
WaPo Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist from a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group - Jerry2
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/
======
hackuser
The Intercept article is a bit [EDIT: very] misleading. The Post article from
the start relies on two groups:

* The Foreign Policy Research Insititute

* PropOrNot

* EDIT: The Post also says, _The findings about the mechanics of Russian propaganda operations largely track previous research by the Rand Corp. and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs._

* EDIT: The Post uses yet more sources later in the article.

Unless you read about two-thirds of the long Intercept article, to where FPRI
is first mentioned, the impression is that the Washington Post relied only on
PropOrNot.

EDIT: In fact, The Intercept seems to misrepresent how propaganda is
identified. It's simply information from known Russian gov't sources (e.g.,
Russia Today (RT)) that is repeated elsehwere. Here is the heart of the Post's
report:

....

 _The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of
particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that
consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes
sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or
sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession,
signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.

PropOrNot’s monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in
advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine
peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined
audiences of at least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates
that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed
more than 213 million times._

[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)

~~~
whybroke
A real pity because the intercept might be saying something important buried
in the over/under emphasis, hyperbole and unnecessarily agitating tone. But
it's hard to tell and harder to take seriously.

I hope they think about tweaking their editorial standards.

~~~
hackuser
I agree. The Intercept's independence and courage is great, a valuable asset
to the world. But those qualities are useless unless I can trust them.

~~~
wallace_f
Can you link me or quote a source that would show me evidence of why you do
not trust The Intercept?

------
skrowl
"Fake News" is just the newest thing to scream in order to convince yourself
that censorship is OK. At least they're not trying to continue beating the "If
you don't agree with me then you're racist!" dead horse.

Did you expect liberal elites to just take the election loss lying down? Of
course they're going to start trying to discredit the alternative media
outlets that lead to their loss. The more people they can drive away from
Drudge / Breitbart to CNN / Comedy Central, the more people that can control.

------
rounce
This is a pretty ridiculous article, and I'm sad to say, indicative of what
seem to be increasingly 'fast-and-loose' editorial standards on
theintercept.com. As was mentioned by another commenter[0], the authors make
some rather misleading allegations of their own without ever fully supporting
them. Instead preferring to leap to extremes with cries of 'McCarthyism!',
with seemingly little mind for it's significance, failing to draw any
parallels between events reported and the Army-McCarthy hearings of the '50s.
Not that the WaPo article was any good, but this is the pot calling the kettle
black.

Heavy rhetoric with maximum volume; light on facts or any real point, other
than being outraged or condescending. Seems like the way all US political and
cultural discourse is conducted nowadays, so not surprised really. Sad though.
Even (re)defined a whole lexicon to describe this narrow projection of the
world. _Conservative_ , _Liberal_ , _Progressive_ , _Caucasian_ , _African-
American_ , _Libertarian_ , _Patriot_ , et al. All subtlety reduced to a set
of meaningless labels that denote nothing but your "team". Invoking nothing
other fear, rejection, aggression, and anger from any "opposition".

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13045686](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13045686)

~~~
return0
i checked and ycombinator.com is not approved by PropOrNot (/s)

Joking aside, it's not ridiculous to castigate a piece of bad journalism by a
renowned paper. I suppose the McCarthy remark is a bit tongue-in-cheek, given
how cold-war-like this situation is, but despite the hyperbolic title , the
article is not full of hyperbole.

~~~
skrowl
Drudge Report and Wikileaks are on the PropOrNot list. Do you believe that
they're propaganda?

~~~
hackuser
The list is of sources that repeat Russian propaganda, IIRC. If so, Wikileaks
certainly belongs on the list, having published information very likely
provided to them by Russian intelligence. Drudge would not surprise me, as it
is already a propaganda site for the a U.S. political group.

~~~
return0
> Russian propaganda

While it might be to their interests , podesta's emails were not russian
propaganda per se.

~~~
hackuser
> While it might be to their interests , podesta's emails were not russian
> propaganda per se.

As a technical point, real emails absolutely can be propaganda. Good
propaganda isn't all lies, or even mostly lies. It needs to be believable,
like a good con. This comment says it well:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13045955](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13045955)

~~~
return0
ok i love me some propaganda then

------
api
So basically anything critical of standard US foreign policy or centrist
neoliberalism is all a big Putin conspiracy. Got it.

There does appear to be some kind of Russian propaganda machine online but
it's voice is mixed in with all the rest of the noise.

~~~
panarky
Not at all.

PropOrNot outlines eight steps to manually identify Russian propaganda [0].

Of course it's not an exact science, but it's a lot more rigorous than just
"anything critical of standard US foreign policy".

[0] [http://www.propornot.com/p/the-
yyycampaignyyy.html](http://www.propornot.com/p/the-yyycampaignyyy.html)

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
These are some of the steps they use to identify propaganda:

Check to see whether the social-media account/commenter/outlet has a history
of generally echoing the Russian propaganda "line" by using themes, arguments,
talking points, images, and other content similar to those used by obvious
Russian propaganda outlets. These themes include:

1\. How terrible, weak, aggressive, and corrupt the the opponents of Russia
and their friends are: The US, Obama, Hillary Clinton, the EU, Angela Merkel,
NATO, Ukraine, Jewish people, US allies, the "mainstream media", and
democrats, the center-right or center-left, and moderates of all stripes.
Investigate this by searching for mentions of, for example, "NATO", on their
site by Googling for "site:whateversite.com NATO" and seeing what comes up.

