" was required watching. Shortly this progressed to "pro-life" rallies where he was encouraged to verbally abuse girls who were looking for some help in a time of need. Then, after moving to even-more-"conservative" west Texas, the same kid was taken to a brainwashing session at a large church where the bombardier beetle was used as an argument against evolution. All of this was accompanied by years of shame for surviving sexual assault.

    That kind of "religion" is a plague. It is organized hate-mongering designed to keep people in the pews giving money for fear of going to hell. They have little to nothing to do with the loving message they claim to hold dear. Then you have the likes of Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen who may seem more loving, but they take their toll financially rather than emotionally. Little old ladies send in their last pension dollars as a "seed" that is more likely to fuel a supercar.

    So I see where you are coming from. This thing we call "religion" in America has become pretty foul. But I don't think it's an immutable problem with religion per se. I think it has to do with imperfect humans doing a shitty job. It's like we took the Oatmeal "How to Suck at Your Religion" for a how-to article.

    As an aside, I think most Americans would be horrified if they ever actually read the bible. It is distinctly "unamerican." Look at the original church in the book of Acts. These people were literally communists, in that they formed a commune. Also, I can guaran-damn-tee you that most "religious" Americans don't tithe. Don't even get me started on "If a man steals your shirt, give him your cloak, too."

  25. CNN: horray for honesty by XXongo · · Score: 2

    Here is an interesting commentary from Forbes about how to find non-fake journalism. The number one item in his list of criteria for how to tell whether a site is legitimate news source: "If a reporter gets facts in a story wrong, will the news outlet investigate a complaint and publish a correction?"

    After youtube played the clip you posted, the very next clip loaded was the apology from CNN and the correction. A google search for "Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot Situation" gives me 95,200 hits.

    So, to the contrary. I will cite this next time I am asked for an example of how CNN is NOT fake news.

    Search Results
    Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot ... Video for Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot Situation 16:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    Carol Costello of CNN apologized on air for her network lying about the Milwaukee situation via a quick on ... WATCH: CNN Apologizes For Lying About Milwaukee Riots (VIDEO ... https://www.conservativeoutfit... News
    Aug 18, 2016 - CNN just apologized on air for not showing the full clip of the ... CNN's Carol Costello said she "regrets the second part of the statement was not included" in the report. .@CarolCNN apologizes for not airing full clip of Milwaukee victim's sister calling .... Put yourself in her situation, your house just got shot at. CNN anchor offers apology for shortening of Milwaukee clip – CNN ... https://cnncommentary.com/.../......
    Aug 17, 2016 - On Wednesday morning, CNN Newsroom anchor Carol Costello offered ... shot by an officer on Saturday afternoon, which triggered riots in the city. ... On-air, Costello apologized, “I want to take a moment to clarify something from Monday. ... CNN is a lying piece of crap network that is not a good place to get ... www.topbuzzapp.com/article/i6320193922531639812?app_id=1106
    CNN Sorry For Editing Clip Of Milwaukee Victim's Sister Calling For ... https://www.buzzfeed.com/.../c...
    Aug 17, 2016 - CNN Sorry For Editing Clip Of Milwaukee Victim's Sister Calling For Violence ... an officer on Saturday afternoon, triggering destructive riots in the city. ... On Wednesday, anchor Carol Costello issued a rare on-air apology .... You're one of the few people I've spoken with, who sees both sides of the situation. Costello Apologizes For Deceptive Report About Milwaukee | The ... dailycaller.com/.../cnn-anchor-grovels-to-audience-after-allowing-deceptive-report-ab...
    Aug 17, 2016 - CNN anchor Carol Costello apologized on Wednesday for allowing a deceptive report about the violence in Milwaukee to air that characterized ... Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About ... - Pinterest https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...
    Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwau