Slashdot Mirror


Russian Influence Campaign Sought To Exploit Americans' Trust In Local News (npr.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The information operatives who worked out of the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg did not stop at posing as American social media users or spreading false information from purported news sources, according to new details. They also created a number of Twitter accounts that posed as sources for Americans' hometown headlines. NPR has reviewed information connected with the investigation and found 48 such accounts. They have names such as @ElPasoTopNews, @MilwaukeeVoice, @CamdenCityNews and @Seattle_Post. "A not-insignificant amount of those had some sort of variation on what appeared to be a homegrown local news site," said Bret Schafer, a social media analyst for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which tracks Russian influence operations and first noticed this trend. Another example: The Internet Research Agency created an account that looks like it is the Chicago Daily News. That newspaper shuttered in 1978. The Internet Research Agency-linked account was created in May 2014, and for years, it just posted local headlines, accumulating some 19,000 followers by July 2016.

Another twist: These accounts apparently never spread misinformation. In fact, they posted real local news, serving as sleeper accounts building trust and readership for some future, unforeseen effort. "They set them up for a reason. And if at any given moment, they wanted to operationalize this network of what seemed to be local American news handles, they can significantly influence the narrative on a breaking news story," Schafer told NPR. "But now instead of just showing up online and flooding it with news sites, they have these accounts with two years of credible history."

29 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. Sinclair Broadcast Group by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good thing there isn't a major, national media group that controls a whole bunch of local news channels and can force them to run pre-written stories to push a political narrative. That would be awful!

    =Smidge=

    1. Re:Sinclair Broadcast Group by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Informative

      Were it only so. There would be no business model for them if what you said was true, and they're still thriving. Look to Sinclair Media's profitability and lockstep newscasts if you had any questions. Underestimating compromised media is a big mistake.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:Sinclair Broadcast Group by eaglesrule · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obligatory.

      This is extremely dangerous to our democracy!

    3. Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group by greenwow · · Score: 2

      Then thank God for the Russians!

    4. Re:Sinclair Broadcast Group by yuriklastalov · · Score: 2

      Hell yeah! Bring on the thermonuclear Armageddon! That'll show those fucking Russian who's boss!

    5. Re:Sinclair Broadcast Group by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      the revenue comes from ads not watchers...if I bought my car based on an ad i'd be (fill in the blank)

      One word: ratings.

      The more watchers they have, the more they can charge advertisers.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Sinclair Broadcast Group by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      You mistake yourself for the average Joe or Jane.

      They're the one watching TV tonight. Not you. They're not you.

      They're not me, either, but at least I understand they exist, and swing electoral college votes. Don't under estimate TV watchers. TV is still free. Slashdot is still free. People do both because: Free.

      Much of rural America still watches TV over dishes. Think about election demographics, urban vs not. Re-evaluate the importance. This is why nutjobs like 538.com blew the election predictions: underestimated the power of TV as a media source. Yes, there were other perhaps evil influences. TV has a captive audience. Not you. Not me. But it's a big audience.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  2. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why? To erode U.S. politics and disrupt NATO.

    Russia's biggest restriction on expanding their influence has always been NATO. NATO's balls have been cut off without reliable American participation.

    Someone ought to swing for this. As a cynic I know that powerful people often don't bear the consequences of their actions. But make no mistake, this is as much of an attack on America as 9/11 was.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shut up trumptard. You'll believe anything the orange clown says. So you'll surely believe this:

      "I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone, and I still wouldn't lose any voters".

      Those "voters" he was talking about, yeah, that's you.

      It takes a special kind of moron to keep defending a man who calls them moron to their faces.

    2. Re:Why? by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Are you denying that Germany is dependent on Russian energy?"

      In general, yes.

      Fact Check - Germany Imports Gas From Russia. But Is It a 'Captive'?

      TL;DR: Trump was very incorrect (or lied, take your pick) about the amount of energy Germany gets from Russia. Germany does get _some_ of their energy from Russia, but it's not the majority of their energy, and despite that Germany has been far more willing to stand up to Russia and impose sanctions against than Trump is.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    3. Re:Why? by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's all about pressuring Germany to buy fracked LNG. If you expected Truth from Trump, you were mistaken; he's a sales guy with lip flatulence, a bad hairdo, and no conscience. Sales guy.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:Why? by will_die · · Score: 2, Informative

      And that article is a perfect example why people should not trust the NY Times.
      Lets look at its major claims:
      That Trump lied about the amount of natural gas using the numbers 60 to 70 percent : The journalist did not even try to do basic research, and kind of admits that. The numbers from eurostat are 50 to 70 percent http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/. Trump was well in range, so ignorance to the times and its readers. If anything Trump is low because he was also talking about a new pipeline still in discussion that Russia is pushing for.

