8 ms·

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

42 points by dsr12 10y ago

mtgx 10y ago
US propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct-the-record-online-trolls/484847/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct-... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html?via=mobile&source=twitter http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac... http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/27/reddit-users-declare-war-on-hillarys-paid-internet-trolls/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/27/reddit-users-declare-war-o... You won't see WashPost, another arm of the US propaganda machine, talk about this, though.
- tptacek 10y ago
  This is extremely disingenuous. 1. Fakenews sites are webspam sites that run entirely fabricated stories as if they're news. For instance: the often-repeated claim that HRC was involved in the death of an FBI agent was fabricated by a person who admits to doing it and made tens of thousands of dollars posting that and stories like that to Wordpress sites they set up with official sounding names like "The Denver Guardian", counting on the fact that people in other media markets wouldn't know there was no such publication. Nothing the Clinton campaign did is anything like that. 2. The Clinton campaign and PACs supporting that campaign are not "the US government" --- nor is the Washington Post, which is an independent media outlet that routinely runs stories critical of the US Government (as you are about to see even more clearly during the next four years). The equivalences you are posing here are so false as to approach trolling. The story posted here might be wrong, or it might be inappropriate for HN. You can write a comment in good faith challenging the story. You can flag the story. What you can't reasonably do is express your displeasure by trolling the thread. Please stop doing that. You do it a lot.
  - xjdjfjdnd 10y ago
    >Fakenews Are we really resorting to Newspeak-esque conjugate words now? The problem with this term even existing is that it can be slapped onto any political story without the need to provide factual arguments. Were reports of NSA spying fake? They were if you asked the NSA. What about the highest levels of government lying about WMD's in Iraq? Surely that story must be fake too. Sure, we can go after the low hanging fruit of obvious tabloid bullshit, but this is a very, very dangerous precedent that we are setting. I never thought I would see the day when so many people here would be arguing against freedom of the press. And yes, throwaway account because of the vote brigading in this thread.
    - pas 10y ago
      No one is arguing about freedom of the press. Also, there are journalistic ethical rules, fake news blogspam is not the press. For example, a journalist has certain protections, but in exchange for that he/she (or her/his editor/publisher) has to be publicly known, by name, to be accountable for what they write/publish. And any piece of data, any representation of information is suspect of forgery. The whole problem of solipsism is still pretty valid. And ultimately we can only resort to the good old Bayesian rule of inference: wild claims require very hard evidence. And when an established publishing house places its reputation on the line, that counts a bit. When a shit tier conspiracy blogger claims something about Benghazi, that requires a bit more than "our sources say Bush lied about WMDs".
zappo2938 10y ago
So what? "Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians." I don't see how this is different from all the people knocking on my door telling me about the good news, er, um, the fake news, from 31 AD.
exabrial 10y ago
Sadly, CNN, fox, CBS, Huffington Post, et all spread sensationalized fake news for the last 8 years (while ignoring Obama's abuses with the NSA, TPP, executive orders, ect) and this only has become an issue since Trump was elected. The train left the station a long time ago, but was willfully ignored. There simply is no integrity in reporting these days, though I would grateful to be proven wrong.
- tptacek 10y ago
  There is a huge difference between fakenews, like the "Denver Guardian" fake newspaper site that ran stories about HRC being involved in the death of FBI agents in order to rack up tens of thousands of dollars from impressions, and sensationalized news. Every time this topic comes up, we have to tediously explain the difference, not because the difference is hard to understand, but because people seize on the name "fake news" as an excuse to attack the media. There's nothing wrong with media criticism, but you shouldn't write it in a way that obscures to readers what these stories are actually about --- webspam farms running entirely fabricated stories.
  - mc32 10y ago
    Fake news ala straight-faced version of the Onion is a problem. It delivers content to many sides and spreads fabrications. One concern is that established media will use this punching bag of sorts to delegitimize smaller news organizations and make themselves into the canonical news organizations. In other words they seem to be seeing this as an opportunity for a power play.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Do you have evidence for this other than the fact that major news outlets are reporting on fakenews?
