
Russia Hysteria Infects WashPost: False Story About Hacking U.S. Electric Grid - platinumrad
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-again-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/
======
mmaunder
We reverse engineered the IOC's included in Thursday's report from the FBI
that released malware data that is supposedly associated with the 'Russian'
election hack. Turns out it's a hacking group in Ukraine, anyone can get it
for free (but if you're nice you'll donate to their BTC account) and the DHS
and FBI sample was several versions behind.

[https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-
hac...](https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/)

The trouble is that the report was released at the same time as the expulsion
of 35 Russian diplomats and the whole context around it, including some of the
language used in the report, implies it's proof of a Russian election hack.

We also analyzed the IP's they shared and they're just a mish-mash of known
attack IP's around the world - probably hacked hosts being used as an attack
platform by everyone. ISP's include Linode and Digital Ocean.

I'm having serious Colin Powell UN flashbacks here: IC releases questionable
data as justification for military policy decisions.

I've done two interviews this morning about this story and I'm told by one
very well known journalist that publications both on the left and right think
this whole thing stinks. Here's RS's take.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-
stinks-w458439

~~~
DominoTree
I was curious about a couple of things that weren't clear in the article.

1) Did you actually verify that the IPs provided were part of the Tor network,
or did you just see that their rDNS records currently have the string "tor" in
them, as you described in the article?

2) Did you identify the malware you reversed by file hash, or did you find
something that hit on the provided Yara sig?

I think adding these details to the article might give technical readers some
more insight into and more confidence in the methods used.

~~~
mmaunder
Not sure why the post above has been downvoted to 0. Too bad. It's some of the
best research we've ever done.

We didn't look at the hashes or using hashing to identify anything. It's quite
a story actually:

The report provided a Yara sig for PHP malware. We used that to search our own
attack data that we log and we found the full malware sample that matched the
sig.

But it was encrypted. It's a small piece of PHP that gets a key from a POST
param or COOKIE and decrypts the executable code and runs it. Quite smart
actually if you want to obfuscate code. So we needed the key.

We looked at our attack data and thankfully we logged one of the attempts by
an attacker to access the malware including their key. It was just 4 lowercase
chars so we could have bruteforced it.

We decrypted the malware. That gave us the name and version. We googled that
and found the distro site. Claim they're a Ukrainian group and the version DHS
has a Yara sig for is several versions behind.

We downloaded it. It's a standard PHP 'shell' malware which means it's just a
utility to manage a compromised site. File management, upload, OS info, OS
command running etc. Nothing super scary and the most common malware we see.
Nothing that would infect a workstation in a watering-hole attack.

Regarding the IPs: No we just did a PTR lookup and assumed they're Tor exit
nodes as they say they are.

Mark.

~~~
downandout
_> Not sure why the post above has been downvoted to 0. Too bad. It's some of
the best research we've ever done._

Any post on HN that implies that anyone other than Vladimir Putin himself is
responsible for Clinton's defeat will get downvotes...I've lost about 15
points on various posts downplaying this narrative. The Silicon Valley crowd
simply cannot tolerate any hint of an alternate narrative.

~~~
solarengineer
HN participants are now from all over the world. I'm an Indian in Singapore,
for e.g.

~~~
topynate
True enough (I'm in Israel. Hi!) but despite a good measure of international
interest, it's the Americans who are most likely to have a strong emotional
reaction to this topic. It's their election, after all. I really dislike +/\-
voting on political comments for just this reason; too easy to convince
oneself that a downvote is merited.

------
a3n
> What’s the problem here? It did not happen.

> There was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid.” The truth was
> undramatic and banal. Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland
> Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies about the malware code
> found in the DNC system, searched all their computers and found the code in
> a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.

"and found the code in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric
grid."

So, the first step in penetrating a system was accomplished, getting the code
onto a device that could potentially (or so they attacker may have hoped) be
connected to the target network.

Until I hear that the code was put on the laptop by its owners intentionally
and for legitimate reasons, this sounds like an attack. The headlines and
responses are arguably alarmist and not fully informed, but it's still an
attack. The dismissal of alarmism seems intended to obscure the likelihood
that there was, in fact, the start of an attack.

If a spear phishing attack fails, was it not still an attack? That it was an
attack in the direction of the power grid is, by definition, _alarming_.
[EDIT: The first sentence in this paragraph confuses my point, and can
profitably be ignored.]

The intercept's article could have been less sensationalist itself, and I
wonder what the motivation for the overdramatization of the Post's failure
would be. Competition? Schadenfreude? Sensationalist link baiting?

Regardless, I had hoped for a more sober and professional style from the
intercept from its early days, and I've long ago stopped reading it, modulo
the odd HN post.

