6 ms·
>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 anyth
by 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.
- hackuser 10y ago> the WaPo article cites Wikileaks as "fake news." The WaPo article doesn't mention Wikileaks. I just searched the page to verify my memory of it. Feel free to check for yourself: 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...
- wallace_f 10y agoFrom the article: > The article by reporter Craig Timberg – headlined “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say” – cites a report by a new, anonymous website calling itself “PropOrNot,” which claims that millions of Americans have been deceived this year in a massive Russian “misinformation campaign.” Here is the WaPo's source: http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html There they list Wikileaks as "Russian Propaganda," what the WaPo called in their article "Fake News."