5 ms·

This is a weak attempt to discredit Bellingcat, and frankly raises more questions about Declassified UK's intentions and objectives than it does about Bellingca

by _djo_ 5y ago

This is a weak attempt to discredit Bellingcat, and frankly raises more questions about Declassified UK's intentions and objectives than it does about Bellingcat. NED funding is easily and openly given to tons of entities and doesn't come with strings attached. It's no more evidence of being a 'CIA funded propaganda op' than receiving money from the Open Society Foundation makes you a Soros shill as others have also ridiculously claimed. There are valid criticisms worth making against Bellingcat, and legitimate unease at the role being played by independent and unaccountable entities like it in our discourse. Declassified UK doesn't seriously try to address any of them.

wyuenho 5y ago
It is especially telling that just on the verge of war, this piece comes out trying to undermine credibility and trust of the US, UK and UK media, and to sow discord.
- w_t_payne 5y ago
  Seems sus to me.
throwawayay02 5y ago
There is no such thing as money with no strings attached. Even if it was not meant that way, or explicit quid pro quo in any way, after time Bellingcat would be more reticent to anger their financers.
- _djo_ 5y ago
  If they're the biggest chunk of your funding, sure. If it's just one funding source amongst many, which is the strategy taken by groups like Bellingcat to avoid that sort of implicit coercion, then that's really not a factor.
- sam_lowry_ 5y ago
  Having worked in media, I do agree that there are always strings attached to the money. However, the relationship between money and reporting is not straightforward. For instance, Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and many other lobbyists that pay media are suggesting the topics, not the content. They pay for coverage and your editor in chief commits into producing x articles on y subjects, the content is left at the exercise of the journalist. Do not forget that journalists are often freelancers working for multiple outlets and they do try to enforce deontologic rules as a way to protect their profession. Compared to software developers, journalists earn less but own more. They do keep the right to the content and are liable individually. There are lots of restrictions in place as to what media outlets can and can not do to journalists, and some are even enshrined in laws.
  - belter 5y ago
    You can't possibly seriously propose, the Gates foundation would suggest the topic and then ...Although not directly involved in the content, not choose a media where they could be assured the delivery will be to their satisfaction.
    - sam_lowry_ 5y ago
      From my experience, they often work on matters that are orthogonal to political divisions. If anything, they would shell out money to media with specialized audience just because they want wider coverage of issues they are interested in.
pydry 5y ago
I'm sure the fact that Bellingcat almost exclusively targets CIA opponents is just a neat coincidence that exactly lines up with the documented money flows. Whereas the fact that Wikileaks has released only one sizable cache of documents from Russia is proof positive that they're essentially their paid spies who need to know when to keep their trap shut :/ I'm pretty happy for foreign powers to dig up dirt on each other and release it publicly. It's one form of "warfare" with net positive side effects. It benefits everybody who isnt invested in maintaining the overwhelming power of "their" favored corrupt empire. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
- _djo_ 5y ago
  Bellingcat have done all kinds of investigations, including some which embarrass or implicate in war crimes governments like that of Ethiopia, Chad, and Cameroon who are US allies. Here's another example, which highlights the lax security of US troops guarding nuclear weapons in Europe, and which strengthens the hands of activists campaigning for European governments to disallow those agreements: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-expose-nuclear-weapons-secrets-via-flashcard-apps/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-expos... However, it's important to emphasise that a group can have a singular focus area and still be independent. Its researchers all have their own personal interest areas and areas of expertise (esp. in language), which drives the kinds of things they focus on. As long as nobody is directing them, and so far nobody has provided convincing evidence of that, it's not something you can rely on to prove bias. A smoking gun would be if it emerged that they actually worked on something that would embarrass the US or UK and then covered it up. Are they pawns for the West? Maybe. But we need better evidence than this to make that a believable case. Wikileaks I believe was accused for instance of actually having damaging documents on Russia and deciding not to release them for some reason. It was an active decision they made despite having the means, and went against their professed claim of not holding back.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Your article reminds me of another article I read about horrendous nuclear weapons security in the US that appeared years before bellingcat existed. It seemed as weird then as it is now that the US government would willingly embarrass itself, but I can see how it might come about as a result of interagency rivalry and/or frustration that deep-seated dangerous security lapses were getting bureaucratically buried. I'd be deeply surprised if Bellingcat released anything that embarrassed the director of the CIA. I glanced at the bellingcat page on Ethiopia to see if they really were undermining the integrity of a US ally as you implied. Top story is about the fact that they're using Iranian drones, which is a bit of a poke in the eye to the US, and, depressingly, probably is the aspect of the conflict the CIA feels most invested in.
baybal2 5y ago
We have to dismiss them shallowly, and squarely. If you spend too much time on trying to put "substantive argument" against such nutjobbery, you only work towards giving them more credulence.
lucian1900 5y ago
The NED has been a CIA front from the beginning and it consistently funds opponents of US empire. It is possible that groups accepting NED funding aren't aware of this, but being a candidate for such funding means the CIA finds such a group useful.
pjc50 5y ago
> independent and unaccountable entities like it in our discourse Those are basically your only options, sadly. It's been absolutely incredible watching the billionaire-funded UK press struggle with the 10 Downing Street revelations. The revolving door between the Sun and the Tory party has been particularly bad - one of the parties was a leaving do for the director of communications moving from one to another. Similarly the attempt at smearing the Labour party by bringing up old links to a Chinese spy fell apart when it was revealed she'd also been paying Tory parliamentarians. Then there's the £160k game of tennis, etc. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-report-donors-boris-johnson-conservative-party-2020-7?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-report-donors-boris-j...
VictorPath 5y ago
[flagged]

by _djo_ 5y ago

wyuenho 5y ago

It is especially telling that just on the verge of war, this piece comes out trying to undermine credibility and trust of the US, UK and UK media, and to sow discord.

w_t_payne 5y ago
Seems sus to me.

throwawayay02 5y ago

There is no such thing as money with no strings attached. Even if it was not meant that way, or explicit quid pro quo in any way, after time Bellingcat would be more reticent to anger their financers.