      That Germany is not captive of Russia: According to the Eurostat in addition to that 50 to 70 percent of natural gas Germany gets over 50 of their oil from Russia. The article then gives some opitions, I thought that was a news piece not editoral, however the new york times does not need facts. The "journalist" then ignores what happened in Ukraine when they were dependant on Russia for fuel. Also as trump said, and what he was talking about, they are planning for the new pipe which will increase the amount of energy that comes from Russia. Anyone with a free thinking mind that was in an economic condition where they were dependant on someone for 70% and they being pushed to increase that amount would say they are "have no freedom to choose alternatives" the very definition of captive.

    5. Re:Why? by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > That Trump lied about the amount of natural gas using the numbers 60 to 70 percent : The journalist did not even try to do basic research, and kind of admits that.

      I'm having trouble finding the necessary data on the site you linked, mostly because you didn't link to anything relevant. You may as well linked to Google.com as supporting evidence for your claims. Care to walk us through the process to get the numbers you're citing?

      Meanwhile, the NYT article straight up states that 50% number ("nearly half") for natural gas imports, and links to a June 2018 report that shows Germany gets 48.5% of its total natural gas from Russia (51.1% of all *imported* natural gas).

      Trump doesn't know what the actual value is, and has overstated it significantly when trying to make his point (and overstating claims is literally his only shtick). The fact that you have repeated the 70% value - a complete fabrication as far as I can tell - is a dismal reminder of how effective Trump's lie has been.

      So good job on not doing your own research, and repeating a lie, I guess.
      =Smidge=

    6. Re:Why? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 2

      The quote was about energy which since he also mentioned nuclear and coal so did he just mean fossil fuels?. If other forms of energy are considered the percentage is less than 20%.

      Germany is totally controlled by Russia They will be getting between 60 and 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline, and you tell me if that is appropriate because I think it's not,

      Even with the new pipeline this will not raise their energy percentage that high. It may if only natural gas and oil are considered, but that would paint a very incomplete picture.

      Germany is a captive of Russia because they supply (energy). They got rid of their coal plants. They got rid of their nuclear. They’re getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it’s something that NATO has to look at.

      Of course they haven't gotten rid of coal or nuclear (yet anyway) and they're expanding renewable energy.

    7. Re:Why? by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That doesn't address the point that if Russia is a threat why is Germany sending billions for energy sources.

      May as well ask why the U.S. is sending billions to China for goods. Or hundreds of millions to Venezuela for oil - even in 2018. Or tens millions to Russia for rides to the International Space Station.

    8. Re:Why? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your post is a perfect example of why people should not trust random Slashdot posters.

      Your link to Eurostat goes to their home page. The actual data is here: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s...

      That could have been a genuine mistake on your part, but unfortunately I've seen a lot of people using this trick where they post a link that they assume no-one will actually check to give their post credibility, even though the link is broken/wrong/doesn't support their argument.

      Note that it's 50-75% of Germany's *gas* imports. Trump said "energy", but gas makes up less than 20% of Germany's energy mix.

      Also, note that this doesn't mean Germany is "totally controlled" by Russia as Trump claims, any more than I am "totally controlled" by the supermarket I get 60% of my food from. It just means that if Russia did decide to squeeze Germany's natural gas supply I'd have to shop somewhere else or eat fewer avocados.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Not just the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sinclair broadcast group owns many "local" stations, often multiple in a city. They force the "local" news shows to run their stories, commentators, and have the local hosts read corporate produced statements. They also force stations to run their national produced "news" shows like Full Measure.

    They even run commercials about how independent and reliable local new is. It's funny to see these same ones on multiple stations.

  4. This is not going away. by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see every time this comes up that political process hacking is somehow not seen as a big deal, because injustice in the name of conservatism is somehow sacred and above such considerations.

    Well, the digging won't stop. This isn't some 'Bengazi' investigation - this is about the heart of our election process, about how much influence foreign interference had.

    I know that conservatives have power over the mechanisms of power now - and plenty of folks like that idea, and want it to continue at all costs. But if it comes at a cost of ignoring damage to our democracy, it won't be remembered well at all.

    This is not going away.

    None of these issues are going away.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:This is not going away. by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      You mean besides all the indictments and guilty pleas that have nothing whatsoever to do with Russia interfering with the election or colluding with Trump to do so

      FTFY. Even in Mueller's embarrassing indictment of a Twitter troll farm, he admits it had no effect on the election. You Russiagaters are as sad as the Bushbots who still insist that Saddam had WMD's more than a decade after the Bush Administration itself gave up on any such claims.

