fake news versus propaganda

[ttystikk]

A few years into the cold war Americans came up with the word "disinformation" as a cover a host of Soviet reporting sins. The word is relavent today, only the crap comes from our own news sources.

Congress passed a law indemnifying news gathering organizations from legal consequences if they report falsehoods.

I can only imagine what the Founding Fathers would say about THAT!

My take is that such behavior is costing them their mandate to govern. It's another step down the slippery slope of fascism, a slope we're already sliding down at ever increasing speed.

 

[Hookabelly]

Some interesting things here about how/why we believe what we do. In a nutshell we first form ideologies, then surround ourselves with others who share them to reinforce our own. I don't agree with everything he wrote, but an interesting read. I am sincerely trying to be balanced in how and where I get my news from but things are so polarized in their own dogma that truth is difficult to discern.

 

[MisterBouncyBounce]

this is a great read on it's own but especially if you're interested at getting a glimpse of what it's like inside the N.Y. Times from one former insider's point of view.
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/chris_hedges_life_as_a_war_correspondent_with_the_new_york_times_20161109

 

[A.K.A. Overgrowem]

Congress passed a law indemnifying news gathering organizations from legal consequences if they report falsehoods.

I can only imagine what the Founding Features would say about THAT!

My take is that such behavior is costing them their manatee to govern. It's another step down the slippery slope of fascism, a slope we're already sliding down at ever increasing speed.

I see a slow motion unraveling of society towards anarchy with states attempting succession to escape the Fed.. Fascism may come but not soon and may have Generation Soylent on it's heels. Then as Sillary sez "What difference does it make".

 

[Fogdog]

i understand what you're saying. but the fact is they lie. that doesn't mean they lie all the time. they filter what they call news to serve their corporate masters and then lie when it is desired.

if you think Chomsky is great man, then you are arguing with him, not me. look him up on youtube he'll offer you better reasoning than i can on why and how the mass media is the lapdog of the corporate world.

but basically it's because they literally own them. how much news and what kind are they covering regarding the pipeline?

your links:

Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/


'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful, Disgusting
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543

Not arguing with you or Chomsky. I said that some liberal news sites including the ones you listed are biased rather than fake or dishonest which many conservative sites are. Do you have an argument with that statement?

I don't know if you want to dive into the details about the article on The Intercept and the subject in the link you provide. I read it and found it's claims to be hype. The Intercept claims that the WA PO published a story about Russia's disinformation campaign during this election that was shoddy in it's methods and mainly relied on an previously unknown site that is collecting information on the Russian disinformation campaign. They even brought up the specter of McCarthyism. Yeah, if true then it is an example of the Wa Po at best being disingenuous at best and lying at worst. The problem with this assertion is that the claims made in the Intercept's post are not true. The Wa Po article (link below) did not rely mainly on this site. They did refer to it in the article but they cited many other sources as well.
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?utm_term=.a1525e35cd49

Do I absolutely believe everything the Wa Po says? No. But on your recommendation, I did some checking by clicking links provided in both the Intercept's and the Wa Po's articles. Also checked up on who the Intercept are. The Intercept is less than a year old. It has a good reputable staff but it's still trying to find it's way commercially. From what I can tell, the Wa Po article has flaws but isn't McCarthy-ism in it's anti-Russia stance. Also from what I can tell, the Intercept is struggling and needs to generate more traffic. The tone of their article, to me, is desperate and they overstated their position.

I didn't read the other story because the Rolling Stone is not a news site.

Chomsky is a good speaker and has well researched, alternative views on recent history. He is very negative about the US-Isreal military alliance and speaks well about how the two countries are purposely destablizing the middle east in order to control the flow of oil and revenues from that oil in their best interests but to the detriment of world peace and the future. I think he's spot on in this regard. This doesn't mean that I agree with him about Russia-US relationships.

 

[Fogdog]

I see a slow motion unraveling of society towards anarchy with states attempting succession to escape the Fed.. Fascism may come but not soon and may have Generation Soylent on it's heels. Then as Sillary sez "What difference does it make".

Trump said "what do you have to lose?" I think the African Americans in the audience at the time said "A lot!". Are the tensions in the world or this country really that different from 50 or a hundred years ago?

I don't think so. The Internet is putting a new spin on news and dissemination of both honest and dishonest news. But we've had problems with that tension going back hundreds of years. It's one of the reasons why the constitution protects the press from the government. Maybe not perfectly but at least people aren't imprisoned for criticizing the king.