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      There is comedic fake news, fakier news, and then there is serious fake news. While occasionally people are duped by The Onion, the site itself doesn't pretend to be posting real stories. Believing this is akin to believing the fakier news, which is basically the tabloids of old. Lizard people, celebrity "news" and gossip and the like. A certain subset of folks have always gone for that stuff, but I like to think that more of them read it for the giggles. The main reason any of this gets into mainstream is lack of fact checking by the real news folks. But the other breed, the serious fake news, is the real problem. Even otherwise intelligent folks can't really sort out if they are real or not because it is just so freaking plausible. Their goal is to be believed, and reaffirm some suspicions and beliefs people have. Even worse, some of these sites will mix in factual stuff with their fakes. These are the ones that, "seem to be seeing this as an opportunity for a power play". In a sense, any news organisation that caters to any political party - fox news to an extent, and the more insidious players (occupydemocrats, for example) - are guilty of just this. Twist, lie, and misrepresent are part of the game.
cryoshon 10y ago
this whole "fake news" narrative arc needs to be fucking murdered, and here's why: stories which detail items of unpopular fact surrounded by biased opinions which threaten the status quo are being lumped in with stories which fabricate facts and are transparently clickbait. the first type of story headline: "hillary took money from the saudis and will sell us out" the second type of story headline: "hillary murdered young children in 1990" see the difference? one of the two has a fact regarding campaign finance (presented in a very slanted yet still correct way) that is tied to a speculation/opinion (easily identifiable bias) that will validate a broad range of opinions and potentially begin to form opinions in the uninformed. the other is a bogus fact that will draw attention and validate the most extreme already-existing opinions. the mainstream media is viciously desperate to make the issue of hillary losing the election into a matter of "too many people fell victim to the fake news stories which claimed hillary murdered children in 1990. those stupid republican idiots are just so darn impressionable." this couldn't be farther from the truth. masses of people falling for headline 2 generates rioting in the streets, not voting for an "outsider". people saw the first type of story, and believed it. facts often don't have to be twisted in order for the reader to arrive at a certain conclusion, and hillary was laden with a billion of these facts. the whining regarding russian interference in our election is very much overblown, as well as cynically ignorant/ intellectually dishonest. the USA meddles in countless other elections, consistently, via propaganda and other means. this doesn't make it right when anyone does the same to us, but a discussion of foreign influence in our elections should be within the proper context: geopolitical powers meddle in each other's affairs as much as they think they can get away with. furthermore, russians did not start propagandizing yesterday. many of the urban russians are a technologically inclined and cosmopolitan people who are prolific on the internet, and it is certain that these people are the ones filling the ranks of putin's propaganda forces. they simply aren't stupid enough to try making completely counterfactual claims fly-- it's a waste of their time. the russian angle of propaganda has been (even since the times of the early soviet union) a kernel of undeniable and ugly truth, which can be opined upon within a range of speculation. you could say that in this election, their angle was "hillary clinton is corrupt". this angle of propaganda only works if people immediately recognize the kernel beneath the headline, and identify with the sentiment. for many people in this country, "russian propaganda" fit cleanly with their own domestic "not-propaganda" media sources. so what if it was the russians feeding information to wikileaks? for many people, the relevant facts of the matter pre-emailgate were exactly the same as after. calling the real development of narration around the kernal of hillary clinton being corrupt "fake news" is a massive disservice to the public, as well as abject denial of the situation. voters didn't like hillary because they thought she was corrupt. there were many media which supported and fostered that dislike, using facts. there were many other media which fostered that dislike using fictions. don't throw the fact out with the fiction, regardless of the source of each. btw: i voted green party, not in a swing state. if that makes any difference to you. --- this is the part of my comment where i make a lofty call for improved critical thinking training for our citizenry. the way to kill the problem of propaganda is not via suppression of inconvenient storys, as zuckerberg wants to do with "fake news", but rather an increase in general ability to identify and deconstruct malicious thoughtware. there are a few easy rules of thumb that could help people a lot. maybe i'll write them into an ebook. the problem is that a lot of people don't give a shit about critical thinking, and find any kind of intellectualizing to be faggy.
