Washington Post: Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

[pleks]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Dan Rather, the man who spent 30 years with a damn near impeccable record, got suckered into one bad story, and lost his entire career as a result? That Dan Rather?

You’re completely diluting the concept of “fake news”, by the way. Fake news is not news that later turns out to be wrong. It’s intentionally deceptive crap put together to appear as though it was legitimate news. When Rather published his report on the Killian documents, there was no reason to believe he knew the documents were fraudulent. That wasn’t fake news. It was just a hoax. It was bad reporting, but is there any reason to believe that Rather was not operating in good faith when he made the report? I don’t think there is. And it came from a news source which is generally trustworthy. It’s not “fake news”. You’re conflating very different issues here; please stop.

Did you see what those covers were referring to? Trump’s campaign did melt down on both occasions. He got into a week-long bitching competition with a gold star family, then again he went on an angry tirade against a former miss universe. The fact that he won has no influence on the facts at the time.

That people make mistakes.

Where do you get your news? In fact, WillFarnaby, and anyone else touting this line of argumentation, what are your go-to news sources? What sites do you visit for your news? And are those sites completely and utterly flawless in their accuracy and analysis?

Because what you’re doing is holding mainstream news outlets to an impossible standard. You’re saying that whenever a source gets anything wrong, they become untrustworthy. Dan Rather fell for a hoax, ergo nothing he says is reliable. The Washington Post published a crummy article on “fake news” and didn’t dig as deep as they could have, ergo they cannot be trusted on anything. The New York Times had a reporter publish a horrible story misrepresenting the state of things in Russia and that reporter won a pulitzer 85 fucking years ago, ergo both the New York Times and the Pulitzer are forever tainted.

So where do you get your news? What shining paragon of media never, ever gets anything wrong, in decades or centuries of investigative reporting?

I’ll tell you who: fucking nobody. There is not an outlet in the world who is older than a year and has never gotten anything wrong. Because in a business where the facts are not always immediately clear, but there is a clear motivation to publish first and have compelling news stories, sometimes someone’s going to get something wrong. It happens. The trick is to figure out when that happens, and try to find the places it happens the least. And the Washington Post and New York Times are among the very best in the business at doing exactly that. So was Dan Rather, until his parent network decided that this one flubbed story was too much for their trustworthiness to bear.

Trump lost the popular vote by a margin of 2.5 million. He barely squeezed out a win by a few hundred thousand votes in a handful of swing states. The entire election, he polled well beneath his competition. So when you say something like “Trump crushed his opposition with ease”, it makes me wonder - where do you get your news from? Because clearly they’ve been misleading you.

Wow, dude, that’s a long post, and it’s time for me to poop and catch some zzzzs, so 'll respond only to what I think is your most pressing question.
Where do I get the news? It’s simple, really, you just take a look at what’s being reported, and you make proper conclusions.

For example, a few years ago, there was a story about some black whore accusing a group of white university students of rape. You had your Al Sharptons, your Jesse Jacksons, your Democrat district attorney, your liberal professors and media, all calling for blood of the students in question.
At that point, it was pretty much obvious to any thinking person that the students were completely, 100% innocent and the real news was that the students were falsely accused by the whore in question. And so it turned out to be…

[Siam_Sam]

@Siam_Sam

It is a complete mystery to me how the same conservatives who just a few years ago would have been screaming bloody murder years about Russian influence even on a lesser scale than this are simply shrugging it off now. Trump and his worshipers really do remind me of Hitler’s sway over his followers.

@davidm

It’s no mystery to me. The Republicans have been becoming more and more frantic about demographic changes, and more and more willing to do just about anything to thwart the consequences of that to their party and their philosophy.

Given the chance to lock in their hold on power for at least a generation (with a friendly SCOTUS, etc.), they’re willing to look the other way or even lie to themselves concerning the source of their salvation.

@Velocity

As is the case with almost all double standards, it boils down to self-interest and/or whether it helps someone’s cause. If Thing X supports a person’s cause, they will support it, if it supports someone else’s cause, chances are they’ll oppose it.
And yeah, never thought I’d see the day the GOP would become the pro-Russia party.