 

[Fogdog]

Congress passed a law indemnifying news gathering organizations from legal consequences if they report falsehoods.

I can only imagine what the Founding Features would say about THAT!

My take is that such behavior is costing them their manatee to govern. It's another step down the slippery slope of fascism, a slope we're already sliding down at ever increasing speed.

The FCC has a policy for honest reporting but news outlets have no obligation to do so.

the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

http://projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

 

[Fogdog]

Some interesting things here about how/why we believe what we do. In a nutshell we first form ideologies, then surround ourselves with others who share them to reinforce our own. I don't agree with everything he wrote, but an interesting read. I am sincerely trying to be balanced in how and where I get my news from but things are so polarized in their own dogma that truth is difficult to discern.

Let's not forget that disagreeing with somebody else's beliefs can be dangerous.

What's common about the following:

Teenage girls in high school shun and criticize a girl who is considered a slut.
Women in Iran are shocked if a woman refuses to cover her hair and will turn her in to the religious authorities if she doesn't correct her behavior. .
A mother in Afghanistan laughs when she sees her son beat her daughter.

The women in these examples are responding to protect the cultural norms by which they gain acceptance and success. In the case of the high school girls, they are acting to protect their relationships with boys in their social group. In the case of self policed religious doctrine, they are protecting the rules by which they gain acceptance in the Mosque. In the case of the mother in Afghanistan, she's protecting her relationship with her son because Afghani men don't live long in that society and she will most likely be dependent on the boy later in life.

Sometimes, believing in strange things has a purpose. It might not seem logical to an outsider.

 

[fdd2blk]

tl;dr

Fuckin' tweaker.

 

[Fogdog]

tl;dr

Fuckin' tweaker.

fuckin pin head

 

[MisterBouncyBounce]

Not arguing with you or Chomsky. I said that some liberal news sites including the ones you listed are biased rather than fake or dishonest which many conservative sites are. Do you have an argument with that statement?

I don't know if you want to dive into the details about the article on The Intercept and the subject in the link you provide. I read it and found it's claims to be hype. The Intercept claims that the WA PO published a story about Russia's disinformation campaign during this election that was shoddy in it's methods and mainly relied on an previously unknown site that is collecting information on the Russian disinformation campaign. Yeah, if true then it is an example of the Wa Po at best being disingenuous at best and lying at worst. The problem with this assertion is that the claims made in the Intercept's post are not true. The Wa Po article (link below) did not rely mainly on this site. They did refer to it in the article but they cited many other sources as well.
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?utm_term=.a1525e35cd49

Do I absolutely believe everything the Wa Po says? No. But on your recommendation, I did some checking by clicking links provided in both the Intercept's and the Wa Po's articles. Also checked up on who the Intercept are. The Intercept is less than a year old. It has a good reputable staff but it's still trying to find it's way commercially. From what I can tell, the Wa Po article has flaws but isn't McCarthy-ism in it's anti-Russia stance. Also from what I can tell, the Intercept is struggling and needs to generate more traffic. The tone of their article, to me is desperate and they overstated their position.

I didn't read the other story because the Rolling Stone is not a news site.

Chomsky is a good speaker and has well researched, alternative views on recent history. He is very negative about the US-Isreal military alliance and speaks well about how the two countries are purposely destablizing the middle east in order to control the flow of oil and revenues from that oil in their best interests but to the detriment of world peace and the future. I think he's spot on in this regard. This doesn't mean that I agree with him about Russia-US relationships.

throw both those links out. though i like Glen Greenwald a lot.

i wasn't trying to compare the two organizations. the point was does Mass Media News sources lie.

i said it does. you asked for an example and a link. i gave you an example of a newspaper on your list of sources that lied.

the intercepter and rolling stone links were just two references, i happened to pick those because one is an outsider and the other part of the mainstream.

the point is the story the washington post put out was a fabrication. the links i gave were just to places reporting on it.............there are a lot more.

look into it more and see where you come down on it.

i don't know what you mean about this russia-usa chomsky thing.

all i was saying about chomsky is that on the role and place of mainstream media in this country, chomsky has spoke specifically about it and at length and over years.

he indicts many of the sources on your list. he also cites them as sources as well. but he makes it plain, they are controlled and manipulated by and acquiescent to the corporate elite.

when NBC was owned by GE would NBC do a story on GE poisoning our rivers, for example.

now that it is owned by comcast, are they going to do a damaging story about them?
they are not going to say "our owners lie to you and cheat you and gouge you".
how are they going to treat and report on issues like municipal broadband?


how does the mainstream media do on covering the middle east? do they not lie outright or slant a story heavily one way or totally ignore one side?

they lie. not true is the same as false. they lie, no matter how it is couched, the end result is a lie.
omission is a lie, willful ignorance is a lie.

they practice these things.

i can tell you're a thinking person, i don't think you swallow everything they say wholesale.

it's just that at best they are sources of "News" but not good sources.

they are only good to follow for analytical purposes. like to see what's being reported to the masses and by whom. which helps with the "hows" and "Whys" when we invariably find ourselves holding our heads in our hands exclaiming "why is this happening, how did this happen?"