sprucely 10y ago
There is only one thing I can think of that would be worse than the spread of fake news, and that is legislation to address the spread of fake news. Unfortunately, that's where this is leading; if not in the Trump administration, then in the following.
- smt88 10y ago
  It's already illegal in the US for a corporation to lie about its products. It's not unreasonable to expect that some organizations (i.e. corporations created explicitly for the purpose of campaigning) can be sued for lying about their "product" -- a candidate, for example. But considering the Supreme Court's historically zealous defense of the First Amendment (see: Citizens United), we're unlikely to see much change in that regard.
Kenji 10y ago
Let's be honest here: The information war was fought on both sides. You had to dig through the mud to find any reliable news. I consumed a healthy mix of pro-clinton western media, RT, candidate videos straight from rallies and leaks like wikileaks or the video where Hillary stumbled. That's how you get a good overview.
- tptacek 10y ago
  You cannot in fact improve the overview you get of current events by consuming outright fabrications, which is what we're discussing in this story.
  - Kenji 10y ago
    I disagree. By seeing the propaganda from both sides, you get an insight into who has which goals. The only things you miss out on are the things they all want to hide and the only things you get wrong are the things they all lie on in the same way. It's like cross-examination in a courtroom.
DenisM 10y ago
As of this moment nearly every top level comment claims that sensationalized news is just as bad as manufactured news. Come on guys, there is a huge difference. Lumping together everything you don't like about X is not a productive way to address individual problem. It really only helps to give yourself an excuse to throw your hands up in frustration.
- tomp 10y ago
  This right here is the problem: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/washington-post-names-drudge-zero-hedge-anti-clinton-sophisticated-russian-propagand http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/washington-post-nam... When the idea of "fake news" is used to discredit sites like ZeroHedge and WikiLeaks as "Russian propaganda", you know it's not about fakeness/truth, but only about control - in other words, propaganda. (I'm not saying that ZeroHedge is a quality site, far from it - but they've always been anti-establishment, pro-conspiracy theory, and they haven't changed their stance during this election campaign at all.)
  - pabloski 10y ago
    And they aren't shy to talk about the Kremlin dirty laundry too! Seriously, democracy in the west is taking an ugly turn. I think we will soon need a new Illuminist movement and fresh guillotines.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, it's not. It's a problem you have. It's not the same problem as fakenews, which is a form of webspam and has nothing to do with the case for Wikileaks being an instrument of Russia.
    - tomp 10y ago
      Clearly, "fakenews" is a problem only some people have - otherwise, it would be considered a "problem" even before the election! It's very similar to "election fraud" - before the results, when Democrats were confident they'd win, Trump warning about election fraud was branded a lunatic, a threat to democracy, now we have the same situation on the other side but suddenly it's "the right thing to do" (smart and trustworthy people, e.g. Nate Silver, have dismissed the claims). The bias is obvious for all neutral people. If a problem is only a problem when you have it, it's not a real problem, merely propaganda.
fjdjcjcnf 10y ago
It is highly unethical to flagkill every comment that disagrees with you. I suggest you stop doing it
- tptacek 10y ago
  Thank you for reminding me to flag that post.
  - vjdjfjfn 10y ago
    Given that you're a person of some standing in the community, there are higher expectations of ethical behavior. Doing things that run counter to friendly open discourse may prove to be harmful to your business relationships and livelihood. Food for thought.
- dang 10y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037839 and marked it off-topic.
Practicality 10y ago
I am surprised that anyone is surprised by this, honestly. Russian culture does not place even as much of a value on truthfulness as American culture does, and even that is not that high. It should be seen as a given that there is significant Russian propaganda working all the time on every issue they care about. Of course they would be trying to influence the American election.
cinquemb 10y ago
What's the end game here? What are we supposed to get riled up about now? Didn't some experts at the very prestigious Princeton University release a study already confirming the state of affairs we're left in the US (and arguably the rest of the world)? I'm in complete and utter disgust, thanks Washington Post for waking me up. Which Soros' funded NGO's can I apply to for my daily rations of cookies and riot gear? "What difference, at this point, does it make?" - Hillary Clinton PS: Maybe Bezos should authorize linking this post in the black Friday emails I've been getting lately, and for every person that clicks through, they can get a further discount! Im sure more others are bound to become "woke" (thats the phrase people are using this days, no?).

