3 ms·

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

by api 10y ago

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.

salimmadjd 10y ago
IMO this is part of the Wapo's editorial board agenda for a neoconservative [1] plan in Syria. The Washington Post editorial was instrumental in convincing the public of the Iraq war, "From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," [2] A regime change in Syria has become difficult with such a visible backing of Russia. Unless we use the pretext of Russia interfering in our elections to equate confronting Russia abroad as fighting back for our democracy. Wapo's editorial board never liked Trump [3]. This new push of Russian agenda, is killing two birds with one stone. Delegitimizing Trump while building the narrative of regime change in Syria or anything Russia is backing. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt [2] http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2016/10/13/the-closing-argument-against-donald-trump/?utm_term=.3f97850e1658 http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2016/10/13/the-clo...
- hackuser 10y ago
  The WaPo's ownership changed between the Iraq war and today, though I don't think Bill Moyers' statements are reliable sources of fact in any case. Yes, the Post opposed Trump (as did almost every newspaper in the U.S., conservative, moderate, or liberal). The rest is pure speculation and conjecture; their motives, good and bad, could be anything, and likely have little to do with your particular concerns.
  - salimmadjd 10y ago
    if you had the chance to look at my Wikipedia reference, you'll see Hiatt is still the editor. You will also see there many references that he has shifted the paper into more of a neoconservative leaning paper.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      To be honest, I don't look at Wikipedia references. I think Wikipedia is the prime example of people's willingness to accept misinformation on the Internet. I would expect the owner, not the editor, determines the politics of the editorial page. Newspapers don't change their political stances significantly when they change editors, but they do when they change owners.
      - api 10y ago
        The editor sets the voice. If the owner wants to change that they would change the editor.
panarky 10y ago
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
- barrkel 10y ago
  That algorithm is an exercise in bias confirmation; it's ludicrous, IMO. Any criticism of current orthodox ideology is interpreted as a point in favour of Russian propaganda. Could it possibly be that some people have the genuine thought that starting a new cold war with Russia wouldn't be a very good idea? Or is that simply impossible without it being a Russian propaganda plot? IMO this is all heat that obscures what's going on. There's a new culture war afoot. IMO this site (PropOrNot) is a paranoid reaction to the rejection by a certain segment of the American population to an orthodox groupthink. Instead of people talking to one another and trying to communicate, they're polarizing. It's no good. (I flagged the article, FWIW.)
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  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

by api 10y ago

salimmadjd 10y ago

IMO this is part of the Wapo's editorial board agenda for a neoconservative [1] plan in Syria. The Washington Post editorial was instrumental in convincing the public of the Iraq war, "From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," [2] A regime change in Syria has become difficult with such a visible backing of Russia. Unless we use the pretext of Russia interfering in our elections to equate confronting Russia abroad as fighting back for our democracy. Wapo's editorial board never liked Trump [3]. This new push of Russian agenda, is killing two birds with one stone. Delegitimizing Trump while building the narrative of regime change in Syria or anything Russia is backing. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt [2] http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2016/10/13/the-closing-argument-against-donald-trump/?utm_term=.3f97850e1658 http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2016/10/13/the-clo...

hackuser 10y ago
The WaPo's ownership changed between the Iraq war and today, though I don't think Bill Moyers' statements are reliable sources of fact in any case. Yes, the Post opposed Trump (as did almost every newspaper in the U.S., conservative, moderate, or liberal). The rest is pure speculation and conjecture; their motives, good and bad, could be anything, and likely have little to do with your particular concerns.
- salimmadjd 10y ago
  if you had the chance to look at my Wikipedia reference, you'll see Hiatt is still the editor. You will also see there many references that he has shifted the paper into more of a neoconservative leaning paper.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    To be honest, I don't look at Wikipedia references. I think Wikipedia is the prime example of people's willingness to accept misinformation on the Internet. I would expect the owner, not the editor, determines the politics of the editorial page. Newspapers don't change their political stances significantly when they change editors, but they do when they change owners.
    - api 10y ago
      The editor sets the voice. If the owner wants to change that they would change the editor.

panarky 10y ago

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

barrkel 10y ago
That algorithm is an exercise in bias confirmation; it's ludicrous, IMO. Any criticism of current orthodox ideology is interpreted as a point in favour of Russian propaganda. Could it possibly be that some people have the genuine thought that starting a new cold war with Russia wouldn't be a very good idea? Or is that simply impossible without it being a Russian propaganda plot? IMO this is all heat that obscures what's going on. There's a new culture war afoot. IMO this site (PropOrNot) is a paranoid reaction to the rejection by a certain segment of the American population to an orthodox groupthink. Instead of people talking to one another and trying to communicate, they're polarizing. It's no good. (I flagged the article, FWIW.)
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
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