~~~
strictnein
The Intercept in general (and Greenwald in particular) seems to spend an
inordinate amount of time combating the "Russia Hysteria", as they've labeled
it.

~~~
RodericDay
Inordinate?

The United States went to war in Iraq in 2003 under false pretenses. The cost
of that mistake was gigantic, and continues to pile up.

This saber-rattling against Russia could have serious consequences, and seems
to be inspired mainly by a need to find some kind of scapegoat on which to
blame the DNC's absurd loss against Trump.

I'm glad they're doing this.

~~~
bluejekyll
> The United States went to war in Afghanistan in 2003 under false pretenses.

I hardly call 2,000 dead Americans, and an attack on American soil "false
pretenses".

If you want to claim that it was misguided to perform a full scale invasion
vs. targeted special ops missions, that is a more interesting argument.

Now, the war in Iraq on the other hand, that was false pretenses...

~~~
7952
At this point I am not sure if the justness of the argument makes much
difference. When you make world changing decisions you have to accept that you
will be judged by history, and not on the terms that you decide.

------
woodruffw
From the referenced article:

> Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that
> Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there
> is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that
> was hacked was not attached to the grid.

This is journalistic ethics in action. WaPo has publicly admitted a mistake
and revised their article as a result. Greenwald can (and deserves to) give
himself a pat on the back.

That being said, I am disappointed in his bad faith equivocation of the
(occasionally sloppy and partisan) news media with "news" that is patently
false and engineered to maximize advertising revenue. Calling this "fake news"
just gives the GOP more (dishonest) ammunition in its 40 year war with the
Post.

~~~
ternaryoperator
That's exactly right. This wasn't fake news, but rather a poorly researched
story. And a correction was published.

With fake news, the story is never retracted or corrected, but continues to be
elaborated. Compare this to the "Clinton runs a network of child sexual abuse
through a pizzeria in DC."

~~~
stefantalpalaru
> And a correction was published.

Too late. I already saw a news segment about Russia hacking US power plants on
mainstream Italian TV. There will be no retraction here and the disinformation
is already in the public consciousness.

------
disordinary
Fake news isn't a new phenomenon, in the 1870s a satrical/comedic article in a
New Zealand newspaper about an impending Russian invasion led to such wide
spread hysteria that the colonial government almost bankrupted itself. To sate
the public it had to invest heavily in naval vessels and build 17 forts to
fight off the (non existent) Russian menace.

It's a wee bit hypocritical for the US to get so upset about these things
though, considering all the elections that the CIA have been involved in, not
to mention the stuff that Snowden revealed (like tapping the German
Chancellors phone). Everyone knows that whatever espionage Russia is doing to
the US the US is doing back in kind. All the powers will be hacking each
other.

~~~
matt_wulfeck
It makes us look hypocritical. We are hypocritical. Who is the current
administration trying to fool? The world or its citizens?

The petty finger pointing needs to stop. The low sophistication of the DNC
hack just reinforces this. Besides, if you don't want to be embarrassed then
don't do embarrassing things and then sulk when you're exposed.

~~~
pg314
> Besides, if you don't want to be embarrassed then don't do embarrassing
> things and then sulk when you're exposed.

I don't think that is a very good argument. If you were to look through the
email of most middle-sized organisations you would be able to find
embarrassing things.

~~~
13years
It was far beyond embarrassing, it was at minimum unethical.

And if we believe that such exists elsewhere, then we should be calling for
more exposure of such vs ignoring it as operating as normal.

------
ChuckMcM
These events have a reaction time, a response time, and a validation time. It
is critical that legitimate news outlets keep their validation time small so
that they can accurately report events.

The danger is pretty clear, if response time is shorter than validation time,
people or systems will respond, perhaps irreversibly, before validation can be
achieved.

