Fake News

[zoogs]

That Intercept article is interesting. They've really gone on the offensive lately.

 

I wouldn't on the face doubt what politicians are willing to do to accomplish their political aims. Let's take a look at what Russia does, since the incoming President appears to admire Putin's style:

 

 

Seemingly, no target is too small to warrant attention, no attack too petty. Trained to believe that the ends always justify the means, Russian security service operatives “have sick minds,” Mr. Bukovsky said. “They live in a virtual reality.” (...)

 

For the Kremlin’s supporters, the verdict on Mr. Bukovsky is already in. On learning of the charges against him, Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of the state-funded television outlet RT, posted a sneering message on Twitter: “The Pedophile Plan: rape a child, sign up in the opposition, emigrate, expose the flaws of the motherland and all will be well. Or not.”

 

The idea that Europeans and Russian opponents of the Kremlin are sexual deviants with a taste for pedophilia is a strange but recurring theme in Russian propaganda.

 

If you don't think the Trump administration wants to discredit their opponents -- or isn't willing to paint them as sexual predators or deviants -- then you haven't been paying any attention. Legions of hardcore Trump supporters shouted that Bill Clinton was a rapist and Hillary was a murderer who enabled his predation.

 

If you're worried about how a POTUS can use his discretion and the powers of office to go after opponents in this way, then I'd say you're not nearly worried enough.

[HuskerNation1]

Hillary lost the election because people don't like her.

 

Fake news is a bad thing for America because people aren't discerning enough to see the difference between propaganda and facts.

 

These are not the same conversation.

 

American voters never get all the facts, as many examples in the liberal MSM bias thread pointed out. Elections always rely on voters sifting through many sources of information, some may be blatantly false, while others show a hidden bias in an attempt to create a false perception from the viewer.

 

As for why Hillary lost the election, I honestly think it came down to issues and policies, and the role of an insider vs outsider. I have said that since the spring when it was clear that it was going to be Hillary vs Trump. Both had high negatives and a large group of voters that did not like the other person. However, voters who may approve of Obama personally do not like his policies and the direction the country was in which is why you saw the GOP have a surge at the Presidential level as well as the House and Senate. The Dems had way fewer seats to defend in the Senate and still couldn't retake it, and that's not because voters didn't like Hillary.

[HuskerNation1]

 

Interesting thread. It appears the new talking points from the left and Hillary herself is that she lost the election because of "fake news." A few weeks ago Russia was the villain, then it was Comey, and now it appears to be fake news. I wonder what the excuse will be next week.

 

 

No...the fake news is not a "left" or "right" issue. It's an American issue. Both sides fall for this crap. Now, we can get into discussions about to what degree each does...but, the fact remains...it exists on both sides.

Now, if the right WANTS this to become just a "right" issue, then they can ignore it and not fight against it. Their followers can just keep passing this crap all over social media and keep losing touch with reality.

 

 

 

As I just responded above, I do agree there is fake and dishonest news, and this has always been the case. We can argue whether "fake" news is worse than biased news from outlets that pretend their offering a fair shake of a news story, but voters have always had to make decisions on information that is not completely honest or accurate. Except in times of war, most voters end up voting for POTUS with their pocketbooks, and when they feel the economy is too sluggish or not doing well enough, they reject the party that currently holds the White House.

[Danny Bateman]

Here's some REAL news for you, courtesy of the Washington Post:

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

 

 

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

 

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

 

 

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

 

Also, if the CIA is to be believed, Assange is a liar:

 

 

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

 

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the “Russian government is not the source.”

 

Seriously, f*ck that guy.

 

Pretty brutal news if you love democracy. I got tired of connecting the dots on this during the campaign and hearing skeptics claim it was over-reacting or as some would say, whining. Of course, our own conspiracy theorist-in-chief Mr. Trump doubted Russia was behind this. It appears the CIA has quite conclusively disagreed. I think the only question about it at this point was whether Mr. Trump was in on it.

This should be extremely worrying, if not outright infuriating, to most everyone.

[Danny Bateman]

More tidbits, this really is an excellent article. There's so much to hash out in here. Essential reading.

 

 

In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals.

 

And they made a case for a united, bipartisan front in response to what one official described as “the threat posed by unprecedented meddling by a foreign power in our election process.”

 

The Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed on the need to take the threat seriously. Republicans, however, were divided, with at least two GOP lawmakers reluctant to accede to the White House requests.

 

According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.

 

Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands.

 

McConnell’s office did not respond to a request for comment. After the election, Trump chose McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as his nominee for transportation secretary.

