Greenwald reports on the campaign of False News spreading fear and hate

[Jaskalas]

Media Is Richly Rewarded for False News, Public Is Deceived

The False News

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 Fear

That tweet from Griffin — convincing people that Putin was endangering the health and safety of Vermonters — was re-tweeted more than 1,000 times. His other similar tweets — such as this one featuring Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy’s warning that Putin was trying to “shut down [the grid] in the middle of winter” — were also widely spread.
...
In contrast to Griffin’s original inflammatory tweets about the Russian menace, which were widely and enthusiastically spread, this after-the-fact correction has a paltry 289 re-tweets. Thus, a small fraction of those who were exposed to Griffin’s sensationalistic hyping of this story ended up learning that all of it was false.​

The Hate

Indeed, in my 10-plus years of writing about politics on an endless number of polarizing issues — including the Snowden reporting — nothing remotely compares to the smear campaign that has been launched as a result of the work I’ve done questioning and challenging claims...
...
I’ve been transformed, overnight, into an early adherent of alt-right ideology, an avid fan of Breitbart, an enthusiastic Trump supporter, and — needless to say — a Kremlin operative. That’s literally the explicit script they’re now using, often with outright fabrications of what I say...​

I encourage you all to read the article in full. To help you realize how once again (remember 2002?) the media is driving a big bad foreign boogieman narrative with blatantly false news. One hit piece after another to drive fear and hatred among our general population. Given the smears against Greenwald it would appear that campaign is most effective.

Can you honestly say you recognize the good stories from the bad? The corrections they follow up with are not nearly so loud or visible or effective as the original fear-mongering that is driving our people wild. All we can do is shine a light on and expose it for the farce that it is. Can truth and honest journalism prevail? Or is this yet another example of our post-truth society?

Starts to make you realize just how easily we've found it to get by on killing one another, if people were even less informed and even greater victims of lies and misinformation in the past. Today we have access to more information than ever... and we still struggle so much to tell the truth. Iraq is the best modern example of just how much damage can be done. We must do better.

 

[FIVR]

I'd be upset and incredulous if I was a gullible dullard too.





I don't think greenwald is upset, though. Trumper trampers like OP are upset that they are being called dupes. Greenwald on the other hand is a nebulous entity attached quite directly to snowden, who is now protected by the FSB. Why wouldn't any sane observer accuse Greenwald of being a Russian shill? In all likelihood he is exactly that. He wasn't picked by Snowden to aid in his escape and disclosure because of his famous love of a country I don't even believe be was born in, that's for sure.

And The Intercept? If you can't notice the dearth of leaks on anything Russia-related and the copious amounts of leaks of US politicians (mostly democrats... oddly enough) you are a gullible dullard, too!


Edit: Apparently he was born in NYC. Not sure why but I somehow thought he was Brazilian? I think I'm going senile...

 

[Sonikku]

It's this liberal mainstream media fake news machine that cost Hillary the election.


That, and the fact that the Pope endorsed Trump in a shocking twist.

 

[FIVR]

I heard about that. Who would've thought the Pope was such a stickler for abortion.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Thank you for the link. Glenn is a fantastic journalist and his work with Snowden was vitally important to the American public. Russia may or may not have had an influence on this election, I don't know and neither did any of you. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange both have raised the curtain if even just a bit, and what's behind is an ugly mess.

Those calling for Cold War II really need to take a step back and do some self reflection. Are the pitchforks out to save face? Putin is an evil man, I have no respect for him and the world will be a better place at the time of his passing, but so was Saddam Hussein. These people sound exactly like those rallying for war with Iraq and we all saw how that ended up. The Cold War was one of the most dangerous times in world history, quite literally for decades humanity went about as normal with cars and plastic and skyscrapers and tv and also in the back of their mind they and everyone else could die at any moment. That's a horribly dangerous state to be in: worse than climate change (which I believe is also a very dangerous thing that needs to be addressed yesterday), superviruses, meteors, and whatever else kills us all. One fvck up could have ended the world.

I'm not sure what Russia did during this election and I have no doubt they and every other major nation (and some not so major like aNorth Korea and Iran) have hacked all manner of our emails and electronics, power grids and the entire basic infrastructure. Cyber warfare is real and every country has already poised there selves for it. Chearleading for more tension against one of the two real global threats in this world (China being the other currently at a lesser extent) is a dangerous game to play though.

Kudos to Glenn Greenwald and I look forward to reading more from him.

 

[fskimospy]

I encourage everyone to actually research what he's saying. He has totally lost it.

 

[UglyCasanova]

How so?

 

[Jaskalas]

I encourage everyone to actually research what he's saying. He has totally lost it.

