3 ms·

The Intercept article is a bit [EDIT: very] misleading. The Post article from the start relies on two groups: * The Foreign Policy Research Insititute * PropO

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-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-prop...

lern_too_spel 10y ago
This article from The Intercept is even more misleading than the article it criticizes. The Intercept has been pretty lax editorially in the short time it has been running. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/02/the-intercept-fires-reporter-juan-thompson https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/02/the-intercept-...
return0 10y ago
What about the other referenced article from Fortune? http://fortune.com/2016/11/25/russian-fake-news/ http://fortune.com/2016/11/25/russian-fake-news/
dcjones 10y ago
There is compelling evidence from serious sources that Russia spreads propaganda and misinformation, but that doesn't let PropOrNot off the hook, nor WaPo for giving them a platform. It's a sleazy, amateurish operation. Look how they accuse sites critical of regime change in Syria as supporters of Assad (https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720 https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720). "McCarthyite" may be hyperbolic, but smearing leftists or those critical of war and imperialism as loyal to our "enemies" is very much in the tradition of McCarthyism. It's ugly stuff, and it's depressing to see start to become mainstream again.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > It's a sleazy, amateurish operation. If I still believed The Intercept article, I'd agree. But after reading the Wash Post article myself, I found The Intercept was deceitful and don't trust anything in it. I'd need to (and would like to) see other evidence. > Look how they accuse sites critical of regime change in Syria as supporters of Assad (https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720 https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720) I don't see anything wrong with that tweet, which doesn't say that opponents of regime change are Assad supporters (EDIT: though it implies complicity). First, the tweets it responds to: 1) Rudolf E. Havenstein ‏@RudyHavenstein Nov 24: The one common denominator in the PropOrNot @WashingtonPost "fake news" list is opposition to disastrous neo-Con military interventions. 2) Rudolf E. Havenstein ‏@RudyHavenstein Nov 25: Obviously @NatCounterPunch and NakedCaptalism (and other sites PropOrNot listed) are not pro-Trump, but they are anti-war. @washingtonpost And then the tweet itself: 3) PropOrNot ID Service @propornot: @RudyHavenstein @NatCounterPunch @washingtonpost They're not anti-Putin/Assad/etc-wars, though! They love those Sounds like a good, fair point to me - if true (which I don't know).
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    >If I still believed The Intercept article, I'd agree. But after reading the Wash Post article myself, I found The Intercept was deceitful and don't trust anything in it. I'd need to (and would like to) see other evidence The fact here is that the WaPo article cites Wikileaks as "fake news." That should tell you who not to trust, if it doesn't already scare you enough.
whybroke 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    Can you link me or quote a source that would show me evidence of why you do not trust The Intercept?
- wallace_f 10y ago
  >in the over/under emphasis, hyperbole and unnecessarily agitating tone I agree. Greenwald Tweeted not long after the WaPo article came out that the article was "journalistic garbage, and people were passing out around uncritically because it served political agendas." An emotional response from Greenwald. Greenwald is an absolute godsend in today's world of 1984, but he is not perfect and his writing style can and has been much better than this.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
In case you're wondering, here is a list of all news sites that PropOrNot has flagged as being pro-Russian propaganda: http://pastebin.com/YRrkrfTZ http://pastebin.com/YRrkrfTZ I just can't take them seriously. Their tweets sounds like lulzSec
- hackuser 10y ago
  > here is a list of all news sites that PropOrNot has flagged as being pro-Russian propaganda: If I understand correctly, they are flagging them for repeating Russian propaganda - including as unwitting 'Useful Idiots'. They aren't saying all those sites are trying to spread it. Skimming the list briefly, I don't see any that surprise me. I think the propaganda has been very effective and Americans don't seem to have skepticism about it. > Their tweets sounds like lulzSec I agree that their tweets, as presented by The Intercept, are disturbing. But after reading The Intercept and then the WaPo articles, I no longer trust The Intercept - their portrayal of the WaPo article is deceitful.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    > Skimming the list briefly I was surprised to see CounterPunch on the PropOrNot list. One of my favorite authors from the 2000s, Werther, wrote for CounterPunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/author/werther/ http://www.counterpunch.org/author/werther/ However, I haven't read CP in a long time and skimming articles mentioning Russia, PropOrNot may have a point.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    > I agree that their tweets, as presented by The Intercept, are disturbing. I went straight to the source (https://twitter.com/propornot https://twitter.com/propornot). I found this tweet vaguely interesting: Pretty much anybody hating on Soros is echoing Russian propaganda. It's a good rule of thumb. http://ind.pn/2g5wcC3 http://ind.pn/2g5wcC3 I'm a leftist myself and admirer of Soros, but saying 'hating' on him is tantamount to being a 'useful idiot' is rubbish. They spend a lot of time defending Soros...hmmmm For an independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs, they sound anything but professional.

