Washington Post Thoroughly Discredits Itself With McCarthy-Style Smear Campaign...

[babylonsister]

Washington Post Thoroughly Discredits Itself With McCarthy-Style Smear Campaign Against ZeroHedge, Naked Capitalism, Truth-Out 200+ Others

25
Friday
Nov 2016

Posted by mishgea | November 25, 2016 6:09:35 | Economics


The Washington Post stepped well over the line of questionable reporting today, venturing deep into a McCarthy-style smear campaign against hundreds of allegedly “fake news” sites accused of being under control of, or influenced by Russia.

Ironically, the Washington Post headline, Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread ‘Fake News’ During Election, Experts Say reads like it a “fake news” supermarket tabloid.

The article, written By Craig Timberg, is even worse. It cites anonymous researchers, who propose a Russian fake news team may have delivered the election to Donald Trump.

The article asks Could better Internet security have prevented Trump’s win?.

The researchers blame an “online echo chamber” where some players were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, while others were merely “useful idiots”.

“The way that this propaganda apparatus supported Trump was equivalent to some massive amount of a media buy,” said the executive director of PropOrNot, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers. “It was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump’s campaign. .?.?. It worked.”

That’s pretty damn amusing. The Washington Post just handed over the website of PropOrNot to those damn Russians (not that they didn’t know it already).

ZeroHedge was on The List at PropOrNot along with many other names you will recognize including that bastion of perpetual right-wing, Republican propaganda, Naked Capitalism (Hint – that was sarcasm).

I failed to make the grade. This post just might do it. Courtesy of ZeroHedge, here is the highlighted list with some sites that many of you will recognize.



more...

https://mishtalk.com/2016/11/25/washington-post-mccarthy-style-smear/

[moondust]

1. Maybe

they just weren't "billionaire-friendly" enough for Bezos.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. zerohedge is a pro-Trump site.

[Tanuki]

3. I see that a certain website founded by former DU disruptors made the list!

No surprise on that one!

[11 Bravo]

42. That one jumped out at me, as well.

[suffragette]

4. Scary times when some shadowy group's call to repress and investigate

Is reported on uncritically by a major newspaper and supported even on DU, just because people approve of some of the names on the list.

K&R, babylonsister.

[OKNancy]

5. this is just a clickbait article/post

whatever it is. THe Washington post didn't do that list and the WP article was pretty tame actually. Another site named propornot published the list of propaganda sites.
Propaganda can be left or right or libertarian.

[babylonsister]

6. Here's another article maintaining the same thing...

I've used my monthly quota of looking at WaPo articles so couldn't check. If so, my apologies.


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

[OilemFirchen]

7. That's a useful link.

How did they miss The intercept?

[BainsBane]

19. Good question. Nt

[think]

22. Naked Capitalism was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011

One of the most egregious examples is the group’s inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS’ Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.

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

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. And the writer of Naked Capitalism gave Trump an easy ride

Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary

Even on Wall Street, a powerful Sanders contingent so hates what Clinton stands for—the status quo—they’ll pull the lever for almost anyone else.

Why do progressives reject Hillary Clinton? The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers of my website, Naked Capitalism, don’t just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say “Hell no!” to Hillary Clinton to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.

And they don’t come by these views casually. Their conclusions are the result of careful study of her record and her policy proposals. They believe the country can no longer endure the status quo that Clinton represents—one of crushing inequality, and an economy that is literally killing off the less fortunate—and any change will be better. One reader writes:
...
To be sure, not all of my Sanders-supporting readers would vote for Trump. But only a minority would ever vote for Clinton, and I'd guess that a lot of them would just stay home if she were the nominee. Many of my readers tend to be very progressive, and they have been driven even further in that direction by their sophisticated understanding of the inequities of Wall Street, especially in the run-up to and the aftermath of the financial crisis, when no senior executives went to jail, the biggest banks got bigger, and Hillary paid homage to Goldman Sachs. True progressives, as opposed to the Vichy Left, recognize that the Clintons only helped these inequities along. They recognize that, both in the 1990s and now, the Clintons do not and have never represented them. They believe the most powerful move they can take to foster change is to withhold their support.

Some of them also have very reasoned arguments for Trump. Hillary is a known evil. Trump is unknown. They'd rather bet on the unknown, since it will also send a big message to Team Dem that they can no longer abuse progressives. I personally know women in the demographic that is viewed as being solidly behind Hillary—older, professional women who live in major cities—who regard Trump as an acceptable cost of getting rid of the Clintons.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/wall-street-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-213931

So, are you surprised if she unwittingly helped spread some fake news about the election? It's not as if her judgement on Trump was very good, is it? "The Vichy Left"? That, on its own, should make her ashamed.

