3 ms·

Saying it's pure propaganda is obviously false and you are right to counter that. They aren't a neutral observer who is simply interested in facts and truth. T

by 99_00 4y ago

Saying it's pure propaganda is obviously false and you are right to counter that. They aren't a neutral observer who is simply interested in facts and truth. They have an agenda and are not transparent about it.

thriftwy 4y ago
I remember a fake FUD "anonymous letter from FSB officer" which surfaced on HN in early March, for which Bellingcat was quick to issue a "seems legit". Needless to say, in a week most sources deleted the letter as its non-authenticity became too apparent. So basically, they're reposting/legitimizing war propaganda.
hndamien 4y ago
Seems like they tell the truth, but not the whole truth, just the CIA truth. But at least it appears to be true.
- 99_00 4y ago
  There are countless ways to mislead without technically being false. One way is to intentionally be ignorant of the facts and give an uniformed opinion that fits your agenda. Take the letter from the 51 former senior intelligence officers who cast doubt on the Hunter Biden laptop. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9... "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal aSorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -" Reading the letter, you see that they don't say that the laptop is misinformation, or that the emails are fake. Only that, without attempting to verify the evidence available, they suspect it is fake because it is Russia's MO. Why would people who make their career from verifying intelligence evidence not look at the actual evidence? Not attempt to verify before assessing it. So they don't have to lie about it.
  - hndamien 4y ago
    Great point! It’s great to be aware of this, and I would argue that it is still better than a lie, you just have to know you are observing a black hole (seeing something due to the effects around it)

by 99_00 4y ago

thriftwy 4y ago

I remember a fake FUD "anonymous letter from FSB officer" which surfaced on HN in early March, for which Bellingcat was quick to issue a "seems legit". Needless to say, in a week most sources deleted the letter as its non-authenticity became too apparent. So basically, they're reposting/legitimizing war propaganda.

hndamien 4y ago

Seems like they tell the truth, but not the whole truth, just the CIA truth. But at least it appears to be true.

99_00 4y ago
There are countless ways to mislead without technically being false. One way is to intentionally be ignorant of the facts and give an uniformed opinion that fits your agenda. Take the letter from the 51 former senior intelligence officers who cast doubt on the Hunter Biden laptop. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9... "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal aSorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -" Reading the letter, you see that they don't say that the laptop is misinformation, or that the emails are fake. Only that, without attempting to verify the evidence available, they suspect it is fake because it is Russia's MO. Why would people who make their career from verifying intelligence evidence not look at the actual evidence? Not attempt to verify before assessing it. So they don't have to lie about it.
- hndamien 4y ago
  Great point! It’s great to be aware of this, and I would argue that it is still better than a lie, you just have to know you are observing a black hole (seeing something due to the effects around it)