 

[Fogdog]

throw both those links out. though i like Glen Greenwald a lot.

i wasn't trying to compare the two organizations. the point was does Mass Media News sources lie.

i said it does. you asked for an example and a link. i gave you an example of a newspaper on your list of sources that lied.

the intercepter and rolling stone links were just two references, i happened to pick those because one is an outsider and the other part of the mainstream.

the point is the story the washington post put out was a fabrication. the links i gave were just to places reporting on it.............there are a lot more.

look into it more and see where you come down on it.

i don't know what you mean about this russia-usa chomsky thing.

all i was saying about chomsky is that on the role and place of mainstream media in this country, chomsky has spoke specifically about it and at length and over years.

he indicts many of the sources on your list. he also cites them as sources as well. but he makes it plain, they are controlled and manipulated by and acquiescent to the corporate elite.

when NBC was owned by GE would NBC do a story on GE poisoning our rivers, for example.

now that it is owned by comcast, are they going to do a damaging story about them?
they are not going to say "our owners lie to you and cheat you and gouge you".
how are they going to treat and report on issues like municipal broadband?


how does the mainstream media do on covering the middle east? do they not lie outright or slant a story heavily one way or totally ignore one side?

they lie. not true is the same as false. they lie, no matter how it is couched, the end result is a lie.
omission is a lie, willful ignorance is a lie.

they practice these things.

i can tell you're a thinking person, i don't think you swallow everything they say wholesale.

it's just that at best they are sources of "News" but not good sources.

they are only good to follow for analytical purposes. like to see what's being reported to the masses and by whom. which helps with the "hows" and "Whys" when we invariably find ourselves holding our heads in our hands exclaiming "why is this happening, how did this happen?"

I get the fact that the major news organizations are owned by billionaires and their corporations. Reporters working there know not to bite the hand that feeds them, usually. But I don't see the kind of bias and fakery that they are accused of from the left and the right. Maybe we disagree on this, but I just don't. When I'm interested in something, I don't just rely on one source but I do find articles of interest at those sites. It's popular to bash the main stream media. On the other hand, I don't like agenda fed to me with my news, which is what I see in many liberal and right wing media sites.

Where we part ways is this idea that the Washington Post article about Russian disinformation campaign last year was a total fabrication. Their article covered a wide range of sources, including RT and Sputnik, which I think you would agree ARE Russian Government house organs. Articles containing fake news from those sites made it into Trump's speeches. The events of last year align with that article regarding the onslaught of fakery shoveled onto the internet from Russia. I didn't buy into the fake shit but it meshed well with the susceptibility of right winger's desire for more dirt on Clinton. Regardless of facts.

Wikileaks was a Russian government sponsored hacking effort. The way it was released, it was treated as woo-woo reveal all top secret intelligence. If you read the actual releases, they were banal. Very little of the tens of thousands of documents contained anything of interest at all. Even then the nuggets were just inside the office BS. And yet, the right wing press made yuuuuuuuge claims about their contents. Sorry, man, it was disinformation because there really wasn't anything in those stolen inter office e-mails and they were treated by some outlets as more than they were. I'll grant that Russia beat the US in this game.

The article you posted from the interview with the NY Times reporter was interesting too. It didn't shed new light on anything that I already knew but added good background information. So thanks for that.

@fdd2blk here is another tl:dr. Why did you come back to this site and pose as a woman when you had just spent several years being another man's slut in prison?

 

[see4]

@fdd2blk here is another tl:dr. Why did you come back to this site and pose as a woman when you had just spent several years being another man's slut in prison?

 

[see4]

npr & anything sourced from AP or Reuters and sometimes BBC

 

[UncleBuck]

npr & anything sourced from AP or Reuters and sometimes BBC

i've been noticing politico is about as bland and boringly factual as can be as well.