 

1. So Russia definitely targeted Democrats specifically and left Republicans alone, and got inside at least two state systems. I don't know if that means start party infrastructure, state government systems, or the voting systems themselves. Tremendously worrying whatever the case. If you are one who counts yourself a proud Republican, how can you square your pride and the fact Russia seemed to ignore your party in lieu of hacking your opponents. Are there Republicans who can take pride in such a thing, and would they admit that perhaps that means that-- GASP-- Obama and his chums have done a rather effective job putting Russia in its place? Does this mean that Russia conclusively views Republicans as less hostile to its expansion and proliferation? It's been said many times, but it cannot be understated-- Republican demigod Ronald Reagan must be rolling over in his grave.

2. I have 0 respect for the current GOP, if that wasn't clear enough already.

3. McConnell can pound sand. That's quite a statement for that obstruction-leading turtle-looking sumbitch to make. It's disconcerting knowing our national security is a petty partisan matter to him. Shows you how much integrity that man has-- or the lack thereof. I actually really respect his wife's qualifications for Sec of Transport, she is eminently qualified-- but given his own sad acquiescence to Trump, on top of THAT quote.... ugh, I just can't deal with that guy.

 

4. To the last bolded-- what sweet irony. The article says Comey was in on these secret meetings. Funny, people raise the issue that perhaps it's too close to the election to go public with this info. Then Comey turns around and drops Emailgate part Deux 11 days before the election. That sad excuse for a public servant Chaffetz proceeds to set off a powder keg and wouldn't you know it, it DID effect the election!

Oy. Just supremely disheartening stuff.

[Danny Bateman]

The official Trump transition team statement:

 

https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/807417082551877632

 

Wow. These people are going to just continue to pretend this isn't a thing. Outrageous. They're looking the other way because it benefits them and gloating about their win. These are the people that are going to be in charge of our country and our future.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

The Washington Post late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: the key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.

 

 

PS.....it's important to read entire article.

[Danny Bateman]

Skepticism is good practice for any media we consume. Confirmation bias is rampant, and it seems like everyone just wants stuff that fits their worldview and gives them good feels rather than an unbiased look at reality.

 

However, I'd have an easier time being a skeptic if this was Salon or ThinkProgress or some other decidedly partisan media source. This is WaPo. They broke Watergate. I'd say they've earned their chops when it comes to protected sources. How long was it before we found out who Deep Throat was? Didn't make the news any less legit.

The fact that the Times also had a story running in conjunction about Russia holding onto what they hacked from the RNC servers instead of releasing it only strengthens this story. Wikileaks is merely a propaganda arm for the Russian government at this point, and Assange lied about his source.

Couldn't anything damaging they obtained when they hacked the RNC be used against Trump? Or any financial leverage they have over him as well? This is exactly what many of us worried about during his ascent-- that he's got conflicts of interest and skeletons in his closet that hostile foreign actors can use to dictate his course of action in their favor.

[BigRedBuster]

Watergate was over 40 years ago. Every media source has changed since then and no source is immune to the problem.

[Danny Bateman]

No, they're certainly not, but WaPo is still one of the most respected newspapers in America. They don't just publish rubbish. I trust them more than almost anyone.

[BigRedBuster]

Definitely they are in the upper echelon.

[Danny Bateman]

I'm all for what you said too, man. Let's lay it all out there. I'm losing faith in the legitimacy of the election. I want to cut the BS and get all the info out there for everyone to see. If it winds up rooted in fact, then my fears will be confirmed. If not, then we should rightfully move on. I will say I am extremely uncomfortable with the apparent partisanship showing from our federal agencies, with the CIA favoring Clinton and the FBI revolting because they liked Trump. Aren't they supposed to be above that?

 

The thing that is so frustrating to me is to see Trump supporters hump Assange's leg as some kind of hero of transparency. I'd argue he was actually making the situation worse because he was knowingly disseminating ONLY information on one side in an attempt to skew the results of our electoral process.

 

It's time to pull back the curtain on this bear and see how deep the rabbithole goes.

[BigRedBuster]

Agree...I want the truth found.

 

However, I have grown very skeptical of any article that uses "secret sources" and paints one side in an extreme demonized way.

 

It's not to the point that I totally dismiss it. But, more of...."hmmm. That's interesting. I'll be interested in seeing more evidence"

[Danny Bateman]

There is definitely way too much fluff out floating around the internet from crap sources (or indeed, in some cases, just made up) in order to promote agendas.

 

But again, it's the Post. They're definitely not pro-Trump since he's actively antagonized Bezos, but they're a very solid paper.

We'll just have to wait and see where this leads.

[zoogs]

I'm fascinated by how hard the Intercept is sticking with hammering the Post routinely in their Russia coverage. I haven't read yet any coverage on the Intercept coverage.

 

In principle I understand the criticism about secret sources, but I'm also puzzled. Isn't this (an important part of) how journalism works? Is the Intercept's reporting entirely based on Edward Snowden's publicly verified leaks? Are sources expected to be outed before articles can be printed? What am I not understanding here?