5 ms·

>Sources with a political bone to pick can too easily plant or modify data in these "dumps" to craft an artificial narrative. Which is where traditional news o

>Sources with a political bone to pick can too easily plant or modify data in these "dumps" to craft an artificial narrative. Which is where traditional news organizations come in play. When the tax returns for Trump were dropped off, they had to verify them. For example, they were particularly worried about a number whose first two digits were not the same font as the other numbers. That seemed to indicate that maybe someone had doctored part of it, but then they found the tax preparer who worked on it and he explained why that was.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Great example, however the anti-establishment cohort seems to be worryingly willing to perceive mainstream media as a vast liberal conspiracy while happily devouring truth-poor, conspiracy-rich outlets like Infowars and Breitbart.
- micaksica 10y ago
  This was going to be my reply to this, almost exactly. The fact of the matter here is that there is a large group of people that treat Infowars, Breitbart, etc. as news organizations of integrity higher than or parallel to "traditional" news orgs, as they are good at stopping cognitive dissonance and confirming their beliefs. All it takes is enough of these to jump on the unverified documents and turn it into a faux scandal that requires a question or three at a debate.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    More like "everything you know is a lie and ONLY WE can give you the truth." The more you buy into it the more susceptible you become to baseless conspiracy theories. Because it's always easier to believe that the people you are told to hate deserve the hate than to consider that you were duped. It scares me how many smart people are playing right into the Bernays/Goebbels/Chavez playbook.
- toss1941 10y ago
  Are you saying that CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES, ABC, CBS, NBC aren't all extremely biased in favor of Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general?
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    I never said they were or were not. But that only sets the tone and the coverage. Emails/Benghazi/Clinton Foundation got plenty of coverage by the "liberal" media. The facts were found, and they moved on. What's the old saying, facts have a liberal bias?
    - nibs 10y ago
      How well would you say modern "liberals" handle facts in the domains of: - IQ testing - Evolutionary psychology - GMOs - Child development - Economics
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - Stanish 10y ago
      I encourage you to watch this panel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsgapaYCs40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsgapaYCs40) and then say that "the facts are found". They have been stonewalling all fact-finding from the start, and anyone paying attention to the actual facts can see a seriously egregious pattern of corruption and cover-up on multiple levels. I'm not a Trump supporter, either, but I am baffled by how ignorant some Democrats have become to this stuff given the relative cynicism and insight that prevailed during the Bush years, especially concerning Iraq. She acts a lot like Bush and we can expect a very similar administration from her. It's sickening, honestly, as people will die and suffer for our ignorance.
  - neaden 10y ago
    I mean, I would say that, given that it's true and everything.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  Side note: I don't think it's completely fair to place Breitbart alongside Infowars; they are on completely different strata.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  Is it any wonder people don't trust the establishment media when the they push narratives like that of the impending "mushroom clouds" if we don't invade Iraq? With nary an ounce of critical coverage? It wasn't long after that we found out that it was all a bunch of bullshit. But of course by that time it was too late for the million Iraqis and thousands of Americans who died, and the trillions of tax payer dollars wasted (stolen), yet somehow alternative news sources are the problem? I'll go ahead and assume that you were equally critical of the NY Times when they published, from sources with a political axe to grind, false information about the supposed Iraq threat. One must always question the sources, but that's hardly unique to alternative news outlets. It's also very convenient to lump all alternative news source in with the Infowars and Brietbarts. The reality is that there are a plethora of disparate media outlets of varying quality that are covering legitimate stories from legitimate (at least by NY Times standards) sources - stories that are simply not covered elsewhere. People should be free, and indeed encouraged, to get their information from a variety of sources. The implication that people are drinking either full-establishment or full-Infowars kool-aid is false. People have lost trust in the mainstream media, for good reason, and they are searching for alternatives. That doesn't mean they agree with anything and everything that can be found. And finally, please tell me, why would all the top DNC heads resign over the Guccifer leaks if they were all forged and fabricated?
jwtadvice 10y ago