  5. Curious.. by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Curious how deeply researchers dug into these accounts. Another possibility would be for them to have also posted 'fake news', allow it to get shared while relevant, and then delete those posts to continue the appearance of a semi-legit news source...? Very troubling either way. What would be really helpful now is news sources documenting how to detect these questionable sites....the willingness of people to trust what they see on Twitter and elsewhere is another side of the problem that needs attention.

  6. Re:This is the weirdest shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about we let Mueller do his job and see what the results are.

    Until then, take your own advice, mmm-k.

  7. Given that a single right wing media outlet by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    called Sinclair news just bought virtually all local stations (and were allowed to do it by our current FCC) that's not really an issue.

    I keep saying this, but when it comes to economics the media has a distinct right wing, pro-corporate bias.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. Beyond fake news by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These accounts apparently never spread misinformation

    There is no need for fake news or misinformation. Very good results are obtained by just choosing what subjects are covered or not. This is what mainstream media do andit works very well.

  9. Re:Russians exploited Americans' trust In local ne by PseudoAnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you're claiming that additional evidence that Russia has an extensive framework set up to interfere with US democracy through manipulating citizens' knowledge and views somehow doesn't support the narrative that Putin influenced the 2016 US election through Facebook and Twitter posts? Sounds like you're too far gone to see the issue objectively.

    Side note: The media hardly ever talked about Hillary. They spent most of their time feeding into an underdog story for (privileged self-professed billionaire) Trump. And, sadly, this country values naive "thinking from the gut" over well-thought-out plans from people with experience and a proven record. The difference in detail (how goals could be accomplished) of plans for the country listed on their campaign pages was laughable as if Donald didn't want to win from the start.

    The lobbying system is absolutely a problem though. And people desperately wanted change. But hiring a rich grifter is not a very logical way to change that compared to electing a moderate liberal judge who could help overturn Citizens' United.

  10. Re:Apathy to be Expected by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    this is about the heart of our election process

    Exactly, this is precisely the problem.

    Yes, it is. People who think Twitter is the heart of our election process are a big problem.

    Folks, Twitter is a social media thing. There is no validation of who posts what. It is DESIGNED for anyone to be able to say whatever they want. Just because someone calls themselves "OrlandoOfficialRealNewspaper" doesn't make them a newspaper, and it never has. Anyone who does not understand that shouldn't be allowed to view tweets from anyone.

    Now it is a big deal that people are saying whatever they want, and it is somehow ruining the "democratic process". Item number 1 in the Bill of Rights is "freedom of speech", which means freedom of speech. It's based on the idea that people are supposed to be critical readers. Abandoning freedom because some people can't handle the work of thinking about what they read is pathetic.

    It's going to be hard to elicit a big response from people about a torrent of lies from foreign agents when they are already used to listening to a torrent of lies from everyone else who has a political agenda to push.

    FTFY.

    I have yet to see anyone comment on the heart of this story. Russians created Twitter accounts to spread disinformation and then didn't use them to spread disinformation. From TFS:

    Another twist: These accounts apparently never spread misinformation. In fact, they posted real local news, ...

    Shocking abuse of our electoral process, Russian agents posting real news stories. Absolutely unthinkable and unacceptable!

  11. Re:Enough about the Russians already! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Are there Russian Nazis?

    Oh yes, and they have the full support of the Russian government.

    https://www.theguardian.com/ne...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. Re:Apathy to be Expected by Straif · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Foreign governments HAVE ALWAYS been involved in the democratic process. The only time they aren't is if your country has absolutely nothing of advantage for them which is rare.

    It may be as little as a nasty word or two about a particular politician or it could be an outright assassination but you'd be hard pressed to find any election in the past 200 years in which some foreign power wasn't involved either behind the curtain or outright on the streets.

    The 'Russian' thing is just sour grapes. China probably had more of an impact on the last election in the US.

    --
    Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  13. Re:Russians exploited Americans' trust In local ne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you want to suppress the truth because you don't want it influencing elections I have no idea what to say.

    Actually this is the crux of the matter. The US (and many other Western countries) Political scene is ready for wholesale silencing of "inconvenient" and "disruptive" and "hateful" truths for the sake of preserving cherished social illusions and National Myths. Many in the halls of power eye China with envy.

    And while it is the Democrats at preset who are the torch-bearers of this "innovation", make no mistake, the whole of US corrupt political machinery, from the deep-state operatives, through the MSM corporations, lobbyists, government contractors and the Republican party profiteers, would be very glad if this is met with success.

    All those close to the veins of power all love the idea.

    In fact, some ancient dude had something to say about this ... something about power and corruption...

  14. Re:It actually doesn't by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

    Sweden is only ahead of the US in that list because, get this, they have very low government debt due to actually having taxes and a great economy. It's not the best argument. But what can I expect from someone who says 23 (Norway), 25 (Germany), 71 (France) are higher than 18 (US)

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!