3 ms·
So one thing really should be cleared up - the 2nd paragraph of this article talks about incorrect criticisms (i.e. misinformation) of an article >> They were
by zug_zug 4y ago
So one thing really should be cleared up - the 2nd paragraph of this article talks about incorrect criticisms (i.e. misinformation) of an article
>> They were called eugenicists and anti-vaxxers; it was falsely asserted that they were “Koch-funded” and that they had written the declaration for financial gain.
It then says
>> Yet emails obtained pursuant to a FOIA request later revealed that these attacks ... were the fruits of an aggressive attempt to shape the news by the same government officials
The source is a paywalled opinion piece, so I can't get to the bottom of it. In my opinion this claim is serious if true, and entirely bad-faith and undermines the credibility of the article if untrue.
There's a huge difference between filtering out or demarcating content believed to be inaccurate or attempting to misinform, versus astroturfing against said articles through false accusations. Which is it, and what's the evidence?
- peteradio 4y agoI think the assertion is that both things happened. Accusations of American discussions being wholly Russian fabrications AND backchannel threats against media companies if they didn't fall in line.
- musicale 4y agoWas this it? https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-emails-and-some-alleged-science/ https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-emails-and-some-alleged-s...
- Natsu 4y agoAs near as I can tell they're talking about emails from this set: https://archive.org/details/fauci-emails/page/n3/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/fauci-emails/page/n3/mode/2up
- blast 4y agoIt may be not be a huge difference in the context of this case, though, since the plaintiffs' First Amendment argument would apply just as much to the government "filtering out or demarcating content believed to be inaccurate or attempting to misinform".