
Washington Post on the ‘Fake News’ Hot Seat - ry4n413
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/09/washington-post-on-the-fake-news-hot-seat.html
======
elefanten
I'd recommend reading the original story[1] if you've only read this wave of
criticism about it. The PropOrNot portion is only a relatively small part of
the whole piece.

And yes, they may have jumped the gun on that source a bit. But I also think
the characterization that this is neo-McCarthyism (see The Intercept's
hysterical take [2]) by the Washington Post is _far_ out of whack.

The piece as a whole, regarding Russian interference in the election and use
of social media for propaganda, is a well researched piece and continues to be
vindicated by reports and news that has come out since.[3][4]

edit: sources

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-
prop...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-
effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-
say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html)

[2] [https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-
disgrace...](https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-
disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-
shady-group/)

[3] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-01/russia-
we...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-01/russia-weaponized-
social-media-in-u-s-election-fireeye-says)

[4] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/obama...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-
campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html)

------
snowwrestler
The Post story is being twisted by competing media outlets to try to harm the
Post's reputation. The background here is that the Post has, over the course
of about 4 years, gone from being a floundering digital operation to one of
the most popular news destinations on the web, beating a lot of expectations.

There are 2 ways the Post story is being twisted.

1) Critiques of the Post story and PropOrNot always note with disdain the
anonymity of the PropOrNot team. Setting aside the obvious hypocrisy (most of
the folks complaining have used anonymous sources themselves), this misses the
important point that _PropOrNot are not anonymous to the Post_. Post editors
know who at least some of those people are, and are satisfied that they are
not idiots.

This is almost certainly why the Post is not backing down: they have
information that their critics do not.

So when the article calls PropOrNot "a newbie group with no track record
whatsoever," it's sort of a sleight of hand. Yes the _group_ is new; that
doesn't mean the _members of the group_ are therefore newbies.

2) Everyone is reacting as though the Post story, and/or PropOrNot, issued a
blanket condemnation of the news properties on the list. Well first, the Post
did not even report the list, just that PropOrNot had issued one. Second,
PropOrNot makes it clear that the list covers a wide range of concerns, from
sites directly funded to push propaganda (RT), to otherwise great sites that
are just not quite suspicious enough of a few stories that seem to agree with
their worldview.

And worldview is really the issue here. Most of the properties and blogs named
by PropOrNot are those that freely mix reporting and opinion. They built their
audience by taking a strong point of view on the world. That provides an entry
point for external propaganda, if it can align with that point of view.

And because it aligns, it is hard for them to see it at all. This effect is
incredibly common; for example Republican Senators are reluctant to have the
intelligence agencies look into what Russia may have done to shape the
presidential election. Why? Because they like the way the election turned out!
If the ends were good, the means must have been acceptable.

What PropOrNot (and others!) are advocating for is simply more diligence and
introspection from these publishers. Just because a story fits into a pattern,
that doesn't mean it is true--and it might be part of a bigger pattern someone
else is weaving.

------
snissn
Oh the blog run by Chelsea Clinton has an opinion?