Were there not multiple false news articles parroting the Democrat's new narrative agenda?

1. Trump's secret server to communicate with Russia
2. Russian propaganda effort, "experts say"
3. Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility "officials say"

Appears demonstrated easily enough. Why remain hoodwinked on fake news?

 

[fskimospy]

Were there not multiple false news articles parroting the Democrat's new narrative agenda?

1. Trump's secret server to communicate with Russia
2. Russian propaganda effort, "experts say"
3. Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility "officials say"

Appears demonstrated easily enough. Why remain hoodwinked on fake news?

Yes, why remained hoodwinked. All the evidence shows the Russians were responsible.

Don't be duped.

 

[UglyCasanova]

When you say responsible what are you referring to? There were several "hacks" throughout this election and in the discussion of them they tend to get melded together.

 

[FIVR]

Yes, why remained hoodwinked. All the evidence shows the Russians were responsible.

Don't be duped.

Why not individually refute each one of his nicely formatted links, instead of just informing him of what a credulous dolt he is.

 

[fskimospy]

Why not individually refute each one of his nicely formatted links, instead of just informing him of what a credulous dolt he is.

Because they are either irrelevant or opinion pieces. How is that hard to understand?

It's weird that you would try and require other people to disprove nonsense. Gotta be better brotha.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes, why remained hoodwinked. All the evidence shows the Russians were responsible.

Don't be duped.

Transposing subjects? A great deal MORE has been said about Russia than just the DNC or Podesta.
Do you think they hacked an electric utility? Don't be duped.

 

[Jaskalas]

Do you think they hacked an electric utility? Don't be duped.

I mean, the FAKE NEWS has embroiled a Vermont Governor and Senator. Don't be duped like below:

 

[FIVR]

Because they are either irrelevant or opinion pieces. How is that hard to understand?

It's weird that you would try and require other people to disprove nonsense. Gotta be better brotha.

I just thought the nice way he formatted the links indicated he took his time and put every bit of the modicum of intelligence he had to make his list of unrelated links and opinion pieces, obviously because he respects you. The least you could do is hold his hand, pat his back and whisper into his ear while you trace out the obvious for him.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Because they are either irrelevant or opinion pieces. How is that hard to understand?

It's weird that you would try and require other people to disprove nonsense. Gotta be better brotha.

You're dodging questions here. Which instance do we have evidence of Russian involvement? As I said above, there are several instances of "hacks" (which very well might not be the right term to use for one or more of them) that occurred throughout the election season. When discussing them they all get thrown into the same pot, but it's important to keep them distinct and separate. Which of them involve Russia, and even more specifically influence by the Russian government?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Yes, and any disagreement with the fake news narrative means you're an alt-right patsy, a "Trumper tramper", a conspiracy theorist or any other nasty little label the leftists can apply.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Twitter users are now MSM?

 

[Jaskalas]

Twitter users are now MSM?

A diminutive attempt?
The substantive topic involves Glenn Greenwald discussing specific articles at the Washington Post, among others...
Twitter is mentioned to demonstrate, as social media is used for, the public reaction to such fake news stories.
Involving none less than Governors and Senators. Proving that there is no limit to how high those lies reach.
To the point that these fake stories drive public narratives that cause an entire nation to react... poorly.

Journalistic integrity is a subject that demands some rather pointed introspection, per the OP:

Can you honestly say you recognize the good stories from the bad? The corrections they follow up with are not nearly so loud or visible or effective as the original fear-mongering that is driving our people wild. All we can do is shine a light on and expose it for the farce that it is. Can truth and honest journalism prevail? Or is this yet another example of our post-truth society?

Starts to make you realize just how easily we've found it to get by on killing one another, if people were even less informed and even greater victims of lies and misinformation in the past. Today we have access to more information than ever... and we still struggle so much to tell the truth. Iraq is the best modern example of just how much damage can be done. We must do better.​

Lies that fit a narrative are given more impact via greater prominence and heralding than the truth of their own whispered retractions.
Knowing the truth remains an ever difficult venture for the public, even today. Wouldn't you agree?

Made more difficult by the highly partisan and corrosive fervor on which certain narratives rest. Whereby questioners of said dogma are slandered and smeared as a particular character even when their entire lives were ever devoted to the very opposite of such claims. Would anyone here defend the "alt-right" smearing of a gay, interracially engaged person with a penchant for minority causes and civil liberties? It is illuminating that a man of such character is tar and feathered for daring to uphold simple journalistic ethos. For asking questions to dubious stories. Mob frenzy does not begin to describe the depths to which our current national dialog plunges us.