[think]

39. What Russian propaganda was Naked Capitalism spreading?

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. I don't know, but since they were hopeless on Trump, it wouldn't be surprising

would it? They show an obvious "Clinton is evil" bias, so if they fell for a false "Clinton is evil" story, it would be par for the course for them.

[think]

41. Yes. The author doesn't like Clinton. That is clear. That's not the criteria for this list though.

And Propornot doesn't give any reasons for their choices.

Nor do they have any information about who is behind the site and list. The site is completely anonymous.

If a web site is going to call out others for spreading Russian propaganda shouldn't that site be a well vetted entity with authors and/or board members making the claims with an abundance of resources to show why their claims are valid? Propornot doesn't list a single person on the entire site stating who is involved with creating this list.

Propornot looks more like the fake news sites they claim are spreading Russian propaganda than some of the sites they have chose to include in their list.

Not having any contact information, no listing of the authors and sources, and no factual information to validate the claims are some of the red flags of what FAKE news sites look like. In this regard Propornot itself has many examples of the criteria attributable to fake news sites.

And apparently this site only cares about Russian fake news. Other blatantly fake news sites like the one referenced below that originated right here in the US doesn't even get a mention:

The fake news site ABCNews.com.co was even retweeted by Trump's son and campaign manager.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161013/23470435795/donald-trumps-son-campaign-manager-both-tweet-obviously-fake-story.shtml

The owner of ABCNews.com.co even came forward to do an interview admitting this is fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/

So it's almost comical that an anonymous website that resembles a fake news site is calling out others for fake news while ignoring the most blatant example that duped so many people just because it isn't a Russian fake news source.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. In June 2016, Yves Smith was a dolt and a wanker on the subject of Clinton and Trump

("the Vichy Left&quot , and so I don't care in the slightest if she's ended up on a list of people who fell for Russian-originated fake news. It does her reputation, already in the gutter, no harm. If she can show she woke up after June, and never fell for anything fake, then I'll happily say she doesn't deserve to be on the list. But at the moment, that Clinton hit-piece and Trump apology is the first thing you find for "Yves Smith" and "Trump" in a search, and it's damning. And I haven't found any attempt to withdraw it, either.

Anyone who ever fell for ABCNews.com.co is stupid too. But that it just someone trying to get clicks for made up stories, with a site that is obviously fake. It's more serious if it's the Russian state apparatus inserting fake news via not-so-obvious methods to influence the election. The Washington Post, and PropOrNo, are showing a good sense of priorities by looking at a Russian connection, rather than just the people trying to make a quick buck from gullible people. That's the point - it's not the 'most blatant example' that matters, because people with normal IQs (rather than, say, the Trump campaign) can tell that's fake quickly.

[think]

44. Propornot's accuracy isn't important? How is that different than fake news?

And if anyone actually cared about the source of the Russian fake news they might try contacting the guy in this article:

The New Red Scare
Reviving the art of threat inflation

By Andrew Cockburn - From the December 2016 issue

~snip~

In early October, this assessment was endorsed by James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, and the Department of Homeland Security. Though it expressed confidence that the Russian government had engineered the D.N.C. hacks, their curiously equivocal joint statement appeared less certain as to Moscow’s role in the all-important leaks, saying only that they were “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.” As for the most serious intrusion into the democratic process — the election-system hacks — the intelligence agencies took a pass. Although many of those breaches had come from “servers operated by a Russian company,” the statement read, the United States was “not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.”

The company in question is owned by Vladimir Fomenko, a twenty-six-year-old entrepreneur based in Siberia. In a series of indignant emails, Fomenko informed me that he merely rents out space on his servers, which are scattered throughout several countries, and that hackers have on occasion used his facilities for criminal activities “without our knowledge.” Although he has “information that undoubtedly will help the investigation,” Fomenko complained that nobody from the U.S. government had contacted him. He was upset that the FBI had “found it necessary to make a loud statement through the media” when he would have happily assisted them. Furthermore, these particular “criminals” had stiffed him $290 in rental fees.

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/12/the-new-red-scare/

One can be angry with Naked Capitalism for it's pro Trump anti Clinton stance and that is entirely legitimate to call out. But making claims that may or may not true about promoting Russian propaganda only harms one's stance if they aren't factual.

Just because an anonymous "source" backs one's political point of view means absolutely nothing if the the information isn't factual.

Fake news cuts both ways....

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Go ahead, test out PropOrNot's accuracy

No-one has shown it to be inaccurate yet. That's why I'm not worried that a bunch of Trump apologists form its list.

[think]

46. I'll wait for information from a legitimate source. Hope you have a nice day

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. You tried to defend Yves Smith by pointing to her economic track record

I pointed out that her more relevant track record on her opinions of Trump and Clinton was a pile of steaming dogshit. If you don't want character evidence against someone, don't try to introduce some character evidence for them.

