
A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories - rbanffy
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html?_r=0
======
dmytrish
As a witness of protests at Maidan square in Kiev, I was staggered by the
depiction of the events in Russian medias: it was a heavily engineered and
coherently orchestrated image full of humongous distortions to the point of
creating a parallel reality. Their usual tool is taking an insignificant
trend/event that fits their needs and blowing it out of proportions ("nazi" at
Maidan, "repressed Russian-speaking population" in mostly Russian-speaking
Kiev), producing emotional news about fake events ("a little boy in Slavyansk
crucified by Ukrainian punishers"), carefully planned wording and dictionary
("Ukrainian junta/punishers"), flooding websites with paid trolls [1].

Having seen it myself, I will not believe a single word from Russian medias
until the Russian regime and its centralized control over media is gone.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolls_from_Olgino](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolls_from_Olgino)

~~~
gfosco
The same shit is happening here. Massive distortion of reality and epic-level
propaganda on US media. We need to always be skeptical of the pushed
narrative.

~~~
dmytrish
I can't judge that by myself, but my external impression that if there is such
thing as Western propaganda, it must be incredibly subtle and seamless,
omnipotent and omnipresent to be real. Russian propaganda is not a thing you
are not aware of as a Russian, it's just that it gets you emotional and grows
a self-protection from external believes.

Many Russian medias start to claim "look at the others, they are not better"
when confronted with a clear evidence of their lie. Even more, it grows a kind
of double-speak: I have an impression that the majority of Russians understood
who the Crimean "polite green men" were, but they were still supporting the
official narrative in public.

I strongly advise against believing in "all these media are sides of the same
coin", it's a well-known instrument of propaganda.

~~~
gspetr
Sometimes the seams are obvious:

[https://pics.onsizzle.com/headlines-think-the-media-got-
the-...](https://pics.onsizzle.com/headlines-think-the-media-got-the-memo-in-
acceptance-speech-3136408.png)

------
faebi
I clearly do not want to support russian propaganda but as european I distrust
the usa as much as russia. The usa has a way to big influence on european
media. Its very nicely described in this video of german satire show "Die
Anstalt" how big german media companies are financed and controlled through
transatlactic companies:
[https://youtu.be/1ntSxZatFv8](https://youtu.be/1ntSxZatFv8) (only german,
couldn't find one with english subtitles). There is also a nice video of young
journalist Tilo Jung how he asks german government about the fact that russia
is renewing their atomic weapons (its bad) and then he asks what they think
about the fact that the usa is doing the same inside germany with their atomic
weapons (good).

Also they descripe nicely how the usa is and was destabelising the near east
and we europeans have this huge crisis next to us now because of those
actions. [https://youtu.be/MCjeHLjyiMo](https://youtu.be/MCjeHLjyiMo)

In the end for me the usa is playing this game of the good and the bad as much
as russia is and as a european I see ourselfs in another political situation
than good and bad, we are something third.

------
ariwilson
Based on the number of false equivalencies and specious arguments in this
comment thread, it looks like the Russian trolls also have Hacker News on
their roster of Western social media sites.

~~~
zigzigzag
This comment is so typical of any story that discusses Russia these days: a
flat out rejection of the idea that people who disagree might just be people
who disagree. You're either against Russia or you're paid by them/are them.

It's ridiculous and just makes the anti-Russia position look piss weak, or
even like propaganda itself. And I say that as a man born in western Europe
who has never even been to Russia, but this business of constantly painting
anyone who doesn't toe the party line as a paid troll is disgusting.

------
dleslie
The New York Times has a long history of cooperating with three-letter
agencies as a state mouthpiece. The irony of their publishing this article is
delicious.

~~~
tptacek
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes)

~~~
laretluval
It's not just a matter of the moral equivalence of propaganda, but of
credibility. When a major media outlet is pushing a narrative that supports a
government agenda, skepticism is warranted.

~~~
berntb
We are not talking just "a government agenda" \-- as far as I've seen, the
whole democratic world (not only USA and Sweden) say something quite similar
regarding Russian propaganda.

~~~
zigzigzag
How are you measuring what the "democratic world" says, exactly? What it's
media says?

Isn't Donald Trump making waves right now for having improbably high support
despite thinking Putin is not so bad after all? Dumb though Trump may be he is
without a doubt a key part of the "democratic world" right now.

~~~
berntb
1\. Can you condemn Putin for starting wars and annexing area in Europe, just
like Hitler in the 1930s? If you refuse I will assume that you work for the
Russian junta. (To _only_ condemn USA instead is not an answer.)

2\. My sources are e.g. what is said by common EU institutions and by state
chiefs in the EU. Like here [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-
eu-31932005](http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-31932005) BBC is just part of
the anti Russian global conspiracy..?

(And you contradict that "the whole democratic world" is saying the same thing
-- with what _one_ of the newer populists (that isn't even elected yet) said
about _something else_... Is that REALLY the only argument you have...?!)

Edit: reformatted to make it clearer.