Well, it’s still a mystery to me. I mean toeing the party line is one thing, but even though it’s no longer the Soviet Union, Russia remains the Evil Empire. It seems to me this is beyond the pale even for conservatives. It’s almost as bad as it would have been for Republicans to urge going softly on Nazi Germany just because FDR was in power, or even on Japan in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

I am no fan of conspiracy theories but have to wonder exactly what goods former spymaster Putin might have on Filth-elect Trump.

[elucidator]

…Keep that in mind when choosing how to spend your time arguing with people.

The Lord instructs us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked. Arguing with the unreasoning is just an extension.

[WillFarnaby]

I don’t disbelieve everything by the Washington Post. The article in the OP is garbage, though. The article about the secret CIA assessment is troubled because of the anonymous sources and also the fact they bury the part about there being no direct involvement with the Russian government. These problems coupled with the Post’s willingness to run absolute garbage in regards to Russia, leads me to believe there is problems over there.

I don’t trust based solely on the source of the information.

[HurricaneDitka]

@OldOlds

The sad thing is that the Republicans could take the high road AND keep the presidency.

What do you mean by this? Are you thinking of those goofy “Hamilton electors” and their “plan” to steal the presidency from Trump in the electoral college?

[Snarky_Kong]

@elucidator

The Lord instructs us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked. Arguing with the unreasoning is just an extension.

Oh, he has a reason for what he’s saying.

[John_Mace]

@up_the_junction

Doesn’t matter what Homeland Security says the President-elect, in all his wisdom and relevant knowledge and experience, has concluded the idea of Russian involvement is “ridiculous”.

Thank you, POTUS elect.

Trump doesn’t seem to realize that it’s not a good idea for the president-elect to piss off the CIA (or any of the intelligence agencies). Wouldn’t be prudent…

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@pleks

Wow, dude, that’s a long post, and it’s time for me to poop and catch some zzzzs, so 'll respond only to what I think is your most pressing question.
Where do I get the news? It’s simple, really, you just take a look at what’s being reported, and you make proper conclusions.

For example, a few years ago, there was a story about some black whore accusing a group of white university students of rape. You had your Al Sharptons, your Jesse Jacksons, your Democrat district attorney, your liberal professors and media, all calling for blood of the students in question.
At that point, it was pretty much obvious to any thinking person that the students were completely, 100% innocent and the real news was that the students were falsely accused by the whore in question. And so it turned out to be…

In case it wasn’t obvious, the questions weren’t for you. They were for anyone watching intrigued by your antics. Which, one might hope, is nobody. But your method of establishing the veracity of a source seems to be, “Do people I dislike agree with it? IT MUST BE WRONG!” Which is incredibly stupid.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@WillFarnaby

I don’t disbelieve everything by the Washington Post. The article in the OP is garbage, though. The article about the secret CIA assessment is troubled because of the anonymous sources and also the fact they bury the part about there being no direct involvement with the Russian government. These problems coupled with the Post’s willingness to run absolute garbage in regards to Russia, leads me to believe there is problems over there.

I don’t trust based solely on the source of the information.

Fair enough. I trust the Washington Post’s reporters to not lie about an anonymous source from the CIA, particularly when NPR backs them up. I think not doing so is foolhardy given WaPo’s pedigree.

[GIGObuster]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Dan Rather, the man who spent 30 years with a damn near impeccable record, got suckered into one bad story, and lost his entire career as a result? That Dan Rather?

You’re completely diluting the concept of “fake news”, by the way. Fake news is not news that later turns out to be wrong. It’s intentionally deceptive crap put together to appear as though it was legitimate news. When Rather published his report on the Killian documents, there was no reason to believe he knew the documents were fraudulent. That wasn’t fake news. It was just a hoax. It was bad reporting, but is there any reason to believe that Rather was not operating in good faith when he made the report? I don’t think there is. And it came from a news source which is generally trustworthy. It’s not “fake news”. You’re conflating very different issues here; please stop.