"Traditional news organizations" do this all the time. Take the recently leaked audio of John Kerry speaking to Syrian opposition: [1] And the New York Times, CNN, etc coverage of it: [2] The New York Times, which shared the most of any news organization (only a couple minutes total) made a number of serious edits: - They include Kerry espousing the principles of Democracy, but not the fact that he was trying to convince the opposition (which does not want an election, including one overseen by the US) that they might want to have an election. - The New York Times completely avoids publishing Kerry say that the reason that Russia intervened in Syria was because if they hadn't Daesh was likely to take over the government; and that the US had been hoping to use the ISIS threat as leverage to negotiate American support within the Syrian government. - The New York Times edited out Kerry's admission that much of the Syrian opposition have allied themselves with "Nusra and Daesh": al Qaeda. - The clips of Kerry describing how a US invasion of Syria would be completely illegal, whereas Russia was legally invited by the government of Syria got dropped Etc. Or, if you're looking for something bigger than proxy war, remember the US coverage of the Snowden Documents? Their censorship of it for a decade as documents before Snowden Docs came out? The fact that most of the media organizations tried to report to Federal authorities than take the story originally? That the major networks towed the official line (even using it's language like "bulk collection") and repeated US denials of specific program elements even with published documents completely contrary to their coverage? Do you remember how the media tried to make the story about "Hero or Zero?" and "Merkle and Obama are having an argument" rather than cover the content of the documents, including the NSA's relationship to mass propaganda programmes, government hacking to benefit private US citizens and industries, and efforts to influence overseas elections? The traditional media verifiably alters and spins documents, records and stories. The speculation that "Guccifer 2.0" has done the same thing is just that - speculation. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3grHmI44mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3grHmI44mg [2] www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria-audio.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
- nl 10y ago
  This is mostly disputable. They include Kerry espousing the principles of Democracy, but not the fact that he was trying to convince the opposition (which does not want an election, including one overseen by the US) that they might want to have an election. I'm not sure what the point here is. The Syrian opposition is a very wide range of groups. I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, no? The New York Times completely avoids publishing Kerry say that the reason that Russia intervened in Syria was because if they hadn't Daesh was likely to take over the government; and that the US had been hoping to use the ISIS threat as leverage to negotiate American support within the Syrian government. That simply isn't true. The second map on http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 (ie, http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2016/newsspec_13854/img/syria_iraq_control_976_20sep2016.png http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2016/newsspec_13854/im...) show this. The Syrian government's core cities (Damascus, Homs, Aleppo) are/were mostly threatened by the Syrian opposition forces (the "FSA"). They say that Daesh was gaining enough strength to threaten Assad in the future, and they hoped that would get Assad to negotiate. The New York Times edited out Kerry's admission that much of the Syrian opposition have allied themselves with "Nusra and Daesh": al Qaeda. I haven't listened to the whole tape yet, but I'd note that at the very start the female speaker specifically says they are trying to avoid aligning with Nusra, but that she thinks Nusra is waiting for them to get desperate. I'm not sure this is editing it out, as opposed to the fact that the Syrian environment is extremely complex and changes rapidly. The FSA is getting destroyed at the moment, and FSA-aligned groups include a wide range of other groups, which change their alignment with Nusra (and the Kurds) frequently. The clips of Kerry describing how a US invasion of Syria would be completely illegal, whereas Russia was legally invited by the government of Syria got dropped I haven't heard this yet, but it sounds correct to me? I don't think anyone in the US is advocating for an invasion are they? Edit: I've heard this part now. I don't understand what you are saying - is there anything new or controversial to report here?
vintermann 10y ago
Traditional news organizations are not especially good at this. Look at the highly non-traditional Bellingcat to see how well data can be quality checked! Wikileaks has also not, to my knowledge, released any dumps with planted data. I don̈́t know what sort of work they do to verify, but they obviously do something.
- steego 10y ago
  > I don't know what sort of work they do to verify, but they obviously do something. That sounds like wishful thinking. The only obvious conclusion you can come to is nobody has successfully contradicted their dumps. It means that and nothing more.
  - vintermann 10y ago
    As I said, planting data is harder that it looks, and groups that have tried have often been caught. Also, the subjects of the leaks have not come with accusations of planted data. I'm comparing wikileaks' track record to that of independent (or probably state-sponsored) hackers like the ones who released the Britam data, and it's not based on nothing you can say that the former has a better track record.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Great example, however the anti-establishment cohort seems to be worryingly willing to perceive mainstream media as a vast liberal conspiracy while happily devouring truth-poor, conspiracy-rich outlets like Infowars and Breitbart.

micaksica 10y ago
This was going to be my reply to this, almost exactly. The fact of the matter here is that there is a large group of people that treat Infowars, Breitbart, etc. as news organizations of integrity higher than or parallel to "traditional" news orgs, as they are good at stopping cognitive dissonance and confirming their beliefs. All it takes is enough of these to jump on the unverified documents and turn it into a faux scandal that requires a question or three at a debate.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  More like "everything you know is a lie and ONLY WE can give you the truth." The more you buy into it the more susceptible you become to baseless conspiracy theories. Because it's always easier to believe that the people you are told to hate deserve the hate than to consider that you were duped. It scares me how many smart people are playing right into the Bernays/Goebbels/Chavez playbook.
toss1941 10y ago
Are you saying that CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES, ABC, CBS, NBC aren't all extremely biased in favor of Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general?
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I never said they were or were not. But that only sets the tone and the coverage. Emails/Benghazi/Clinton Foundation got plenty of coverage by the "liberal" media. The facts were found, and they moved on. What's the old saying, facts have a liberal bias?
  - nibs 10y ago
    How well would you say modern "liberals" handle facts in the domains of: - IQ testing - Evolutionary psychology - GMOs - Child development - Economics
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - Stanish 10y ago
    I encourage you to watch this panel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsgapaYCs40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsgapaYCs40) and then say that "the facts are found". They have been stonewalling all fact-finding from the start, and anyone paying attention to the actual facts can see a seriously egregious pattern of corruption and cover-up on multiple levels. I'm not a Trump supporter, either, but I am baffled by how ignorant some Democrats have become to this stuff given the relative cynicism and insight that prevailed during the Bush years, especially concerning Iraq. She acts a lot like Bush and we can expect a very similar administration from her. It's sickening, honestly, as people will die and suffer for our ignorance.
- neaden 10y ago
  I mean, I would say that, given that it's true and everything.
microcolonel 10y ago
Side note: I don't think it's completely fair to place Breitbart alongside Infowars; they are on completely different strata.
ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
Is it any wonder people don't trust the establishment media when the they push narratives like that of the impending "mushroom clouds" if we don't invade Iraq? With nary an ounce of critical coverage? It wasn't long after that we found out that it was all a bunch of bullshit. But of course by that time it was too late for the million Iraqis and thousands of Americans who died, and the trillions of tax payer dollars wasted (stolen), yet somehow alternative news sources are the problem? I'll go ahead and assume that you were equally critical of the NY Times when they published, from sources with a political axe to grind, false information about the supposed Iraq threat. One must always question the sources, but that's hardly unique to alternative news outlets. It's also very convenient to lump all alternative news source in with the Infowars and Brietbarts. The reality is that there are a plethora of disparate media outlets of varying quality that are covering legitimate stories from legitimate (at least by NY Times standards) sources - stories that are simply not covered elsewhere. People should be free, and indeed encouraged, to get their information from a variety of sources. The implication that people are drinking either full-establishment or full-Infowars kool-aid is false. People have lost trust in the mainstream media, for good reason, and they are searching for alternatives. That doesn't mean they agree with anything and everything that can be found. And finally, please tell me, why would all the top DNC heads resign over the Guccifer leaks if they were all forged and fabricated?