That is how you do real damage in a system. Hopefully a very public critical
response to the Washington Post here will help extend their response time
again past the validation time.

~~~
athenot
The _Washington Post_ corrected their story. This is a key differentiator for
higher quality publications. They try to get it right but if they don't, they
must prompty correct their article.

The article from _The Intercept_ comes across as more alarmist than the
original one from the _Post_. The second paragraph reads:

> _While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations,
> according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a
> security matter, the discovery underscores the vulnerabilities of the
> nation’s electrical grid._

There's a nuance that seems to be lost in Greenwald's interpretation of the
article.

~~~
monochromatic
Nobody[0] reads corrections. The damage is done when the original, incorrect,
inflammatory article is published. You can't unring that bell, and the
Washington Post editors know that.

[0] To within experimental error.

~~~
maguirre
I would argue that a reasonable person would actually read a correction. it's
not exactly un ringing a bell but many of us come away with the truth even if
we believed the original at first

~~~
rhizome
I don't think that's reasonable at all. How often do you return to story URLs
you've already read to check whether they've changed or not?

------
Mikeb85
WaPo, Nytimes, CNN, all part of the US propaganda machine.

The anti-Russia hysteria is getting ridiculous, and the more the media drum it
up, the less people believe it.

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0ArMMGXcAIo8oL.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0ArMMGXcAIo8oL.jpg)

~~~
IBM
Ironically the Russians have broken into the homes of US diplomats in Moscow
and have pooped in them (among other things like killing one of their dogs).

>At a recent meeting of U.S. ambassadors from Russia and Europe in Washington,
U.S. ambassadors to several European countries complained that Russian
intelligence officials were constantly perpetrating acts of harassment against
their diplomatic staff that ranged from the weird to the downright scary. Some
of the intimidation has been routine: following diplomats or their family
members, showing up at their social events uninvited or paying reporters to
write negative stories about them.

But many of the recent acts of intimidation by Russian security services have
crossed the line into apparent criminality. In a series of secret memos sent
back to Washington, described to me by several current and former U.S.
officials who have written or read them, diplomats reported that Russian
intruders had broken into their homes late at night, only to rearrange the
furniture or turn on all the lights and televisions, and then leave. One
diplomat reported that an intruder had defecated on his living room carpet.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-
opinions/russ...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-
opinions/russia-is-harassing-us-diplomats-all-over-
europe/2016/06/26/968d1a5a-3bdf-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html)

~~~
Mikeb85
Forgive me for being sceptical, considering this entire thread is about WaPo
publishing false stories, and you linking to one of their publications...

~~~
jimnotgym
And closing down a school for diplomats kids...except it appears that didn't
happen either. I am finding it very hard to believe any of the Russia vs US
news

------
striking
It's funny how much flak Facebook (and almost no one else) got for "fake news"
when the vast majority of today's journalism is so saccharine.

Is there a way contemporary journalism can be fixed?

~~~
Mikeb85
Journalism has never been as impartial as people like to believe, bias and
opinion always infects every piece. This in itself isn't necessarily a
problem, except when society and the media becomes an echo chamber, and
difference of opinion is marginalized.

Edit - should add, journalism is being fixed. The MSM is becoming increasingly
irrelevant, social media and independent journalists who are on Twitter and
various blogs are becoming more relevant.

~~~
vectorpush
> _The MSM is becoming increasingly irrelevant, social media and independent
> journalists who are on Twitter and various blogs are becoming more
> relevant._

I would hardly call this a fix. The MSM is certainly unreliable, but "twitter
and various blogs" are even less so.

~~~
Mikeb85
As a medium, Twitter is unreliable. When you take the entirety of social
media, the fact pictures and video can be taken in real time, you can then
come to a conclusion that is close to the truth.

~~~
darpa_escapee
On the other hand, Sunil Tripathi and Pizzagate.

~~~
Mikeb85
Twitter has also been instrumental in coverage of various conflicts around the
world.

