First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Experts prove that Donald Trump only won the election because of Russian propaganda according to the washington post
4837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/4/16 , edited 1/5/17
817 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / In a dumpster wit...
Offline
Posted 12/11/16 , edited 12/11/16
It's all soaked in stupidity because everyone just loves to consume. Not enough actual hard working people run this kind of shit. Nothing but specifically chosen rich shills run media outlets like those.

It's why people are turning to people like Mark Dice. He doesn't own his own news site IIRC. But he's been on the news, and he has his own Youtube channel. Less obvious restrictions.
4837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 1/5/17
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 1/5/17
^ I lol'd
7146 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 1/5/17
So basically the article says that some anonymous 'experts' (we can't verify their credentials as they refuse to reveal themselves) claim Trump only won because Russian hackers were doing the job American journalists didn't and investigated Clinton and brought her misdeeds to the light of day.

So...thanks Russia.
62379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 1/5/17

Ravenstein wrote:

So basically the article says that some anonymous 'experts' (we can't verify their credentials as they refuse to reveal themselves) claim Trump only won because Russian hackers were doing the job American journalists didn't and investigated Clinton and brought her misdeeds to the light of day.

So...thanks Russia.


Well, the article explicitly states that the Russian propaganda campaign produced fake news and disinformation. So if, based on this article, you conclude that the Russians brought Clinton's misdeeds to the light of day, then you must also admit that articles about her misdeeds were full of fake news and disinformation.
33414 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 1/5/17

rawratl wrote:

I wouldn't say thats why he won, but there certainly is a lot of fake news out there that people are dumb enough to believe. Look at all those RT articles that got posted here. Along with ridiculous twitter / facebook posts that people see in their feed and just accept as truth.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-election-facebook-fake-news-creator-paul-horner-claims-responsibility/

^^Pretty interesting read. He's the guy behind some of those craigslist ads that advertised paying protesters, and we all know how people ate those up. There are about 20 threads by people on here who just assumed it was true.


...and that piece of news referenced Washington Post (not saying much, but there's some slight irony involved)


staphen wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

So basically the article says that some anonymous 'experts' (we can't verify their credentials as they refuse to reveal themselves) claim Trump only won because Russian hackers were doing the job American journalists didn't and investigated Clinton and brought her misdeeds to the light of day.

So...thanks Russia.


Well, the article explicitly states that the Russian propaganda campaign produced fake news and disinformation. So if, based on this article, you conclude that the Russians brought Clinton's misdeeds to the light of day, then you must also admit that articles about her misdeeds were full of fake news and disinformation.


Source A produced bad product X
Therefore, all products from A must be bad
Product Y is from source A
Therefore, product Y is bad

Huh. Someone tell me if there's a hole in there that a semi-truck could be driven through.
62379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 12/18/16

nanikore2 wrote:


staphen wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

So basically the article says that some anonymous 'experts' (we can't verify their credentials as they refuse to reveal themselves) claim Trump only won because Russian hackers were doing the job American journalists didn't and investigated Clinton and brought her misdeeds to the light of day.

So...thanks Russia.


Well, the article explicitly states that the Russian propaganda campaign produced fake news and disinformation. So if, based on this article, you conclude that the Russians brought Clinton's misdeeds to the light of day, then you must also admit that articles about her misdeeds were full of fake news and disinformation.


Source A produced bad product X
Therefore, all products from A must be bad
Product Y is from source A
Therefore, product Y is bad

Huh. Someone tell me if there's a hole in there that a semi-truck could be driven through.


All I can do is direct you to the very first paragraph of the article.


The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.


We are not talking about potentially correct propaganda, we are explicitly talking about fake news. Perhaps you do believe that the Russians could have brought real scandals to light, but the subject of the research in this case are the articles with fake news and disinformation. To say that the article indicates otherwise is what most people call spinning the truth which, incidentally, is one of the things the Russians are being accused of. Imagine that.
33414 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 1/5/17

staphen wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


staphen wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

So basically the article says that some anonymous 'experts' (we can't verify their credentials as they refuse to reveal themselves) claim Trump only won because Russian hackers were doing the job American journalists didn't and investigated Clinton and brought her misdeeds to the light of day.

So...thanks Russia.


Well, the article explicitly states that the Russian propaganda campaign produced fake news and disinformation. So if, based on this article, you conclude that the Russians brought Clinton's misdeeds to the light of day, then you must also admit that articles about her misdeeds were full of fake news and disinformation.


Source A produced bad product X
Therefore, all products from A must be bad
Product Y is from source A
Therefore, product Y is bad

Huh. Someone tell me if there's a hole in there that a semi-truck could be driven through.


All I can do is direct you to the very first paragraph of the article.


The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.


We are not talking about potentially correct propaganda, we are explicitly talking about fake news. Perhaps you do believe that the Russians could have brought real scandals to light, but the subject of the research in this case are the articles with fake news and disinformation. To say that the article indicates otherwise is what most people call spinning the truth which, incidentally, is one of the things the Russians are being accused of. Imagine that.


Oh, no one is going to keep you from focusing the aspect you want to focus on and put the rest in a pile called "could have". Please, go right ahead!
Posted 12/18/16
62379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 12/18/16

nanikore2 wrote:

Oh, no one is going to keep you from focusing the aspect you want to focus on and put the rest in a pile called "could have". Please, go right ahead!


That's not what this is about. I believe the burden of proof is actually on you (or more specifically Ravenstein). Indicate where in the article that suggests the information spread by the propaganda the researchers used in their study might have been factual. The only thing I could find was this.