jwtadvice 10y ago

"Traditional news organizations" do this all the time. Take the recently leaked audio of John Kerry speaking to Syrian opposition: [1] And the New York Times, CNN, etc coverage of it: [2] The New York Times, which shared the most of any news organization (only a couple minutes total) made a number of serious edits: - They include Kerry espousing the principles of Democracy, but not the fact that he was trying to convince the opposition (which does not want an election, including one overseen by the US) that they might want to have an election. - The New York Times completely avoids publishing Kerry say that the reason that Russia intervened in Syria was because if they hadn't Daesh was likely to take over the government; and that the US had been hoping to use the ISIS threat as leverage to negotiate American support within the Syrian government. - The New York Times edited out Kerry's admission that much of the Syrian opposition have allied themselves with "Nusra and Daesh": al Qaeda. - The clips of Kerry describing how a US invasion of Syria would be completely illegal, whereas Russia was legally invited by the government of Syria got dropped Etc. Or, if you're looking for something bigger than proxy war, remember the US coverage of the Snowden Documents? Their censorship of it for a decade as documents before Snowden Docs came out? The fact that most of the media organizations tried to report to Federal authorities than take the story originally? That the major networks towed the official line (even using it's language like "bulk collection") and repeated US denials of specific program elements even with published documents completely contrary to their coverage? Do you remember how the media tried to make the story about "Hero or Zero?" and "Merkle and Obama are having an argument" rather than cover the content of the documents, including the NSA's relationship to mass propaganda programmes, government hacking to benefit private US citizens and industries, and efforts to influence overseas elections? The traditional media verifiably alters and spins documents, records and stories. The speculation that "Guccifer 2.0" has done the same thing is just that - speculation. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3grHmI44mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3grHmI44mg [2] www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria-audio.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

nl 10y ago
This is mostly disputable. They include Kerry espousing the principles of Democracy, but not the fact that he was trying to convince the opposition (which does not want an election, including one overseen by the US) that they might want to have an election. I'm not sure what the point here is. The Syrian opposition is a very wide range of groups. I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, no? The New York Times completely avoids publishing Kerry say that the reason that Russia intervened in Syria was because if they hadn't Daesh was likely to take over the government; and that the US had been hoping to use the ISIS threat as leverage to negotiate American support within the Syrian government. That simply isn't true. The second map on http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 (ie, http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2016/newsspec_13854/img/syria_iraq_control_976_20sep2016.png http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2016/newsspec_13854/im...) show this. The Syrian government's core cities (Damascus, Homs, Aleppo) are/were mostly threatened by the Syrian opposition forces (the "FSA"). They say that Daesh was gaining enough strength to threaten Assad in the future, and they hoped that would get Assad to negotiate. The New York Times edited out Kerry's admission that much of the Syrian opposition have allied themselves with "Nusra and Daesh": al Qaeda. I haven't listened to the whole tape yet, but I'd note that at the very start the female speaker specifically says they are trying to avoid aligning with Nusra, but that she thinks Nusra is waiting for them to get desperate. I'm not sure this is editing it out, as opposed to the fact that the Syrian environment is extremely complex and changes rapidly. The FSA is getting destroyed at the moment, and FSA-aligned groups include a wide range of other groups, which change their alignment with Nusra (and the Kurds) frequently. The clips of Kerry describing how a US invasion of Syria would be completely illegal, whereas Russia was legally invited by the government of Syria got dropped I haven't heard this yet, but it sounds correct to me? I don't think anyone in the US is advocating for an invasion are they? Edit: I've heard this part now. I don't understand what you are saying - is there anything new or controversial to report here?

vintermann 10y ago

Traditional news organizations are not especially good at this. Look at the highly non-traditional Bellingcat to see how well data can be quality checked! Wikileaks has also not, to my knowledge, released any dumps with planted data. I don̈́t know what sort of work they do to verify, but they obviously do something.

steego 10y ago
> I don't know what sort of work they do to verify, but they obviously do something. That sounds like wishful thinking. The only obvious conclusion you can come to is nobody has successfully contradicted their dumps. It means that and nothing more.
- vintermann 10y ago
  As I said, planting data is harder that it looks, and groups that have tried have often been caught. Also, the subjects of the leaks have not come with accusations of planted data. I'm comparing wikileaks' track record to that of independent (or probably state-sponsored) hackers like the ones who released the Britam data, and it's not based on nothing you can say that the former has a better track record.