~~~
zigzigzag
Which area are you talking about? The war in Georgia?

Cuz if you are talking about Crimea then no. "Annexation" doesn't tend to have
support of the people and the referendum and repeated opinion polls by western
research groups afterwards show very clearly that the Crimeans wanted to join
Russia (and believe the referendum was fair).

If your entire logic boils down to "you either agree with X or you work for
the Russians" where X is a highly subjective and debatable thing, then you're
always going to see shadowy operatives everywhere. That's just a ridiculous
way to debate things.

2\. The BBC is not a part of any "anti-Russian conspiracy" (there is no
conspiracy). That story is just reporting the views of EU officials.

Guess what - I don't trust EU officials. Quite a few of them also believe the
entire British population was brainwashed by tabloid propaganda and that's why
they rejected the EU in their own vote: the idea that maybe people can
genuinely understand the EU and dislike it is unprocessable to them.

~~~
berntb
So you can't criticize Putin's wars... I don't know of _any_ reputable
political party or media which support invasion wars and annexations in Europe
today. (No, Putin's own media are not reputable. :-) )

Elections with more than 95% for any side are obviously fake. It smells of
Soviet and North Korea. I've only seen people obviously working in St
Petersburg argue that could possibly be true. And you...

And my argument is that on one side there is Putin's paid propaganda -- and on
the other side there is more or less the collected western democracies of the
world. Those countries usually don't agree on much, but this united us.

You think that position of all the democracies is "highly subjective and
debatable" \-- after believing that any election result over 95% is real!!

That stretched my ability to give the benefit of a doubt far beyond breaking.

(I missed your post, it came a day after.)

------
tpm
RAND Corp: The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model - Why It Might
Work and Options to Counter It
[http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html](http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html)

------
throwaway_jc
Also [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/06/how-
russia-...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/06/how-russia-
dominates-your-twitter-feed-to-promote-lies-and-trump-too.html)

That story is pretty extreme, but I (yes, an anon account on a random website)
can confirm much of this is true based on some reasonable in-depth network
analysis.

Take a look at the Incirlik story on twitter
[https://twitter.com/search?q=Incirlik](https://twitter.com/search?q=Incirlik)
and note the weird patten many have of reposting thing like emergency response
accounts in between pro-Trump messages, and weird conspiracy theories
(although [1]).

(Throwaway for various reasons)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)

------
mason240
A Powerful Election Weapon: The Use of the Russian Boogey Man

~~~
rbanffy
That it can be used in a way you condemn doesn't mean it's not real. Or that
it's not being used.

~~~
bobthechef
No it doesn't, and in a scientific setting this approach would suffice. But in
a social and political setting, implicature is also relevant. At the very
least, there is an undeniable irony about the article.

------
emblem21
From the US communist parties of the 1930s to the overleveraged anti-American
sentiments of US citizens in the 1960s to the massively expanded and nebulous
academic rush to redefine oppression in the 1990s to the "European socialism
is so perfect" fantasies of the American lower class in 2010s, Russian
propaganda has long been the bedrock of modern America leftism.

------
whybroke
And.... off the front page almost as quickly as it go there.

Moral of the story: don't criticize Russia with today's HN crowd.

------
zaro
Russian false stories are weapon . what is the censorship of us election
stories then ?

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-29/huffingon-post-
revo...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-29/huffingon-post-revoked-
publishing-access-journalist-after-post-hillarys-healthits-or)

------
anc84
That is one one-sided anti-propaganda-propaganda piece. Let's not pretend that
any government does not do the same to others, eh?

~~~
ThisIBereave
Nor should we accept false equivalencies.

~~~
zigzigzag
It isn't even necessary here. The "propaganda" the article opens with can be
rephrased as this: some people in the Swedish government wanted something
controversial, and social media i.e. their citizens talking to each other
reflected the usual mishmash of true, half true and not true things people
often believe about more or less anything controversial.

However, because this time the controversial thing was to do with NATO, it's
obviously all the Russian's fault. They have no evidence, and nobody is
willing to put their name to such a claim (it's all "analysts"), but no
matter, it's definitely the Russians.

Besides, whose word do we have that these beliefs were false? The defence
minister!

From the WSJ we learn this: "Swedish lawmakers formally backed an agreement
Wednesday that allows the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to more easily
operate on Swedish territory during training or in the event of a conflict or
other crisis."

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/sweden-ratifies-nato-
cooperation...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/sweden-ratifies-nato-cooperation-
agreement-1464195502)

That doesn't sound so very different from the supposedly false claim that
"NATO could attack Russia from Sweden without government approval".
thelocal.se says:

"Originally signed in September 2014, the HNSA with Nato would allow the
alliance to transport helicopters, aircraft and ships across Swedish
territory, but only upon Sweden’s invitation.

As the agreement involves changes to Swedish law in order to give Nato
personnel privileges and immunities with regards to areas like tax and custom
rules, it required parliamentary ratification."

[http://www.thelocal.se/20160525/sweden-votes-yes-to-
controve...](http://www.thelocal.se/20160525/sweden-votes-yes-to-
controversial-nato-deal)

It's only a tiny step from that description (NATO soldiers have immunity from
some areas of law) to the one apparently circulating (NATO soldiers have
immunity in some other areas). Does this really require the invocation of
Russian propaganda, or the Facebook telephone game sufficient?