2\. How dangerous standing up to Russia would be: It would inevitably result
in "World War 3", nuclear devastation, etc, and regardless of who shot first
or is bombing civilians where now, would be the West's fault. Russian
propaganda never suggests it would just result in a Cold War 2 and Russia's
eventual peaceful defeat, like the last time.

This is the criteria for being a russian propaganda outlet? Basically, anyone
who parrots 'Crooked Hiliary' is now part of it. This is hogwash

------
rokosbasilisk
In this fake news era, Im glad for the intercept and greenwalds journalistic
integrity.

~~~
panarky
I appreciate Greenwald and The Intercept, but nothing in this piece addresses
the real question -- are high-traffic US sites disseminating Russian
disinformation?

Yes, it's true that the PropOrNot site is new.

Yes, it's true that the people behind PropOrNot are anonymous.

Yes, it's true that the Washington Post's article on PropOrNot didn't seem
very rigorous.

None of this speaks to whether sites like Drudge, Zero Hedge, Alex Jones, etc.
are actively disseminating Russian propaganda.

PropOrNot lists eight steps to manually identify propaganda and
disinformation, and they seem pretty useful to me.

[http://www.propornot.com/p/the-
yyycampaignyyy.html](http://www.propornot.com/p/the-yyycampaignyyy.html)

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
Truth is not the absence of propaganda; propaganda thrives in presenting
different kinds of truth, including half truths, incomplete truths, limited
truths, out of context truths. Modern propaganda is most effective when it
presents information as accurately as possible. The Big Lie or Tall Tale is
the most ineffective propaganda. Here's more info:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques)

I'm very wary of this attempt to silence "fake news"

~~~
hackuser
> Truth is not the absence of propaganda ...

Well put and essential; thanks

> I'm very wary of this attempt to silence "fake news"

But then the comment seems to slide into a propaganda talking point. 1) It's
not being "silenced", just identified, and such exaggeration or hyperbole is a
standard technique; 2) it presupposes this extreme relativism where there is
no fake news; and 3) criticizing news sources is a very common, normal part of
a health marketplace of ideas. Look at the criticism the NYT and Fox take, for
example.

------
coldcode
Although both articles are pretty terrible, having just reread 1984 again, it
all seems familiar. It's funny how when the internet began we thought it would
make the truth easier to see; what we got instead is this, both the truth and
the lies are mixed up and you can't tell one from another. What we need,
assuming you can build it given how hard it is to tell them apart, is a
technology that can tell them apart. Of course it might also be co-opted and
then we can't believe anything.

I always find it amazing how 1984 turned into a how-to manual.

~~~
wallace_f
I don't see any evidence The Intercept's article is deceitful. The Intercept
and Greenwald are almost always credible and legit. Being targeted and
harassed illegally by your own government for doing journalistic work on your
government is a much greater badge of honour than a Presidential Medal of
Freedom or Nobel Peace Prize.

------
andrewclunn
I take issue with the standard of repeating Russian funded organizations
talking points as being labeled as propaganda. If that's the case, then aren't
American news outlets that push US government talking points also propaganda?
Why only blacklist one?

~~~
skrowl
Because this is the "bad" kind of propaganda. CNN telling the public that it's
illegal for them to go to wikileaks or that globalism is just a conspiracy
theory is the "good" kind.

Don't worry if you're confused, your TV will tell you which is which. You
know, just like state TV in North Korea or Cuba does. The idea is to be more
like them, right? At least that's what I'm seeing here.

~~~
panarky
Be careful with false equivalence.

US media has many serious faults, but it is not state-controlled as it is in
Russia, China and North Korea.

They are not the same.

------
return0
"And so, in 2016, the World news war 1 began, my grandchildren"

------
dominotw
Does wapo not enforce its own comment guidelines[1] anymore?

    
    
      We will remove posts that include profanity, hate speech, name-calling and personal attacks.
    

This Tila Tequila[2] piece has comment section full of people calling her dumb
whore who needs to be marched into a gas chamber.

1\. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-
post/discussion-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-
post/discussion-and-submission-guidelines/)

2\. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-
source/wp/2016/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-
source/wp/2016/11/22/tila-tequilas-twitter-account-suspended-after-appearance-
at-white-nationalist-convention/#comments)

~~~
lern_too_spel
Irrelevant to this article, and no comment in your article says she needs to
be marched into a gas chamber. I found one comment saying that the people she
supports would do that to her.

------
CalChris
_Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist from a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group_

Kind've breathless writing there, almost Trumpish. Myself, I discount
_anything_ that Greenwald says. Slate has a more sober reaction:

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/25/how_russia...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/25/how_russian_propaganda_used_facebook_to_spread_fake_news_during_the_election.html)

~~~
lern_too_spel
Greenwald's reporting has always been incredibly inept (to this day, he won't
admit how wrong he was about PRISM). The culture of making wild accusations
and not interviewing subjects of a story to verify the facts continues to
pervade the organization.

~~~
tastythrowaway2
in what way(s) was he wrong about PRISM?

~~~
lern_too_spel
He claimed that NSA analysts could read anybody's communications straight off
the internet companies' servers. Multiple journalists, bloggers, tech workers,
companies, and even the government corrected him and pointed out how he
misread the slides, but he continues to make that claim.