42 points by dsr12 10y ago

mtgx 10y ago

US propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct-the-record-online-trolls/484847/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct-... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html?via=mobile&source=twitter http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac... http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/27/reddit-users-declare-war-on-hillarys-paid-internet-trolls/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/27/reddit-users-declare-war-o... You won't see WashPost, another arm of the US propaganda machine, talk about this, though.

tptacek 10y ago
This is extremely disingenuous. 1. Fakenews sites are webspam sites that run entirely fabricated stories as if they're news. For instance: the often-repeated claim that HRC was involved in the death of an FBI agent was fabricated by a person who admits to doing it and made tens of thousands of dollars posting that and stories like that to Wordpress sites they set up with official sounding names like "The Denver Guardian", counting on the fact that people in other media markets wouldn't know there was no such publication. Nothing the Clinton campaign did is anything like that. 2. The Clinton campaign and PACs supporting that campaign are not "the US government" --- nor is the Washington Post, which is an independent media outlet that routinely runs stories critical of the US Government (as you are about to see even more clearly during the next four years). The equivalences you are posing here are so false as to approach trolling. The story posted here might be wrong, or it might be inappropriate for HN. You can write a comment in good faith challenging the story. You can flag the story. What you can't reasonably do is express your displeasure by trolling the thread. Please stop doing that. You do it a lot.
- xjdjfjdnd 10y ago
  >Fakenews Are we really resorting to Newspeak-esque conjugate words now? The problem with this term even existing is that it can be slapped onto any political story without the need to provide factual arguments. Were reports of NSA spying fake? They were if you asked the NSA. What about the highest levels of government lying about WMD's in Iraq? Surely that story must be fake too. Sure, we can go after the low hanging fruit of obvious tabloid bullshit, but this is a very, very dangerous precedent that we are setting. I never thought I would see the day when so many people here would be arguing against freedom of the press. And yes, throwaway account because of the vote brigading in this thread.
  - pas 10y ago
    No one is arguing about freedom of the press. Also, there are journalistic ethical rules, fake news blogspam is not the press. For example, a journalist has certain protections, but in exchange for that he/she (or her/his editor/publisher) has to be publicly known, by name, to be accountable for what they write/publish. And any piece of data, any representation of information is suspect of forgery. The whole problem of solipsism is still pretty valid. And ultimately we can only resort to the good old Bayesian rule of inference: wild claims require very hard evidence. And when an established publishing house places its reputation on the line, that counts a bit. When a shit tier conspiracy blogger claims something about Benghazi, that requires a bit more than "our sources say Bush lied about WMDs".

zappo2938 10y ago

So what? "Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians." I don't see how this is different from all the people knocking on my door telling me about the good news, er, um, the fake news, from 31 AD.

exabrial 10y ago

Sadly, CNN, fox, CBS, Huffington Post, et all spread sensationalized fake news for the last 8 years (while ignoring Obama's abuses with the NSA, TPP, executive orders, ect) and this only has become an issue since Trump was elected. The train left the station a long time ago, but was willfully ignored. There simply is no integrity in reporting these days, though I would grateful to be proven wrong.

tptacek 10y ago
There is a huge difference between fakenews, like the "Denver Guardian" fake newspaper site that ran stories about HRC being involved in the death of FBI agents in order to rack up tens of thousands of dollars from impressions, and sensationalized news. Every time this topic comes up, we have to tediously explain the difference, not because the difference is hard to understand, but because people seize on the name "fake news" as an excuse to attack the media. There's nothing wrong with media criticism, but you shouldn't write it in a way that obscures to readers what these stories are actually about --- webspam farms running entirely fabricated stories.
- mc32 10y ago
  Fake news ala straight-faced version of the Onion is a problem. It delivers content to many sides and spreads fabrications. One concern is that established media will use this punching bag of sorts to delegitimize smaller news organizations and make themselves into the canonical news organizations. In other words they seem to be seeing this as an opportunity for a power play.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Do you have evidence for this other than the fact that major news outlets are reporting on fakenews?
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    There is comedic fake news, fakier news, and then there is serious fake news. While occasionally people are duped by The Onion, the site itself doesn't pretend to be posting real stories. Believing this is akin to believing the fakier news, which is basically the tabloids of old. Lizard people, celebrity "news" and gossip and the like. A certain subset of folks have always gone for that stuff, but I like to think that more of them read it for the giggles. The main reason any of this gets into mainstream is lack of fact checking by the real news folks. But the other breed, the serious fake news, is the real problem. Even otherwise intelligent folks can't really sort out if they are real or not because it is just so freaking plausible. Their goal is to be believed, and reaffirm some suspicions and beliefs people have. Even worse, some of these sites will mix in factual stuff with their fakes. These are the ones that, "seem to be seeing this as an opportunity for a power play". In a sense, any news organisation that caters to any political party - fox news to an extent, and the more insidious players (occupydemocrats, for example) - are guilty of just this. Twist, lie, and misrepresent are part of the game.