And even though Pizzagate is firmly in conspiracy theory territory, you've got
to admit - some of Podesta's emails were fucking weird.

~~~
vectorpush
> _some of Podesta 's emails were fucking weird_

I don't think that necessarily qualifies as newsworthy. A "real journalist"
would have read those e-mails, found them to be pretty weird, then did an
investigation to determine if anything of merit could be uncovered before
printing a story. If there were any journalists involved, the pizzagate story
would have been a perfect example of "irresponsible journalism", i.e.
projecting unfounded claims based on rabid speculation and "gut instincts",
yet being unable to prove anything definitively.

------
betrothed
I'm inclined to say, however small, or peripheral, or target cognizant, this
is still an infrastructure hack.

It's not a SCADA attack on systems that deliver services, but surely an attack
that lands close enough to "The Electric Grid" to pay attention.

Pay attention now, not later.

------
Spooky23
Sorry, Glenn, that's not fake news.

The intercept has plenty of "all hat" articles where the picture painted by
the headlines doesn't necessarily match the content.

------
disposablezero
This is what happens when the majority of journalists both have a profit
motive and cozy up to the establishment: they'll say anything and a low/no-
information populace gobbles it up without a grain of salt.

The Intercept, Democracy Now, Thom Hartmann, TYT, et. al. are in a precarious
position because they often speak the truth, which is inconvenient to those in
power. Whether they can mostly survive and measurably supplant establishment
media by demographics isn't certain. Whether Trump will target investigative
journalists and net neutrality (likely) Erdogan-style is anyone's guess.

PS: Another interesting CIA operation which taints media and fuels conspiracy
theories
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)

------
divbit
What is the boundary between what we consider "fake news" and news with a tiny
kernel of truth somewhere in it (in this story it sounds like a semi-related
laptop was infected with some malware) that is sensationalized to claim
something much broader? I think that there are some pieces of news (e.g. meme-
news that people post on social media sites, that would be similar to what one
might read in a tabloid) that get automatically rejected by my BS filter a lot
easier than something like the piece mentioned in the article, which was
posted by a respectable journal.

~~~
mtgx
If we can't create a common sense and universally accepted definition of fake
news that's also specific _enough_ , then no attempts to ban "fake news"
should even be made.

In my book, manufacturing 90% of the story based on a "small kernel of truth"
still counts as fake news, but perhaps others disagree.

This stuff can lead to war (McCain actually called this an act of war from
Russia, after reading the original WashPost article), and in fact it has.
Unsurprisingly WashPost was a big part of pushing the U.S. into the Iraq war
as well.

[https://www.democracynow.org/2004/8/13/washington_post_admit...](https://www.democracynow.org/2004/8/13/washington_post_admits_it_buried_anti)

No lessons learned, it seems.

~~~
cloakandswagger
In many ways it is worse in my opinion. Blatantly false stories (like the one
claiming Trump won the popular vote) are easily and quickly debunked. WaPo's
brand of exaggerated stories based on a small kernel of truth is a lot more
insidious and persistent.

~~~
ternaryoperator
> Blatantly false stories (like the one claiming Trump won the popular vote)
> are easily and quickly debunked.

If only. How long has the claim that Clinton runs a child abuse ring through a
Washington DC pizzeria been going on? The Obama birther controversy?

These things are very difficult to debunk even in the presence of clear
contrary information.

------
astaroth360
[https://twitter.com/DanaHoule/status/815227058334892032](https://twitter.com/DanaHoule/status/815227058334892032)

"Hope everyone remembers just before Trump took office @ggreenwald was
praising Breitbart & @jeremyscahill was joking about working for Putin"

^ This

~~~
astaroth360
Also this:

[https://twitter.com/RobertMLee/status/815251935666327556](https://twitter.com/RobertMLee/status/815251935666327556)

"Did Russia hack the DNC? Yes. Is the DHS/FBI report good? No. Does either
have anything to do with the electric utility in Vermont? Nope."

------
esalman
WashPost now has Editors Note acknowledging its key claim was false (source:
[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/815291333942411264](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/815291333942411264)
)

------
mtgx
This is why every time there was a post about "banning fake news" on HN, I
_specifically_ gave WashPost as an example (knowing they've written pure
propaganda/false stories in the past) and questioned "whether a site like
WashPost would have its _fake news_ articles blocked on Facebook, too", when
they are caught manufacturing stories (which they arguably did here).

Because if such articles from the big media companies _wouldn 't_ be blocked,
then the system would be biased and unworkable, and Facebook or Google will
just find a lot of backlash against them over it.

------
sergiotapia
At this point there is -zero- evidence Russia hacked anything. Anyone saying
that is cringeworthy.

------
Jerry2
WaPo is now a blatant propaganda outlet. They don't seem to care about the
truth anymore and they've become what they accuse others of: a fake news
source.

------
JudasGoat
God. Once politics is involved, objectivity and truth are the first
casualties.

------
ehaskins
For your reference the fourth paragraph from WashPost story:

>Burlington Electric said in a statement that the company detected a malware
code used in the Grizzly Steppe operation in a laptop that was not connected
to the organization’s grid systems. The firm said it took immediate action to
isolate the laptop and alert federal authorities

~~~
platinumrad
Yes, they added that eventually, but long after the story had gone viral.