lern_too_spel 10y ago

This article from The Intercept is even more misleading than the article it criticizes. The Intercept has been pretty lax editorially in the short time it has been running. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/02/the-intercept-fires-reporter-juan-thompson https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/02/the-intercept-...

return0 10y ago

What about the other referenced article from Fortune? http://fortune.com/2016/11/25/russian-fake-news/ http://fortune.com/2016/11/25/russian-fake-news/

dcjones 10y ago

There is compelling evidence from serious sources that Russia spreads propaganda and misinformation, but that doesn't let PropOrNot off the hook, nor WaPo for giving them a platform. It's a sleazy, amateurish operation. Look how they accuse sites critical of regime change in Syria as supporters of Assad (https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720 https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720). "McCarthyite" may be hyperbolic, but smearing leftists or those critical of war and imperialism as loyal to our "enemies" is very much in the tradition of McCarthyism. It's ugly stuff, and it's depressing to see start to become mainstream again.

hackuser 10y ago
> It's a sleazy, amateurish operation. If I still believed The Intercept article, I'd agree. But after reading the Wash Post article myself, I found The Intercept was deceitful and don't trust anything in it. I'd need to (and would like to) see other evidence. > Look how they accuse sites critical of regime change in Syria as supporters of Assad (https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720 https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720) I don't see anything wrong with that tweet, which doesn't say that opponents of regime change are Assad supporters (EDIT: though it implies complicity). First, the tweets it responds to: 1) Rudolf E. Havenstein ‏@RudyHavenstein Nov 24: The one common denominator in the PropOrNot @WashingtonPost "fake news" list is opposition to disastrous neo-Con military interventions. 2) Rudolf E. Havenstein ‏@RudyHavenstein Nov 25: Obviously @NatCounterPunch and NakedCaptalism (and other sites PropOrNot listed) are not pro-Trump, but they are anti-war. @washingtonpost And then the tweet itself: 3) PropOrNot ID Service @propornot: @RudyHavenstein @NatCounterPunch @washingtonpost They're not anti-Putin/Assad/etc-wars, though! They love those Sounds like a good, fair point to me - if true (which I don't know).
- wallace_f 10y ago
  >If I still believed The Intercept article, I'd agree. But after reading the Wash Post article myself, I found The Intercept was deceitful and don't trust anything in it. I'd need to (and would like to) see other evidence The fact here is that the WaPo article cites Wikileaks as "fake news." That should tell you who not to trust, if it doesn't already scare you enough.

whybroke 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  Can you link me or quote a source that would show me evidence of why you do not trust The Intercept?
wallace_f 10y ago
>in the over/under emphasis, hyperbole and unnecessarily agitating tone I agree. Greenwald Tweeted not long after the WaPo article came out that the article was "journalistic garbage, and people were passing out around uncritically because it served political agendas." An emotional response from Greenwald. Greenwald is an absolute godsend in today's world of 1984, but he is not perfect and his writing style can and has been much better than this.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

In case you're wondering, here is a list of all news sites that PropOrNot has flagged as being pro-Russian propaganda: http://pastebin.com/YRrkrfTZ http://pastebin.com/YRrkrfTZ I just can't take them seriously. Their tweets sounds like lulzSec

hackuser 10y ago
> here is a list of all news sites that PropOrNot has flagged as being pro-Russian propaganda: If I understand correctly, they are flagging them for repeating Russian propaganda - including as unwitting 'Useful Idiots'. They aren't saying all those sites are trying to spread it. Skimming the list briefly, I don't see any that surprise me. I think the propaganda has been very effective and Americans don't seem to have skepticism about it. > Their tweets sounds like lulzSec I agree that their tweets, as presented by The Intercept, are disturbing. But after reading The Intercept and then the WaPo articles, I no longer trust The Intercept - their portrayal of the WaPo article is deceitful.
- CalChris 10y ago
  > Skimming the list briefly I was surprised to see CounterPunch on the PropOrNot list. One of my favorite authors from the 2000s, Werther, wrote for CounterPunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/author/werther/ http://www.counterpunch.org/author/werther/ However, I haven't read CP in a long time and skimming articles mentioning Russia, PropOrNot may have a point.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  > I agree that their tweets, as presented by The Intercept, are disturbing. I went straight to the source (https://twitter.com/propornot https://twitter.com/propornot). I found this tweet vaguely interesting: Pretty much anybody hating on Soros is echoing Russian propaganda. It's a good rule of thumb. http://ind.pn/2g5wcC3 http://ind.pn/2g5wcC3 I'm a leftist myself and admirer of Soros, but saying 'hating' on him is tantamount to being a 'useful idiot' is rubbish. They spend a lot of time defending Soros...hmmmm For an independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs, they sound anything but professional.