cryoshon 10y ago

this whole "fake news" narrative arc needs to be fucking murdered, and here's why: stories which detail items of unpopular fact surrounded by biased opinions which threaten the status quo are being lumped in with stories which fabricate facts and are transparently clickbait. the first type of story headline: "hillary took money from the saudis and will sell us out" the second type of story headline: "hillary murdered young children in 1990" see the difference? one of the two has a fact regarding campaign finance (presented in a very slanted yet still correct way) that is tied to a speculation/opinion (easily identifiable bias) that will validate a broad range of opinions and potentially begin to form opinions in the uninformed. the other is a bogus fact that will draw attention and validate the most extreme already-existing opinions. the mainstream media is viciously desperate to make the issue of hillary losing the election into a matter of "too many people fell victim to the fake news stories which claimed hillary murdered children in 1990. those stupid republican idiots are just so darn impressionable." this couldn't be farther from the truth. masses of people falling for headline 2 generates rioting in the streets, not voting for an "outsider". people saw the first type of story, and believed it. facts often don't have to be twisted in order for the reader to arrive at a certain conclusion, and hillary was laden with a billion of these facts. the whining regarding russian interference in our election is very much overblown, as well as cynically ignorant/ intellectually dishonest. the USA meddles in countless other elections, consistently, via propaganda and other means. this doesn't make it right when anyone does the same to us, but a discussion of foreign influence in our elections should be within the proper context: geopolitical powers meddle in each other's affairs as much as they think they can get away with. furthermore, russians did not start propagandizing yesterday. many of the urban russians are a technologically inclined and cosmopolitan people who are prolific on the internet, and it is certain that these people are the ones filling the ranks of putin's propaganda forces. they simply aren't stupid enough to try making completely counterfactual claims fly-- it's a waste of their time. the russian angle of propaganda has been (even since the times of the early soviet union) a kernel of undeniable and ugly truth, which can be opined upon within a range of speculation. you could say that in this election, their angle was "hillary clinton is corrupt". this angle of propaganda only works if people immediately recognize the kernel beneath the headline, and identify with the sentiment. for many people in this country, "russian propaganda" fit cleanly with their own domestic "not-propaganda" media sources. so what if it was the russians feeding information to wikileaks? for many people, the relevant facts of the matter pre-emailgate were exactly the same as after. calling the real development of narration around the kernal of hillary clinton being corrupt "fake news" is a massive disservice to the public, as well as abject denial of the situation. voters didn't like hillary because they thought she was corrupt. there were many media which supported and fostered that dislike, using facts. there were many other media which fostered that dislike using fictions. don't throw the fact out with the fiction, regardless of the source of each. btw: i voted green party, not in a swing state. if that makes any difference to you. --- this is the part of my comment where i make a lofty call for improved critical thinking training for our citizenry. the way to kill the problem of propaganda is not via suppression of inconvenient storys, as zuckerberg wants to do with "fake news", but rather an increase in general ability to identify and deconstruct malicious thoughtware. there are a few easy rules of thumb that could help people a lot. maybe i'll write them into an ebook. the problem is that a lot of people don't give a shit about critical thinking, and find any kind of intellectualizing to be faggy.

sprucely 10y ago

There is only one thing I can think of that would be worse than the spread of fake news, and that is legislation to address the spread of fake news. Unfortunately, that's where this is leading; if not in the Trump administration, then in the following.

smt88 10y ago
It's already illegal in the US for a corporation to lie about its products. It's not unreasonable to expect that some organizations (i.e. corporations created explicitly for the purpose of campaigning) can be sued for lying about their "product" -- a candidate, for example. But considering the Supreme Court's historically zealous defense of the First Amendment (see: Citizens United), we're unlikely to see much change in that regard.