~~~
berntb
After the Crimea takeover, the Swedish internet was filled with comments with
very, very bad Swedish who defended Putin. There were some articles that
interviewed the people in St Petersburg employed to write these comments.

The main difference with the Putin supporters today is that the Swedish
language is excellent....

(And for a fact -- even in the ex communist party, few Swedes support starting
wars in Europe again, in 1930s style. There are obviously lots of Putin
propaganda online.)

Edit: Thanks, rbanffy. I saw a Swedish copy and others:
[http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/de-ar-putins-soldater-pa-
na...](http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/de-ar-putins-soldater-pa-natet/)

~~~
rbanffy
This may be the article you referred to
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-
kremlin-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-
inside-russian-troll-house)

------
anovikov
With the Russian situation being so dire, is it so hard for Western
counterpropaganda to beat that?

~~~
avs733
Because the people it is targetting are so siloed, and so angry at the other
side they don't really look past the information. The two sides that they are
appealing to are not doing any sort of source evaluation on things that make a
person they distrust look untrustworthy. They want that information to be true
soooooooooo bad they are failing to do basic information literacy.

------
yogthos
sums it up
[https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/769944655316287488](https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/769944655316287488)

------
damptowel
Reminds me of "Oh Dearism" I just watched. [http://thoughtmaybe.com/oh-
dearism-2/](http://thoughtmaybe.com/oh-dearism-2/)

------
achikin
I'm glad to hear that my homeland finally caught up with the rest of the world
PR culture.

------
berntb
I use a simple method to recognize Putin's propagandists:

Ask if someone is willing to condemn Putin for doing similar invasions as
Hitler did in the 1930s.

If the only answers you get to that question are personal attacks and attacks
on USA, the person writing is probably working in St Petersburg and paid to
write things on the internet.

Edit: 1. I am not American "pabloski", at least get the unserious personal
attacks correct. 2. USA generally don't annex territory, unlike Hitler and
Putin.

Edit 2: I would ask "pabloski" if he was willing to condemn modern invasions
and theft of area in Europe, but it isn't really needed, after he behaved just
like I described and he even gave an rt-link.

~~~
pabloski
Are you sure they are not the USA who are doing similar invasions as Hitler?
Do you remember? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria ( through Al-Nusra aka Al-
Qaeda, yes Al-Qaeda! ).

WTF, at least listen to Gen. Wesley Clark
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YtF76s-yM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YtF76s-yM)

How can you ( americans ) condemn Russia without an ounce of shame? I am an EU
citizen, so I am not russian, not a Putin shill, not a payed troll.

And what about your propaganda machine? The shameless media who attack Donald
Trump on each word he spells. The same media who fabricate war stories
[https://www.rt.com/news/356734-aleppo-child-image-
china/](https://www.rt.com/news/356734-aleppo-child-image-china/)

Read the article first, don't stop to rt.com to draw conclusions.

~~~
tptacek
This was a coherent argument until it got to the "shameless media who attack
Donald Trump on each word he spells" and then cited RT about Syria.

~~~
whybroke
Well since the first part of the argument is "The USA is like Hitler so Russia
is flawless", I'd give the post 0 out of 10 and conjecture that 4chan must be
down right now

~~~
tptacek
I didn't say I agreed with it, just that the first part of the comment appears
to be from one commenter, and the second part from another.

~~~
whybroke
I didn't mean to imply that you did, just wished to point out that the entire
post was absurd not just the conspiracy theory part but the tu quoque part
too.

------
zde
They quote Jakub Janda. Interesting person indeed.
[https://www.facebook.com/bruselin.watch/videos/1045786672165...](https://www.facebook.com/bruselin.watch/videos/1045786672165582/)

~~~
tpm
"bruselin watch" is a russian propaganda account

------
lipun4u
Both Russian and American medias are two sides of same coin. Both are expert
in spreading propaganda, only difference is American media is convincing and
Russian media appears to be fake and there is no freedom of media in Russia
and freedom of media is rarely used in the US.

I follow RT and NYTimes, and I can say both have left journalism long back.

~~~
tptacek
Whatever anyone's qualms about the New York Times, I find it hard to take
seriously any argument that puts it on the same level as RT. The New York
Times is not in fact an instrument of the US Government.

~~~
sverige
Correct. The NYT is an instrument of the Democrat party, just as Fox News is
an instrument of the GOP. Journalism has abandoned the pretense of
impartiality, and it is especially notable during this election cycle.

~~~
tptacek
Fox News may very well be an instrument of the GOP, but the same cannot be
said of the New York Times and the Democratic party. There are no serious
observers who believe the two publications are equivalently rigorous.