Here's an earlier cached version:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20161231011622/https://www.washin...](http://web.archive.org/web/20161231011622/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-
vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html)

------
canjobear
On a related note, what was the outcome of the claim that North Korea hacked
Sony? I was never convinced by the evidence presented but it seems to be
something people generally believe was true.

------
mavdi
I find this article as misleading as the original WP article. Truth is out the
window, get used to it. If one side can come up with utter nonsense, then why
can't the other?

------
zzzcpan
Isn't malware on some worker's laptop a common way of penetrating disconnected
networks? Not that it matters, as it serves the agenda equally well being
either a "false" or a "true" story. Seems like calling Russia out on covert
operations was too scary for them, so they chose hacking as a more acceptable
thing.

------
astaroth360
I'd like to see better evidence of the US election being hacked, but I
understand they wouldn't want to release anything that could cut off their
ways into Russian systems. I don't know how anyone expects to get real proof
of it without us deciding to give away strategically important gaps in Russian
infosec.

------
czep
There's more than enough real news to be upset about. With all the focus on
email hacking, why no furor over the stolen $100mn?

In the meantime we hear sob stories about the consulate chef being deported.
Poor guy! Hard to feel bad when he's got 9 digits stashed in a Swiss account.

------
draw_down
The really shameful part of this is the xenophobic garbage spewed by Democrats
who are upset their candidate lost the election. They can't handle the thought
that they simply lost, so now anyone who disagrees with them is an agent
planted by Putin.

~~~
untog
But don't you see that you're doing the same from the opposite side? Any
criticism of Putin is attributed to bitter Democrats, so there can be no valid
criticism of Putin any more.

~~~
Mikeb85
The problem is that there isn't any real criticism. Much like their failed
election campaign - they focused so much on character assassination, that any
valid criticism of Trump could simply be dismissed.

If I had to argue a point in a university essay, and argued in the fashion the
media has for the last year, any of my profs would have failed me.

You'd think educated professionals, in a supposedly intellectual, free society
would do better. But nope, just "Putin is a dictator", or "Trump is a racist".
It's these journalists' fault no one listens any more.

~~~
maxerickson
Putin has had journalists killed.

He's invaded territory of other countries.

He's authorized the bombing of civilian areas in Syria.

You might think the evidence that the journalists were killed by Russia is
inflated. You might think the Russians living in Ukraine deserve to live under
the rule of mother Russia. You might not think there are civilians among the
Syrian rebels. But I'm pretty sure that those things at least meet the bar of
real criticism.

~~~
cloakandswagger
Obama has had Americans assassinated without trial.

He's bombed and destabilized other countries (Libya)

He's funded and armed terrorists fighting in civilian areas of Syria.

See how easy that is? One thing I've learned is just how many shades of gray
exist in the real world, and as such I refuse to accept the narrative that
Putin is a literal cartoon villain.

~~~
maxerickson
Obama deserves criticism for those actions!

~~~
Mikeb85
Yet the media gives him a pass, and makes us believe Putin is the bogeyman...

------
fixxer
I once thought fake news meant Breitbart and Alex Jones...

------
mSparks
almost comedy.

is it the good AIDs or bad AIDs (Mary Whitehouse experience reference)

It was clearly the good computer virus designed to penetrate state
infrastructure. because Glenn Greenwald said so.

~~~
dang
Please stop posting unsubstantive comments here, and please also stop posting
inflammatory comments about divisive topics. We've asked you this several
times before.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13293235](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13293235)
and marked it off-topic.

------
IBM
When it comes to Glenn Greenwald, @noahpinion said it best [1]:

Is there a catch-all term for middle-aged white lefty dudes who are pro-Russia
because their political outlook was defined by the Iraq War?

[1]
[https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/815104514046902273](https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/815104514046902273)

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13293198](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13293198)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
mSparks
how do we report moderators?

you seem intent on forcing your particular world view on hn than providing
moderation of explosive or unpleasant reading.

i find reading all the posts you like to detach often more interesting reading
than any of the hn comments that get left over.

------
dimino
Glenn Greenwald is being _really_ weird about this Russia hacking thing.

Why?