Kenji 10y ago

Let's be honest here: The information war was fought on both sides. You had to dig through the mud to find any reliable news. I consumed a healthy mix of pro-clinton western media, RT, candidate videos straight from rallies and leaks like wikileaks or the video where Hillary stumbled. That's how you get a good overview.

tptacek 10y ago
You cannot in fact improve the overview you get of current events by consuming outright fabrications, which is what we're discussing in this story.
- Kenji 10y ago
  I disagree. By seeing the propaganda from both sides, you get an insight into who has which goals. The only things you miss out on are the things they all want to hide and the only things you get wrong are the things they all lie on in the same way. It's like cross-examination in a courtroom.

DenisM 10y ago

As of this moment nearly every top level comment claims that sensationalized news is just as bad as manufactured news. Come on guys, there is a huge difference. Lumping together everything you don't like about X is not a productive way to address individual problem. It really only helps to give yourself an excuse to throw your hands up in frustration.

tomp 10y ago
This right here is the problem: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/washington-post-names-drudge-zero-hedge-anti-clinton-sophisticated-russian-propagand http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/washington-post-nam... When the idea of "fake news" is used to discredit sites like ZeroHedge and WikiLeaks as "Russian propaganda", you know it's not about fakeness/truth, but only about control - in other words, propaganda. (I'm not saying that ZeroHedge is a quality site, far from it - but they've always been anti-establishment, pro-conspiracy theory, and they haven't changed their stance during this election campaign at all.)
- pabloski 10y ago
  And they aren't shy to talk about the Kremlin dirty laundry too! Seriously, democracy in the west is taking an ugly turn. I think we will soon need a new Illuminist movement and fresh guillotines.
- tptacek 10y ago
  No, it's not. It's a problem you have. It's not the same problem as fakenews, which is a form of webspam and has nothing to do with the case for Wikileaks being an instrument of Russia.
  - tomp 10y ago
    Clearly, "fakenews" is a problem only some people have - otherwise, it would be considered a "problem" even before the election! It's very similar to "election fraud" - before the results, when Democrats were confident they'd win, Trump warning about election fraud was branded a lunatic, a threat to democracy, now we have the same situation on the other side but suddenly it's "the right thing to do" (smart and trustworthy people, e.g. Nate Silver, have dismissed the claims). The bias is obvious for all neutral people. If a problem is only a problem when you have it, it's not a real problem, merely propaganda.

fjdjcjcnf 10y ago

It is highly unethical to flagkill every comment that disagrees with you. I suggest you stop doing it

tptacek 10y ago
Thank you for reminding me to flag that post.
- vjdjfjfn 10y ago
  Given that you're a person of some standing in the community, there are higher expectations of ethical behavior. Doing things that run counter to friendly open discourse may prove to be harmful to your business relationships and livelihood. Food for thought.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13037839 and marked it off-topic.

Practicality 10y ago

I am surprised that anyone is surprised by this, honestly. Russian culture does not place even as much of a value on truthfulness as American culture does, and even that is not that high. It should be seen as a given that there is significant Russian propaganda working all the time on every issue they care about. Of course they would be trying to influence the American election.

cinquemb 10y ago

What's the end game here? What are we supposed to get riled up about now? Didn't some experts at the very prestigious Princeton University release a study already confirming the state of affairs we're left in the US (and arguably the rest of the world)? I'm in complete and utter disgust, thanks Washington Post for waking me up. Which Soros' funded NGO's can I apply to for my daily rations of cookies and riot gear? "What difference, at this point, does it make?" - Hillary Clinton PS: Maybe Bezos should authorize linking this post in the black Friday emails I've been getting lately, and for every person that clicks through, they can get a further discount! Im sure more others are bound to become "woke" (thats the phrase people are using this days, no?).