For our part in history, we might be even worse off than when skeptics were called traitors during the media's Iraq narrative in 2002.
As then, today the call of "traitor!" rings throughout a poisoned conversation, in such naked fashion with the table having flipped.

 

[Ackmed]

Were there not multiple false news articles parroting the Democrat's new narrative agenda?

1. Trump's secret server to communicate with Russia
2. Russian propaganda effort, "experts say"
3. Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility "officials say"

Appears demonstrated easily enough. Why remain hoodwinked on fake news?

I don't think you'll get a comprehensive reply back from anyone refuting these things. Because there isn't one, they're just going to deflect. It was bullshit, and even Hillary called out Trump about his alleged secret email server to Russia. One thing this election has taught me, is even more so to not believe everything the media writes. On either side, because they both have agendas. I will always check multiple sources on a big ticket item.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

A diminutive attempt?
The substantive topic involves Glenn Greenwald discussing specific articles at the Washington Post, among others...
Twitter is mentioned to demonstrate, as social media is used for, the public reaction to such fake news stories.
Involving none less than Governors and Senators. Proving that there is no limit to how high those lies reach.
To the point that these fake stories drive public narratives that cause an entire nation to react... poorly.

Journalistic integrity is a subject that demands some rather pointed introspection, per the OP:

Can you honestly say you recognize the good stories from the bad? The corrections they follow up with are not nearly so loud or visible or effective as the original fear-mongering that is driving our people wild. All we can do is shine a light on and expose it for the farce that it is. Can truth and honest journalism prevail? Or is this yet another example of our post-truth society?

Starts to make you realize just how easily we've found it to get by on killing one another, if people were even less informed and even greater victims of lies and misinformation in the past. Today we have access to more information than ever... and we still struggle so much to tell the truth. Iraq is the best modern example of just how much damage can be done. We must do better.​

Lies that fit a narrative are given more impact via greater prominence and heralding than the truth of their own whispered retractions.
Knowing the truth remains an ever difficult venture for the public, even today. Wouldn't you agree?

Made more difficult by the highly partisan and corrosive fervor on which certain narratives rest. Whereby questioners of said dogma are slandered and smeared as a particular character even when their entire lives were ever devoted to the very opposite of such claims. Would anyone here defend the "alt-right" smearing of a gay, interracially engaged person with a penchant for minority causes and civil liberties? It is illuminating that a man of such character is tar and feathered for daring to uphold simple journalistic ethos. For asking questions to dubious stories. Mob frenzy does not begin to describe the depths to which our current national dialog plunges us.

For our part in history, we might be even worse off than when skeptics were called traitors during the media's Iraq narrative in 2002.
As then, today the call of "traitor!" rings throughout a poisoned conversation, in such naked fashion with the table having flipped.

Washington Post has its share of DNC shills, sure. I think clickbait appeals to them as well. It's a natural phenomenon seen whenever a huge story breaks. Just like how stories about kids bringing guns to school become national news after a major school shooting. The solution is to not believe any breaking story from any news source whatsoever, and always wait for tangible evidence or strong testimony from named sources with direct involvement in the case. News is driven by advertising money and therefore page views, anyone gullible enough to take any story at face value deserves to be deceived.

 

[boomerang]

Great topic to bring up jaskalas. It's unfortunate that the leftists continue to both react and respond like young adolescents. It's why no serious topic is even worth bringing up here.

 

[PokerGuy]

As usual, the media is generally not to be trusted. They have an agenda and a narrative to push, the "news" is molded to fit that agenda or narrative.

 

[FIVR]

In Assange We Trust

 

[Genx87]

I'd be upset and incredulous if I was a gullible dullard too.





I don't think greenwald is upset, though. Trumper trampers like OP are upset that they are being called dupes. Greenwald on the other hand is a nebulous entity attached quite directly to snowden, who is now protected by the FSB. Why wouldn't any sane observer accuse Greenwald of being a Russian shill? In all likelihood he is exactly that. He wasn't picked by Snowden to aid in his escape and disclosure because of his famous love of a country I don't even believe be was born in, that's for sure.

And The Intercept? If you can't notice the dearth of leaks on anything Russia-related and the copious amounts of leaks of US politicians (mostly democrats... oddly enough) you are a gullible dullard, too!


Edit: Apparently he was born in NYC. Not sure why but I somehow thought he was Brazilian? I think I'm going senile...

He left the US due to our policies surrounding gay marriage. Snowden worked with Greenwald to get the information out because Greenwald is one of the few journalists left that actually do their job. You know, question the govt story instead of just passing it onto the population. Which seems to be how you judge a journalist. If they pass on the official story then they are legit. If they question the story and point out problems then they are a Russian shill. lol