[yardwork]

30. Are you saying that YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ THE ARTICLE?

I remember when you posted the wrong name of the Pulse mass murderer and left DU for the day, not bothering to correct misinformation that falsely implicated innocent people.

[babylonsister]

32. Then you didn't remember

the whole story. I did correct it and apologized when I got back. Had you bothered to look, you would have seen that but instead, I guess it's easier to smear me.

As for this story, it caught my attention because a writer at Truthout was very pissed off that WaPo was besmirching his blog and others that are legitimate.

And no, because of wapo's policies, I cannot read anything towards the end of the month unless it's posted elsewhere.

[yardwork]

33. This is serious shit. Excuses don't cut it.

The article has been linked elsewhere in this thread. You need to correct the record.

[babylonsister]

35. Here:

my IP went down that day and I couldn't correct it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027900256

And correct what record? The WaPo article's link has been posted.

Stop being a nudge, or block me. I really don't care, but stop scolding me.

[wishstar]

8. Here is link to the actual original Wash Post article:

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

[George II]

9. Could it be that those sites "thoroughly discredited" themselves and.....

...the Washington Post is merely reported on it?

[Arazi]

10. Agreed 100%. This is trying to smear journalists as commies

Yes, and other websites we may not like but this is a frightening development all of us should be worried about.

[George II]

14. For one thing, trying to smear anyone as "commies" is so 1980s. And another thing....

....you're saying those that run probably the majority of those sites are "journalists"?

[still_one]

11. jackpineradicals.com. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[BainsBane]

17. I can just hear the conspiracy theories turning

[still_one]

24. me too bains

[Cary]

12. Not the droids we're looking for?

Move along?

[SMC22307]

13. Jackpineradicals.com is controlled and/or influenced by Russia?

I'm going to dive under my desk now.

[pnwmom]

20. People at JPR frequently and uncritically post articles from

RT and Sputnik news, so they're helping to spread Russian govt propaganda.

[moondust]

21. At least one of those Russian posters

used to post a lot of RT and Sputnik stuff here. I think some others here besides myself recognized the person was a troll. They just changed the spelling of their username when they moved over there.

[SMC22307]

23. Well, it's a good thing folks are keeping lists! (n/t)

[ronnie624]

25. You know it!

And thank GOD we don't have to worry about the MSM establishment disseminating false propaganda in the US, on behalf of the State's foreign policy goals. You know, like the Invasion of Iraq and stuff.

I'm sure glad we don't have to worry about THAT!

[SMC22307]

26. Corporate Media can't be trusted.

Kinda figured that out with Poppy Bush's war, let alone Dubya's.

[mythology]

36. It's good to remember people's pasts

There are a number of posters here who repeatedly post some utterly incompetently incorrect things. As a poster, it's helpful to at least keep a mental tally so I know who I don't need to take seriously.

[Squinch]

28. I'd say they clearly fall into the "useful idiot" category the article described. And that is a

very accurate description of them. And it is undeniable that they do fill up their pages with conspiracy theories and fake news that is laughable.

[George II]

15. NOWHERE in the W. P. article do they say that those sites are either controlled or influenced...

...by Russia.

If I missed it, please show me where.

Thank you.

[Gothmog]

16. This is an amusing list

[pnwmom]

18. ZeroHedge absolutely belongs on the list. So that tells me a lot about this writer. n/t

[Squinch]

27. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and mindlessly circulates fake news

that supports donald the crook and flies in the face of sanity, I'd say it belongs on the list. And I have no problem with the existence of the list.

[yardwork]

29. Your subject line is very misleading. The WaPo article is quite good, actually.

Did you even read the Washington Post article you're smearing?

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Some of tyhose highlighted sites are pretty bad, aren't they?

RW sites that I know you'd never give the time of day to. Looks like the Washington Post is committing journalism again.

[JI7]

34. it's not the washington post that is wrong here

[mythology]

37. If people don't wish to be labeled as enabling Russian propaganda

I have a simple solution. What the author fails to note in trying to blast the Washington Post article for including liberal websites is that many of them were perfectly willing to link to Russian nonsense because it blasted Clinton. Truthdig is always eager to claim that Russia was pushing for peace in Syria and that the Obama administration was against peace.

NakedCapitalism disputes that Russia was behind the DNC email hacks. They also claim that the U.S. sending 1,000 troops to Poland would force Russia to act more aggressively (you know as opposed to invading and forcibly annexing portions of their neighbors as Russia is known to do). Their theory is that because we have nukes there's no chance that Russia would invade another country. Again, Russia has done this more than once in recent years. So at best NakedCapitalism is utterly incompetent on world events, or they are pushing Russia propaganda as part of some agenda.