Did you see what those covers were referring to? Trump’s campaign did melt down on both occasions. He got into a week-long bitching competition with a gold star family, then again he went on an angry tirade against a former miss universe. The fact that he won has no influence on the facts at the time.

That people make mistakes.

Where do you get your news? In fact, WillFarnaby, and anyone else touting this line of argumentation, what are your go-to news sources? What sites do you visit for your news? And are those sites completely and utterly flawless in their accuracy and analysis?

Because what you’re doing is holding mainstream news outlets to an impossible standard. You’re saying that whenever a source gets anything wrong, they become untrustworthy. Dan Rather fell for a hoax, ergo nothing he says is reliable. The Washington Post published a crummy article on “fake news” and didn’t dig as deep as they could have, ergo they cannot be trusted on anything. The New York Times had a reporter publish a horrible story misrepresenting the state of things in Russia and that reporter won a pulitzer 85 fucking years ago, ergo both the New York Times and the Pulitzer are forever tainted.

So where do you get your news? What shining paragon of media never, ever gets anything wrong, in decades or centuries of investigative reporting?

I’ll tell you who: fucking nobody. There is not an outlet in the world who is older than a year and has never gotten anything wrong. Because in a business where the facts are not always immediately clear, but there is a clear motivation to publish first and have compelling news stories, sometimes someone’s going to get something wrong. It happens. The trick is to figure out when that happens, and try to find the places it happens the least. And the Washington Post and New York Times are among the very best in the business at doing exactly that. So was Dan Rather, until his parent network decided that this one flubbed story was too much for their trustworthiness to bear.

Trump lost the popular vote by a margin of 2.5 million. He barely squeezed out a win by a few hundred thousand votes in a handful of swing states. The entire election, he polled well beneath his competition. So when you say something like “Trump crushed his opposition with ease”, it makes me wonder - where do you get your news from? Because clearly they’ve been misleading you.

QFT.

[Ravenman]

@WillFarnaby

I don’t disbelieve everything by the Washington Post. The article in the OP is garbage, though. The article about the secret CIA assessment is troubled because of the anonymous sources and also the fact they bury the part about there being no direct involvement with the Russian government. These problems coupled with the Post’s willingness to run absolute garbage in regards to Russia, leads me to believe there is problems over there.

I don’t trust based solely on the source of the information.

Greg Miller, one f the reporters on the story, won a Pulitzer for his reporting on the Snowden story. I would bet you anything the basis of your rejection is more about your views of Russia than your views of any media outlet.

[pleks]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Trump lost the popular vote by a margin of 2.5 million. He barely squeezed out a win by a few hundred thousand votes in a handful of swing states. The entire election, he polled well beneath his competition. So when you say something like “Trump crushed his opposition with ease”, it makes me wonder - where do you get your news from? Because clearly they’ve been misleading you.

I get my news from the same source every normal person gets it–from looking at the number of Electoral votes won by Donald Trump and comparing them with the number of Electoral votes won by his opponent.
Out of curiousity, why did you decide to introduce into the mix what appear to be random and irrelevant benchmarks, such as pre-election polling and popular vote?
Whoever led you to believe that these things matter has misled you.
Btw, is this the kind of pre-election polling you refer to?

[pleks]

Meantime, in the land of mainstream media and its pure, honest and independent reporting, the journalistic standards have reached new, one would even say, dark, depths.
Donald Trump offers dark vision of America

Donald Trump Takes America on a Journey to the Dark Side

Trump’s emotional and dark message

Watch Donald Trump’s Dark, Fear-Mongering RNC Speech

Donald Trump’s Dark and Scary Night

In acceptance speech, Trump’s America is a dark and desperate place

Donald Trump and the Dark Soul of the GOP

Donald Trump’s Dark, Dark Convention Speech

Donald Trump’s Angry, Dark Speech Caps Off a Disastrous RNC

The dark frightening America of Donald Trump

[GIGObuster]

@pleks

Meantime, in the land of mainstream media and its pure, honest and independent reporting, the journalistic standards have reached new, one would even say, dark, depths.