There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.


Apart from the fact that this information was present in the report from one of the research groups as part of the overall strategy to spread propaganda, I consider it to be fairly irrelevant. This article and both of the reports it is referencing are primarily talking about articles that spread fake news and disinformation based on those leaks as well as other sources of information.

If you have a specific issue with the researchers' methodology or the way the article was presented, that's one thing. Spinning the truth about the article is something entirely different.
33414 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 12/18/16

staphen wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Oh, no one is going to keep you from focusing the aspect you want to focus on and put the rest in a pile called "could have". Please, go right ahead!


That's not what this is about. I believe the burden of proof is actually on you (or more specifically Ravenstein). Indicate where in the article that suggests the information spread by the propaganda the researchers used in their study might have been factual. The only thing I could find was this.


There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.


Apart from the fact that this information was present in the report from one of the research groups as part of the overall strategy to spread propaganda, I consider it to be fairly irrelevant. This article and both of the reports it is referencing are primarily talking about articles that spread fake news and disinformation based on those leaks as well as other sources of information.

If you have a specific issue with the researchers' methodology or the way the article was presented, that's one thing. Spinning the truth about the article is something entirely different.


It's pretty naive to think that there's much public trust in "U.S. democracy and its leaders" in the first place

The entire narrative is hackneyed
7146 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 1/5/17

staphen
That's not what this is about. I believe the burden of proof is actually on you (or more specifically Ravenstein). Indicate where in the article that suggests the information spread by the propaganda the researchers used in their study might have been factual. The only thing I could find was this.


Let me start with the Editor's Note at the TOP OF THE ARTICLE.


Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.


The Washington Post is admitting their own sources are fake for this article. It is based on biased, incorrect, and slanderous information (they are now being taken to court by several of these websites for defamation). Now I am not saying that just because the accuser made up all their evidence that the accused is not innocent, but to me the accuser needs some evidence that they did not pull out of their butthurt to support their claims before a judgement of guilty can be reached.

The fact is that the American media was giving Clinton a free pass that Russian journalists were not so kind/biased to do. Their 'news' is so biased and as we can see with this article under researched and unverified that they are pushing what amounts to fake news.
62379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 12/18/16

nanikore2 wrote:

It's pretty naive to think that there's much public trust in "U.S. democracy and its leaders" in the first place

The entire narrative is hackneyed


That is quite the meaningless observation, and with literally no evidence to back it up. Here, have a tangentially related quote from one of the reports linked in the article.


Russia’s desire to sow distrust in the American system of government is not new. It’s a goal Moscow has pursued since the beginning of the Cold War. Its strategy is not new, either. Soviet-era “active measures” called for using the “force of politics” rather than the “politics of force” to erode American democracy from within. What is new is the methods Russia uses to achieve these objectives.

We have been tracking Russian online information operations since 2014, when our interest was piqued by strange activity we observed studying online dimensions of jihadism and the Syrian civil war. When experts published content criticizing the Russian-supported Bashar al Assad regime, organized hordes of trolls would appear to attack the authors on Twitter and Facebook. Examining the troll social networks revealed dozens of accounts presenting themselves as attractive young women eager to talk politics with Americans, including some working in the national security sector. These “honeypot” social media accounts were linked to other accounts used by the Syrian Electronic Army hacker operation. All three elements were working together: the trolls to sow doubt, the honeypots to win trust, and the hackers (we believe) to exploit clicks on dubious links sent out by the first two.


The implication here is that if you don't carefully examine the information you consume, you will be influenced by these tactics. This is clearly a message that is completely lost on nearly all of the participants in this thread. I haven't seen very many responses that indicate the person actually read any of the words in either of the reports.


Ravenstein wrote:


staphen
That's not what this is about. I believe the burden of proof is actually on you (or more specifically Ravenstein). Indicate where in the article that suggests the information spread by the propaganda the researchers used in their study might have been factual. The only thing I could find was this.


Let me start with the Editor's Note at the TOP OF THE ARTICLE.


Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.


The Washington Post is admitting their own sources are fake for this article. It is based on biased, incorrect, and slanderous information (they are now being taken to court by several of these websites for defamation). Now I am not saying that just because the accuser made up all their evidence that the accused is not innocent, but to me the accuser needs some evidence that they did not pull out of their butthurt to support their claims before a judgement of guilty can be reached.

The fact is that the American media was giving Clinton a free pass that Russian journalists were not so kind/biased to do. Their 'news' is so biased and as we can see with this article under researched and unverified that they are pushing what amounts to fake news.


That's not what the editor's note says. I honestly don't know how to go about correcting it without literally repeating what you quoted yourself. They're basically just establishing their stance as the messenger, not the source.

I don't know where you got your information about how "they" (Washington Post or PropOrNot?) are being taken to court, but I wasn't able to verify that. If you need some evidence of PropOrNot's claims, they did release a report that describes their methodologies and conclusions. However, I'm going leave essentially the same disclaimer that Washington Post did. I am not vouching for their validity. I've only read parts of the report, and haven't done any in-depth analysis into their methodologies.
33414 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

staphen wrote:

The implication here is that if you don't carefully examine the information you consume, you will be influenced by these tactics. This is clearly a message that is completely lost on nearly all of the participants in this thread. I haven't seen very many responses that indicate the person actually read any of the words in either of the reports.



Yes I was influenced so much that I still wouldn't have voted, because I trust the democratic process so much after I gave up and just gave Ron Paul a protest vote a couple of years back.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.