_djo_ 5y ago
If they're the biggest chunk of your funding, sure. If it's just one funding source amongst many, which is the strategy taken by groups like Bellingcat to avoid that sort of implicit coercion, then that's really not a factor.
sam_lowry_ 5y ago
Having worked in media, I do agree that there are always strings attached to the money. However, the relationship between money and reporting is not straightforward. For instance, Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and many other lobbyists that pay media are suggesting the topics, not the content. They pay for coverage and your editor in chief commits into producing x articles on y subjects, the content is left at the exercise of the journalist. Do not forget that journalists are often freelancers working for multiple outlets and they do try to enforce deontologic rules as a way to protect their profession. Compared to software developers, journalists earn less but own more. They do keep the right to the content and are liable individually. There are lots of restrictions in place as to what media outlets can and can not do to journalists, and some are even enshrined in laws.
- belter 5y ago
  You can't possibly seriously propose, the Gates foundation would suggest the topic and then ...Although not directly involved in the content, not choose a media where they could be assured the delivery will be to their satisfaction.
  - sam_lowry_ 5y ago
    From my experience, they often work on matters that are orthogonal to political divisions. If anything, they would shell out money to media with specialized audience just because they want wider coverage of issues they are interested in.

pydry 5y ago

I'm sure the fact that Bellingcat almost exclusively targets CIA opponents is just a neat coincidence that exactly lines up with the documented money flows. Whereas the fact that Wikileaks has released only one sizable cache of documents from Russia is proof positive that they're essentially their paid spies who need to know when to keep their trap shut :/ I'm pretty happy for foreign powers to dig up dirt on each other and release it publicly. It's one form of "warfare" with net positive side effects. It benefits everybody who isnt invested in maintaining the overwhelming power of "their" favored corrupt empire. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

_djo_ 5y ago
Bellingcat have done all kinds of investigations, including some which embarrass or implicate in war crimes governments like that of Ethiopia, Chad, and Cameroon who are US allies. Here's another example, which highlights the lax security of US troops guarding nuclear weapons in Europe, and which strengthens the hands of activists campaigning for European governments to disallow those agreements: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-expose-nuclear-weapons-secrets-via-flashcard-apps/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-expos... However, it's important to emphasise that a group can have a singular focus area and still be independent. Its researchers all have their own personal interest areas and areas of expertise (esp. in language), which drives the kinds of things they focus on. As long as nobody is directing them, and so far nobody has provided convincing evidence of that, it's not something you can rely on to prove bias. A smoking gun would be if it emerged that they actually worked on something that would embarrass the US or UK and then covered it up. Are they pawns for the West? Maybe. But we need better evidence than this to make that a believable case. Wikileaks I believe was accused for instance of actually having damaging documents on Russia and deciding not to release them for some reason. It was an active decision they made despite having the means, and went against their professed claim of not holding back.
- pydry 5y ago
  Your article reminds me of another article I read about horrendous nuclear weapons security in the US that appeared years before bellingcat existed. It seemed as weird then as it is now that the US government would willingly embarrass itself, but I can see how it might come about as a result of interagency rivalry and/or frustration that deep-seated dangerous security lapses were getting bureaucratically buried. I'd be deeply surprised if Bellingcat released anything that embarrassed the director of the CIA. I glanced at the bellingcat page on Ethiopia to see if they really were undermining the integrity of a US ally as you implied. Top story is about the fact that they're using Iranian drones, which is a bit of a poke in the eye to the US, and, depressingly, probably is the aspect of the conflict the CIA feels most invested in.

baybal2 5y ago

We have to dismiss them shallowly, and squarely. If you spend too much time on trying to put "substantive argument" against such nutjobbery, you only work towards giving them more credulence.

lucian1900 5y ago

The NED has been a CIA front from the beginning and it consistently funds opponents of US empire. It is possible that groups accepting NED funding aren't aware of this, but being a candidate for such funding means the CIA finds such a group useful.

pjc50 5y ago

> independent and unaccountable entities like it in our discourse Those are basically your only options, sadly. It's been absolutely incredible watching the billionaire-funded UK press struggle with the 10 Downing Street revelations. The revolving door between the Sun and the Tory party has been particularly bad - one of the parties was a leaving do for the director of communications moving from one to another. Similarly the attempt at smearing the Labour party by bringing up old links to a Chinese spy fell apart when it was revealed she'd also been paying Tory parliamentarians. Then there's the £160k game of tennis, etc. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-report-donors-boris-johnson-conservative-party-2020-7?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-report-donors-boris-j...

VictorPath 5y ago

[flagged]