You must be using the old calendar, most do refer to the Nuremberg like speech he made against illegals and immigrants.

Nothing subtle about what Trump was talking about. The context BTW is that Trump early had talked to Hispanic republican VIPs and they had reported that Trump was sounded very conciliatory and more open to immigration reform, not deportation. What ended up in his speech was seen by several of those Hispanics as very dark indeed.

[pleks]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

In case it wasn’t obvious, the questions weren’t for you. They were for anyone watching intrigued by your antics. Which, one might hope, is nobody. But your method of establishing the veracity of a source seems to be, “Do people I dislike agree with it? IT MUST BE WRONG!” Which is incredibly stupid.

I haven’t said a word about either liking or disliking the people I listed (in fact, I like Al Sharpton, he’s like a useful cockroach that highlights bigotry, hatred, racism and violence of the current ultra-progressive alt-left movement that hijacked what was a long time ago a fundamentally decent, if mostly wrong, Democratic party )
You must be confused or haven’t gotten enough sleep.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@pleks

I get my news from the same source every normal person gets it–from looking at the number of Electoral votes won by Donald Trump and comparing them with the number of Electoral votes won by his opponent.

Trump got more electoral votes than Clinton. Yeah, duh. That doesn’t equate to “easily crushing her” when the margin was one of the slimmest in the past 50 years. Especially given how plagued his campaign was with problems.

Out of curiousity, why did you decide to introduce into the mix what appear to be random and irrelevant benchmarks, such as pre-election polling and popular vote?
Whoever led you to believe that these things matter has misled you.

Those things matter when talking about how “easy” Trump had it. You want “easy”? Reagan 1984, Clinton 1992, Clinton 1996, Obama 2008. Those were “easy”.

[Velocity]

Question: If it is indisputably proven that Russia tried to assist Trump, but that neither Trump nor the GOP had a hand in it - in other words, Russia was freelancing - then what exactly would be the legal consequences for Trump and the GOP? Shouldn’t be any, right?

If James has a rivalry with Alex, but a friend of James hurls a Molotov Cocktail into Alex’s house - without any request from James and not at James’ behest - then James shouldn’t be on the hook for any legal charges, right?

[elucidator]

There is no chance, in my view, that Trump has any actual complicity. A KGB veteran simply is not going to entrust such information to a blabber mouth like that.

[pleks]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Those things matter when talking about how “easy” Trump had it.

Oh, well, two can play this game then.

The fact that Donald won 84% of counties matters.
The fact that Donald spent less than half the amount of money than his opponent, yet bitchslapped her into oblivion, matters.
The fact that Donald picked up politics as a hobby sometime last year and obliterated dozens of professional politicians, matters.
The fact that Donald won states no Republican won in 30 years, matters.
The fact that Donald made significant inroads in female, Hispanic and black votes, despite absolutely shrill, shameless and lying propaganda of fake news outfits, like NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc, matters.

Donald Trump. 2016. Easy, under budget and ahead of schedule.

Look, I understand you’re going through a grief process.
You went through denial (#NotMyPresident), anger (the rioting of progressive loonies across the nation), and now you’re bargaining. You throw numbers out there, declare they “matter”, conveniently ignore the numbers that “do not matter”, and honestly believe that an amateur beating a career politician while spending less then half the money she did, was in no way, shape or form “easy”.

And it’s ok. You’ve just been lied to. You believed what you were told. You believed those silly poll numbers, you’ve read NYT every day, saw garbage like like this and lapped it up.

The next part will be hard, I won’t be lying to you, like WaPo or CNN does. Depression will set in soon. You will realize that we have 8 more years of Donald ahead us, following (hopefully) by 4 more years of gorgeous Ivanka serving as the first female President. But worry not. By that time, the acceptance will set in, you’ll shed the loser mentality of Hillary supporter, and you’ll embrace the light, that’s Donald.

[octopus]

@John_Mace

Trump doesn’t seem to realize that it’s not a good idea for the president-elect to piss off the CIA (or any of the intelligence agencies). Wouldn’t be prudent…

Why not? Can’t let the military or intelligence agencies run the country out of fear.