~~~
AlexCoventry
He's practicing journalism. Demanding verification from sources, particularly
historically untrustworthy ones, is basic journalism.

~~~
dimino
Journalism isn't about "demanding verification" it's about getting it for
yourself, and waiting until you have it before writing an article.

Also, him saying "false story" is, itself false, because the the facts are
objectively true. Officials _did_ say what they were quoted as saying, and the
NYT changed the headline shortly after publishing the story, which is (like it
or not) common practice in the industry. Glenn was party to it himself while
at The Guardian.

It's just "weird" to me that there's a faction of people out there who don't
believe that Russia infiltrated the DNC, and I think it's because they're
politically motivated to not believe this to be the case.

There's never been such an ignorance driving security news before. It's
alarming and completely out of left field.

~~~
cloakandswagger
It's equally unfathomable to me that there are people who take the Russia/DNC
story as fact, even when no concrete evidence has been presented. That WaPo
tries to throw fuel on the fire with by exaggerating a small morsel of truth
(see: "RUSSIA HACKS U.S. POWER GRID") is even more concerning.

~~~
dimino
What would you need to see to believe it happened? Be as specific as you can.

~~~
cloakandswagger
Source please

edit: Since you edited your original post - I would want to see the same
report that Obama saw, the one that led his administration to go so far as
saying Putin was "personally involved" in orchestrating the attack. Redact
sensitive info/sources as necessary.

Anything less makes it ludicrous to accuse a nuclear superpower of cyber
warfare.

~~~
dimino
I asked what specific piece of evidence is missing.

~~~
cloakandswagger
You did, after you edited the original post ("There is concrete evidence.")

Have you even looked at the "evidence" out there so far? It's entirely
circumstantial evidence put out by third party info sec groups.

~~~
dimino
Can you specifically name the content you would have to see in a given
government report that would convince you this event took place?

~~~
Gargoyle
Can you specifically name the content in a given government report that _has_
convinced you this event took place?

------
tmuir
The Washington Post, is a national media institution who has had their press
credentials revoked by Trump. Therefore the organization, by definition, at a
disadvantage, when it comes to gaining CONTEXT about the subject of their
reporting. Thus, The Washington Post is mired in CONTROVERSY. This is only
natural.

People misinterpret each other's text messages and internet comments, often
with CONTROVERSIAL outcomes, because the initiator of the message has failed
to provide sufficient CONTEXT. This is only natural.

The entire aviation industry vilified Captain Sullenberger, even though he had
just saved 155 peoples lives, because everyone investigating the incident
lacked sufficient CONTEXT to explain to themselves, and each other how Sully
was able to accomplish something that had never happened in the history of
aviation. Captain Sullenberger did, in fact, possess sufficient CONTEXT, which
he gained over a long career of landing other failing airplaines. This CONTEXT
possessed by Sullenberger, at least as portrayed in the movie, is written all
over Tom Hanks face in the form of a stiff upper lip. That guy was as cool as
the other side of the pillow the whole time, before, during, and after his
water landing. Once sufficient CONTEXT was provided, the CONTROVERSY
immediately subsided. This is only natural.

The United States of America is at a fairly CONTROVERSIAL point in its
history. I wonder, if American's sought out the true CONTEXT of the people
they find the most CONTROVERSIAL, their political opponents, if said
CONTROVERSY would naturally subside.

Find someone you disagree with, and see how long you can keep talking to them.

[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=controversy](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=controversy)

[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=context](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=context)

------
vonnik
The Wikileaks-Greenwald-Russia axis stands firm.

------
exabrial
Remember news agencies only make money if people are panicking...

------
zxcvvcxz
The most ironic part of the whole "fake news" debacle is that those pushing it
are just as guilty.

It's OK though, fear not, because Facebook will tell you what's real and
what's not.

