
Maddow’s “Scoop” About Fake NSA Document Raises Several Key Questions - honksillet
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-about-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/
======
Aloha
Is the metadata timezone adjusted - or does it include a timezone?

~~~
dmckeon
Since the metadata in the document the Maddow show received matches the
metadata in the document that The Intercept published, Occam's razor would
suggest, as TI quotes Maddow: "someone appears to have used your [TI's] doc as
a template for ginning up a fake one"

The important take-away here seems to be that news outlets should expect to
receive more purportedly "leaked" documents which are actually forgeries,
created for the purposes of discrediting news teams that are less diligent
about checking their sources, and to muddy the waters about certain stories.

In other words, "fake leaks" to create "fake news".

~~~
a3n
Leaks are illegal, because their release says something about a country that,
when public, weakens it in some way.

It seems that a fake leak might also damage a country. I wonder if fake leaks
are illegal? It sounds vaguely like espionage to me. The Russians have been
accused of planting fake stories to influence elections, for example. How is
this different?

~~~
eesmith
Leaks in general are not illegal.

Politicians leak things deliberately all the time. They get to call their
leaks things like "trial balloons". The process is almost entirely sanctioned
by the press, which refers to them with phrases like "an unnamed source close
to the president".

Staff leak things too, including by accident. At the bar, "Did you hear the
great fishing story Senator X told Senator Y in the meeting today?" could be a
leak that X and Y had a meeting.

Improper disclosing of classified information is illegal. I think that's what
you meant to say.

A fake leak could be an example of black propaganda.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda)
. It may or may not be illegal, depending on what it contains. Slanderous fake
leaks like [http://www.snopes.com/mcnatt-racist-
memo/](http://www.snopes.com/mcnatt-racist-memo/) could result in civil
prosecution.

In almost all cases it's likely covered under the 1st amendment. For example,
Jessup's description of the purported Philadelphia Experiment is a false leak
about a secret military project, but clearly covered under freedom of speech.

------
evan_
I agree that they made too much of the metadata- the simplest explanation is
that the document was sent to The Rachel Maddow Show (and possibly other
sources) by an alt-right person in an attempt to discredit media outlets that
are perceived to be "anti-Trump".

Still, I don't totally understand how the metadata would have come to be the
same, surely they weren't just opening the PDF in photoshop and modifying it-
if they had, _all_ of the stenographic dots would still be present.

Though most of the alt-right is focusing on CNN right now there was a fairly
sophisticated fake MSNBC "special report" video going around a few days ago so
it's not like they're ignoring other outlets.

------
microcolonel
What questions? We already know that the major cable news refuse to verify
sources anymore because it hurts their revenue to throw away juicy fakes.

The news media, especially cable news, has completely lost the trust of the
public, and it's because they no longer even pretend to care about the facts.

Edit: _Referring specifically to this_ : "She suggested, without stating, that
this may have been what caused CNN and other outlets recently to publish
reports about Trump and/or Russia that ended up being retracted."

~~~
evan_
> We already know that the major cable news refuse to verify sources anymore
> because it hurts their revenue to throw away juicy fakes.

You're responding to a story about a major cable news outlet outing a juicy
story as untrue.