 

[ttystikk]

The FCC has a policy for honest reporting but news outlets have no obligation to do so.

the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

http://projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

Unfuckingbelievable. SMH

 

[MisterBouncyBounce]

I get the fact that the major news organizations are owned by billionaires and their corporations. Reporters working there know not to bite the hand that feeds them, usually. But I don't see the kind of bias and fakery that they are accused of from the left and the right. Maybe we disagree on this, but I just don't. When I'm interested in something, I don't just rely on one source but I do find articles of interest at those sites. It's popular to bash the main stream media. On the other hand, I don't like agenda fed to me with my news, which is what I see in many liberal and right wing media sites.

Where we part ways is this idea that the Washington Post article about Russian disinformation campaign last year was a total fabrication. Their article covered a wide range of sources, including RT and Sputnik, which I think you would agree ARE Russian Government house organs. Articles containing fake news from those sites made it into Trump's speeches. The events of last year align with that article regarding the onslaught of fakery shoveled onto the internet from Russia. I didn't buy into the fake shit but it meshed well with the susceptibility of right winger's desire for more dirt on Clinton. Regardless of facts.

Wikileaks was a Russian government sponsored hacking effort. The way it was released, it was treated as woo-woo reveal all top secret intelligence. If you read the actual releases, they were banal. Very little of the tens of thousands of documents contained anything of interest at all. Even then the nuggets were just inside the office BS. And yet, the right wing press made yuuuuuuuge claims about their contents. Sorry, man, it was disinformation because there really wasn't anything in those stolen inter office e-mails and they were treated by some outlets as more than they were. I'll grant that Russia beat the US in this game.

The article you posted from the interview with the NY Times reporter was interesting too. It didn't shed new light on anything that I already knew but added good background information. So thanks for that.

@fdd2blk here is another tl:dr. Why did you come back to this site and pose as a woman when you had just spent several years being another man's slut in prison?

not to belabor things but i don't see how you can say this "I get the fact that the major news organizations are owned by billionaires and their corporations. Reporters working there know not to bite the hand that feeds them, usually."

and then say this " But I don't see the kind of bias and fakery that they are accused of from the left and the right.".

so you know there is inherent conflict but you don't see it manifesting malfeasance?
you know that NBC won't report honestly on cable issues, like monopolies or vetting an incoming FCC chairman or whatever.

they can't report honestly............you say you know that....."they know not to bite the hand that feeds them".........then it cannot be that they are reporting honestly. whether you see it or not.

the Washington post is owned by jeff bezos and so they will never report on Amazon honestly or look into their business practices for an expose.

you read in the story by the former N.Y. Times reporter that they write reports from hotels from what is given to them by gov. officials without even checking to see if there is another side to the story or if the facts match the reality.

well if you already knew that, then how can you say they aren't faking shit? making shit up.

the way disinformation gets passed, to get a seed planted in some heads, is to write a story with 4 things that are true and one thing that is not, the one thing you actually are using the story for.

you seem to give a break to the wash. post, like "they reported on more than that"........yeah, that's cover for the bullshit they slid underneath it, that there is a cabal of journalists acting as foreign propaganda puppets. it's fake and a lie because he cites no sources for it other than what amounts to "some guy told me so".
yeah cited sources for other things though......he must know then that citing sources is kind of important.

if a story is intentionally written with 4 true things and one false thing, that is deception.
the story was meant to deceive, doesn't matter how many true things are in it. it is deception.
a lie is deception.

journalists who know better than bite the hands that feed them....... must lie, so whoever approves and prints that lie is lying.

it is not in the mainstream media's interest to serve the people, it is to serve their share holders.

if you know that, it is impossible to conclude they is no fakery or deception. their bosses don't let them rat the bosses out to the public. they don't own the media so the media can ruin them.

pizzagate are not the kind of fake stories to look for, they are ludicrously fake. the shit that sounds like the truth is what needs to be scrutinized.

i think i've pretty much said enough, so you can have the last word and we can leave it at that.

i'm sure we have more common ground than not.

 

[fdd2blk]

The need to change the name of this place to snortitup. It's pretty obvious what must of you here are doing.

 

[UncleBuck]

The need to change the name of this place to snortitup. It's pretty obvious what must of you here are doing.

does your PO know you are here or do i have to call her again?

 

[Big_Lou]

tl;dr

Fuckin' tweaker.

The need to change the name of this place to snortitup. It's pretty obvious what must of you here are doing.

Bored with harassing people via PM and decided to pollute a few threads, eh 'former mod'? (LOL!!) Poor pathetic little bitch, they must have loved you in prison......