Quote:

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom. The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop. But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become). After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions. Baron himself, editorial leader of the Post, is a perfect case study in this irresponsible tactic. It was Baron who went to Twitter on the evening of November 24 to announce the Post’s exposé of the enormous reach of Russia’s fake news operation, based on what he heralded as the findings of “independent researchers.” Baron’s tweet went all over the place; to date, it has been re-tweeted more than 3,000 times, including by many journalists with their own large followings: But after that story faced a barrage of intense criticism — from Adrian Chen in the New Yorker (“propaganda about Russia propaganda”), Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone (“shameful, disgusting”), my own article, and many others — including legal threats from the sites smeared as Russian propaganda outlets by the Post’s “independent researchers” — the Post finally added its lengthy editor’s note distancing itself from the anonymous group that provided the key claims of its story (“The Post … does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings” and “since publication of the Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list”). What did Baron tell his followers about this editor’s note that gutted the key claims of the story he hyped? Nothing. Not a word. To date, he has been publicly silent about these revisions. Having spread the original claims to tens of thousands of people, if not more, he took no steps to ensure that any of them heard about the major walk back on the article’s most significant, inflammatory claims. He did, however, ironically find the time to promote a different Post story about how terrible and damaging Fake News is: ::) WHETHER THE POST’S false stories here can be distinguished from what is commonly called “Fake News” is, at this point, a semantic dispute, particularly since “Fake News” has no cogent definition. Defenders of Fake News as a distinct category typically emphasize intent in order to differentiate it from bad journalism. That’s really just a way of defining Fake News so as to make it definitionally impossible for mainstream media outlets like the Post ever to be guilty of it (much the way terrorism is defined to ensure that the U.S. government and its allies cannot, by definition, ever commit it). But what was the Post’s motive in publishing two false stories about Russia that, very predictably, generated massive attention, traffic, and political impact? Was it ideological and political — namely, devotion to the D.C. agenda of elevating Russia into a grave threat to U.S. security? Was it to please its audience — knowing that its readers, in the wake of Trump’s victory, want to be fed stories about Russian treachery? Was it access and source servitude — proving it will serve as a loyal and uncritical repository for any propaganda intelligence officials want disseminated? Was it profit — to generate revenue through sensationalistic click-bait headlines with a reckless disregard to whether its stories are true?

why are you afraid to put up your source?

only a halfwit would believe anything written in the Washington Post...

the champions of FAKE NEWS..

Sturth..

how gullible are some people..  ::)

Mechanic, US intelligence officials spoke at a Senate hearing today regarding the report. These officials were questioned by Senators regarding the report's conclusions. The event was televised. This event was televised. Are you saying the TV broadcast was faked?

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:13am:

why are you afraid to put up your source?

do your own homework you slug...

you didn't even have time to read the article before you started putting up red herrings...


Quote:

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:13am:

why are you afraid to put up your source?

ahh ... no need, I found the answer

this story originated on a blog by a thrump supporter

well done Mechanic.  ;D ;D ;D

AiA wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:16am:

Mechanic, US intelligence officials spoke at a Senate hearing today regarding the report. These officials were questioned by Senators regarding the report's conclusions. The event was televised. This event was televised. Are you saying the TV broadcast was faked?

The Mechanic is saying he's an ignorant buffoon who will defend an alleged child rapist until his dying day.

He might find this an interesting read: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Then again, he'll probably say it's fake.

There's no hope for the Ranga.

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:18am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2017 at 11:13am: why are you afraid to put up your source? ahh ... no need, I found the answer this story originated on a blog by a thrump supporter well done Mechanic.  ;D ;D ;D

you would have found the editors apology then you dumb turd...

god you are thick... any wonder you are the forum joke..

the washposts fabrications was reported on every major and minor news outlet.. not just one you dipshit..

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:18am:

you didn't even have time to read the article before you started putting up red herrings...

if I'm going to read it, I want to know who wrote it. You want to post article up as evidence of something, put up the source. It's not difficult, even for an imbecile like you.  Readers shouldn't have to go searching for your source. The only reason to not put up the source is because you are either being lazy, or hiding something.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:20am:

the washposts fabrications was reported on every major and minor news outlet.. not just one you dipshit..

no, the blog article was reported on every major outlet.. ... that's how 'fake news' works. One person makes crap up, others repeat it.

:D :D :D

check out the forum leftist chucking in the red herrings rather than address the Fabrications for their beloved Fake News outlet the Washington Post..  ::)

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:23am:

check out the forum leftist chucking in the red herrings rather than address the Fabrications for their beloved Fake News outlet the Washington Post..  ::)

and your deflecting to lefties is how you address the article?

by the way, I couldn't give a crap about the Washington post ... I've never read it and I don't plan to start now.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:23am:

check out the forum leftist chucking in the red herrings rather than address the Fabrications for their beloved Fake News outlet the Washington Post..  ::)

This isn't the Washington Post, Ranga.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf