Showing posts with label News media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News media. Show all posts

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Hannity Promises To Expose CNN & NBC News In "EpicFail"

"Tick tock."



In a mysterious tweet yesterday evening to his 3.19 million followers, Fox News" Sean Hannity offered a preview of what is to come from his show next week, warning that he "will expose" CNN and NBC News for what he calls a "#EpicFail."


He followed up last night"s tweet...



With another tonight, highlighting the "fake news" being spewed forth from various media entities...



We will just have to be patient to discover what he has in store for CNN and NBC, but as The Hill notes, Hannity has focused on what he calls "the destroy Trump fake news media" on most nights during his Fox News prime-time opinion program, particularly during his opening monologues that invariably include clips of CNN and MSNBC hosts and pundits going after the president in hyperbolic fashion.


Like many cable news hosts this week, Hannity is on vacation the week between Christmas and New Year"s Day. He will return to the airwaves on Jan. 2.


The past year has been a good one for the 55-year-old staunch conservative, with his candidate of choice in Trump taking office, his move from 10 p.m. to the more-watched time slot of 9 p.m. and his finish on top of the cable news ratings race following the move, averaging 3.2 million viewers.









Saturday, December 9, 2017

Trump Lashes Out At "Fake News" CNN For "Vicious And Purposeful" Mistake, Demands Terminations

After yesterday"s latest botched hit job by CNN on president Trump, which came exactly one week after the fiasco where erroneous ABC reporting on the Flynn affair sent the market tumbling, it was only a matter of time before Trump lashed out at the news network whose credibility and influence is evaporating with every fabricated story.


A little after 8am on Saturday, he did just that slamming CNN of making a "vicious and intentional mistake" over the network"s effective retraction, when it was forced to correct an erroneous news report related to the Trump/Russia probe. Having been on the receiving end of three "fake news" stories in the past week, betwee the ABC Flynn debacle, the Bloomberg Deutsche Bank subpoena, and now CNN, Trump demanded that CNN fire "those responsible," and commented that an ABC reporter who was suspended for a separate erroneous report should be fired as well.


"Fake News CNN made a vicious and purposeful mistake yesterday. They were caught red handed, just like lonely Brian Ross at ABC News (who should be immediately fired for his “mistake”)," Trump wrote. "Watch to see if @CNN fires those responsible, or was it just gross incompetence?" It is worth noting that Ross was not fired but rather suspended for 4 weeks.


In a second tweet, the president suggested CNN change their slogan after the report to "the least trusted name in news."


"CNN’S slogan is CNN, THE MOST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS. Everyone knows this is not true, that this could, in fact, be a fraud on the American Public. There are many outlets that are far more trusted than Fake News CNN. Their slogan should be CNN, THE LEAST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS!" the president tweeted.




As reported yesterday, in the original CNN report posted Friday claimed Trump"s eldest son received a "head"s-up" email on Sept. 4, before WikiLeaks had made public a cache of hacked documents containing Democratic information. Other media outlets correctly reported that Trump Jr. and other campaign officials had received the email pointing them to the WikiLeaks documents on Sept. 14, after the documents had already been made public. CNN later corrected its report, issuing the following correction.








CNN originally reported the email was released September 4 -- 10 days earlier -- based on accounts from two sources who had seen the email. The new details appear to show that the sender was relying on publicly available information. The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.



However, despite Trump"s demands a CNN spokesperson said there will not be disciplinary action against the reporter involved, because the reporter used multiple verified sources, following CNN"s editorial process. The most amusing bit, however, was CNN claims that it does not believe there was malicious intent involved.









Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Bahamas Prime Minister Blames US Cable News For Collapse Of Journalism

Over the weekend, Bahamas Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis addressed the Third Annual Press Club Awards Banquet, where he blamed the collapse of journalism standards on 24-hour cable news shows in the United States. He said, the declining of standards “would not have been allowed in previous times” and urged local journalist not to be  “champions of any political party, business, group or interest in a country”.



While addressing the Third Annual Press Club Awards Banquet Munnis said,




This is not a practice that would be allowed by journalists in other countries. I am not speaking here of editorial writing. A journalist and a columnist are distinctly different roles.


 


The 24-hour cable news shows in the United States have in a number of ways led to a lessening of standards that would not have been allowed in previous times. There has been a considerable blurring of reporting and commentary.


 


It is telling when certain standards have been breached, that some in the press do not even realize that a standard has been breached.


 


Journalists are not supposed to be champions of any political party, business, group or interest in a country.




Minnis noted that journalist must report news on a fair and balance perspective while avoiding conflict of interests, adding “the best journalism criticises, celebrates and inspires”. In the United States, that is certainly not the case with 24-hour cable news networks waging an informational war against the American people flooding them in a DDOS style attack of misinformation. The constant bombardment of Russia/Trump collusion stories have sent the trust in television news to record lows.



The Jamaican Observer ends the report by saying,




Minnis said, adding that the press has an essential role in promoting good governance, transparency and accountability.


 


“By pressing public officials for accurate and timely information, the press helps citizens to learn about the decisions being made by a government on their behalf,” he told the awards ceremony.  




It seems as Bahamas Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis and the American people have something in common and it’s the distrust of the mainstream media. The one question we ask mainstream media execs: Was the fake news in the last election cycle worth the credibility loss?









Friday, November 3, 2017

Russia Has A "Surprise" Planned For US If It Bans RT, Sputnik Ads

A day after certain members of the Senate Intelligence committee expressed their profound disappointment with Facebook, Twitter and Google for appearing to blow off lawmakers’ concerns about a “sophisticated” Russia-backed propaganda campaign purportedly being carried out on their platforms, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova is hitting back, warning that Russia has “a surprise” response planned if US lawmakers overtly ban Russia Today and Sputnik from running advertisements on twitter and other US social media platforms.


According to Interfax and Sputnik, Zakharova said Russia would be forced to respond to the ban, which she said constituted “intimidation and blackmail.”


She also singled out Twitter, which was the first - and so far, the only - to prohibit Russia Today from running ads, criticizing the company for kowtowing to pressure from lawmakers and US intelligence agencies.


"By imposing this ban, Twitter demonstrates its commercial insolvency and absolute dependence on the will of the US security establishment, which directly controls the decision-making process in this company, as we see it at the moment," Zakharova said.



Additionally, the ban would only serve to further strain already tenuous relations between the US and Moscow.


"Of course, Washington"s policy for further degradation of US-Russian relations is regrettable. This is an absolutely short-sighted policy, fraught with negative consequences, including for the United States itself," Zakharova said.


Twitter banned all ads from RT and Sputnik last month under pressure from lawmakers.


While the Sputnik news agency has stated in its press-release that it had never paid for promotion on Twitter, RT has responded with numbers — the broadcaster"s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, has revealed the amount of money spent on Twitter ads during the US election race; the number totals $275,000, in comparison to the presidential nominees who spent about $1 billion each.


Simonyan also famously published the “full” sales pitch it received from Twitter ahead of the election last year. RT said it turned down the “multi-million dollar advertising proposal.” On Twitter, advertising largely consists of the platform promoting a user’s tweets in exchange for money.


Earlier today, Buzzfeed published emails from a Twitter ad executive to RT pitching a $3 million advertisisng campaign, which the company said would amplify RT"s voice seven-fold.


According to the Russian diplomat, the existing legislation in Russia allows, if necessary, to declare the foreign media outlets operating in the country as ""foreign agents" or "undesirable organizations."


Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously vowed to give a mirror-like response if the US decides to further restrict activities of Russian media outlets.
 









Saturday, October 14, 2017

The NYTimes Asks Reporters To Stop Being Partisan On Social Media

Days after James O"Keefe released his latest undercover video which took direct aim at the New York Times" Audience Strategy Editor, Nick Dudich, who repeatedly admitted to promoting content that intentionally seeks to, among other things, damage President Trump"s businesses as a means towards forcing his resignation, The New York Times became the latest mainstream media organization to “clarify” its social media policy for journalists, reminding them that “partisan” posts (i.e. posts explicitly bashing President Donald Trump) will no longer be tolerated.


America’s paper of record joined the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post in gently reminding its journalists that abiding by stringent standards of the “unbiased” press, while occasionally uncomfortable when reporters are forced to swallow controversial opinions, is necessary to retain what little credibility the media has left in the eyes of the public.



Interestingly, the paper’s public disclosure of its standards – which Executive Editor Dean Baquet said was done “in the interest of transparency” -  comes amid an escalating feud between President Donald Trump and NBC which began after the latter published an anonymously sourced report claiming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a “moron, and has most recently expanded to encompass a debate about whether the FCC should revoke television networks’ operating licenses for biased or unfair coverage.


“We’ve always made clear that newsroom employees should avoid publishing anything on social media that damages our reputation for neutrality and fairness. This memo offers more detailed guidelines.


Department heads will be responsible for ensuring that these guidelines are followed by all staff members in their departments. Violations will be noted on performance review.”


Here’s a summary of the new guidelines:


  • In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation.

  • Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively.

  • These guidelines apply to everyone in every department of the newsroom including those not involved in coverage of government and politics.

  • We consider all social media activity by our journalists to come under this policy. While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones, separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or “like” online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.

  • On that same note, we strongly discourage our journalists from making customer service complaints on social media. While you may believe that you have a legitimate gripe, you’ll most likely be given special consideration because of your status as a Times reporter or editor.

  • Avoid joining private and “Secret” groups on Facebook and other platforms that may have a partisan orientation. You should also refrain from registering for partisan events on social media. If you are joining these groups for reporting purposes, please take care in what you post.

  • Always treat others with respect on social media. If a reader questions or criticizes your work or social media post, and you would like to respond, be thoughtful. Do not imply that the person hasn’t carefully read your work.

And the list goes on (you can read it in full here).


  • If a reporter is still unsure about posting, the Times recommends that they first ask themselves:

  • Would you express similar views in an article on The Times platforms?

  • Would someone who reads your post have grounds for believing that you are biased on a particular issue?

  • If readers see your post and notice that you’re a Times journalist, would that affect their view of The Times’s news coverage as fair and impartial?

  • Could your post hamper your colleagues’ ability to effectively do their jobs?

  • If someone were to look at your entire social media feed, including links and retweets, would they have doubts about your ability to cover news events in a fair and impartial way?

We’re glad the Times cleared that up. Its new guidelines can effectively be summarized as “don’t publish anything on twitter that you wouldn’t publish in the Times.” That said, the standard still allows ample room for the paper"s reporters to pass off partisan rhetoric as "impartial" fact. That is, if it"s enforceed. It"s likely many of the paper"s reporters will continue tweeting partisan attacks - the default subscriber boosting position - despite the new "guidelines."

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

New York Times Reveals That "Russia Ads" Were Mostly Made By Americans

The more details that emerge about Russia’s “sophisticated” efforts to sway the November election in favor of President Donald Trump, the more ridiculous Sen. Mark Warner’s aggressive rhetoric sounds. But instead of fading away, upcoming testimony from Facebook, Twitter and maybe Google will likely keep the story on life support for the foreseeable future, especially now that Congress has succeeded in browbeating all three of the tech giants mentioned above to admit that Russian agents were buying advertising or otherwise disseminating targeted propaganda on their platforms.


In its latest piece exploring the innerworkings of the Russia-led Facebook campaign to “sow discord” in the American electorate, the New York Times makes a stunning revelation - though its implications are clearly lost on America’s paper of record.


Almost all of the content promoted by the Russia-backed Facebook groups was created by Americans, much of it by conservative news websites like the Conservative Tribune.


To wit…





“A New York Times examination of hundreds of those posts shows that one of the most powerful weapons that Russian agents used to reshape American politics was the anger, passion and misinformation that real Americans were broadcasting across social media platforms.



In other words, the Russia groups did little more than amplify political messages that were already deafeningly broadcast by the grassroots movement that emerged to support President Donald Trump during his quest for the Republican nomination, and later, the presidency.


Given the small dollar amounts spent on these campaigns, it’s difficult to imagine that these pages had a measurable impact on public opinion. In fact, most of the original sources of content that was repurposed by the Russians garnered far more views on their own platforms.



Still, that hasn’t stopped some academics from implying that the impression on voters was much more impactful than the facts would suggest.





“This is cultural hacking,” said Jonathan Albright, research director at Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism. “They are using systems that were already set up by these platforms to increase engagement. They’re feeding outrage – and it’s easy to do, because outrage and emotion is how people share.”



As has been widely reported, groups that have been identified by Facebook as being clandestinely created by Russians reflected a range of political views. For example, pages that carried pro-Black Lives Matter messages, or content highlighting discrimination against the US’s Muslim population


One of those groups repurposed a video showing New Yorkers standing idly by while a man in traditional Muslim garb is harassed by an actor pretending to be a bully.



When the creator of the video found out it had been “ripped” by one of the Russia-backed pages, he asked that the video be removed – not because he disagreed with the framing of the page’s messaging, but because he believed the page was stealing his views.


Notably, that video – which appeared on the Russian Facebook page called “United Muslims of America” – received far fewer views than the creator’s original post.





“The video ends with Mr. Shah pointing out New York’s hypocrisy: The city claims to be a “melting pot,” but no one intervened while he was getting harassed. Mr. Shah’s original video, posted on YouTube in June 2016, was a viral hit that attracted more than three million views. A week after he posted, United Muslims of America copied the video to its group page without the original YouTube link, a process known as ripping. There, Mr. Shah’s video became the Russian page’s most popular post, earning more than 150,00 interactions.



Lower in the story, the Times shared an anecdote about a conservative blogger who inadvertently shared a “fake news” story published by one of the Russian pages. When confronted by the Times, the blogger scoffed at the paper’s suggestion that he played a role in a nefarious propaganda campaign.





“I usually publish an article several times a week, to keep driving the narrative,” Mr. Swanson said in an interview. He was not bothered, he said, by becoming an unwitting cog in the Russian propaganda machine. “You know we do the same damn thing over there,” Mr. Swanson said. “What do you think – we’re saints?”



In other words, many Americans are seeing right through Congress and the mainstream media’s characterization of “Russian interference” as a sophisticated propaganda campaign targeted at swing state voters.


Given the fact that the overhyped Russia ads are essentially crudely crafted memes that had already been widely disseminated on social media, we wonder if Sen. Mark Warner and Rep Adam Schiff still plan to release the ads to the public.
 

Friday, September 29, 2017

Glenn Greenwald: Yet Another "Major" Russia Story Falls Apart...

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,


The biggest purveyors of “fake news” and irresponsible journalism are the news media outlets complaining most about it.


MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is at the forefront of the latest fake news on Russia.


Maddow’s Rant






The story went viral of course.










Another Story Falls Apart


Today, Glen Greenwald reports Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet?



LAST FRIDAY, most major media outlets touted a major story about Russian attempts to hack into U.S. voting systems, based exclusively on claims made by the Department of Homeland Security. “Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states in the run-up to last year’s presidential election, officials said Friday,” began the USA Today story, similar to how most other outlets presented this extraordinary claim.


 


MSNBC’s Paul Revere for all matters relating to the Kremlin take-over, Rachel Maddow, was indignant that this wasn’t told to us earlier and that we still aren’t getting all the details. “What we have now figured out,” Maddow gravely intoned as she showed the multi-colored maps she made, is that “Homeland Security knew at least by June that 21 states had been targeted by Russian hackers during the election. . .targeting their election infrastructure.”


 


So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall apart yesterday when the Associated Press reported that Wisconsin – one of the states included in the original report that, for obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have its election systems targeted by Russian hackers.


 



 


The spokesman for Homeland Security then tried to walk back that reversal, insisting that there was still evidence that some computer networks had been targeted, but could not say that they had anything to do with elections or voting.


 


Then the story collapsed completely last night. The Secretary of State for another one of the named states, California, issued a scathing statement repudiating the claimed report:


 



 


This has happened over and over and over again. Inflammatory claims about Russia get mindlessly hyped by media outlets, almost always based on nothing more than evidence-free claims from government officials, only to collapse under the slightest scrutiny, because they are entirely lacking in evidence.


 


The examples of such debacles when it comes to claims about Russia are too numerous to comprehensively chronicle. I wrote about this phenomenon many times and listed many of the examples, the last time in June when 3 CNN journalists “resigned” over a completely false story linking Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci to investigations into a Russian investment fund which the network was forced to retract.


 


Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid, causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to Americans in winter, only to have to issue multiple retractions because none of that ever happened?


 


Or the time that the Post had to publish a massive editor’s note after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the internet and spreading of “Fake News” based on an anonymous group’s McCarthyite blacklist that counted sites like the Drudge Report and various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?


 


Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near?


 


Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin? Or the time that Fortune retracted suggestions that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN’s network?


 


And then there’s the huge market that was created – led by leading Democrats – that blindly ingested every conspiratorial, unhinged claim about Russia churned out by an army of crazed conspiracists such as Louise Mensch and Claude “TrueFactsStated” Taylor?


 


And now we have the Russia-hacked-the-voting-systems-of-21-states to add to this trash heap.


 


Each time the stories go viral; each time they further shape the narrative; each time those who spread them say little to nothing when it is debunked.


 


Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. Just look at how many major, incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets, have collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how we are discussing and reporting on relations between these two nuclear-armed powers?



Hello Rachel Maddow!


























My Quick Take










 









Monday, September 18, 2017

The Death Of Free Speech Is Imminent: Government Begins Censorship Of Media Through Disingenuous Means

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,


The death of free speech is imminent.



Anyone with access to a computer and the internet can see that the United States mainstream media is nothing more than a propaganda machine designed to brainwash the masses into a lemming-like agreement with the government.


And now, it’s oh-so-ironic that the same government that tells the media what to report on in order brainwash the public is seeking to quiet those who disagree and label them as “propaganda.”  Some may call it fake news, others just want a different opinion rather than the left-leaning media hysteria we are accustomed to.


But now, media outlet RT (Russia Today), founded in Russia will have to register with the United States as “foreign media;” which will forever give it the inaccurate title of “propaganda.”


This doesn’t apply to merely the Russian version of the news outlet, but the American-run and operated site as well. According to The Hill, in a report on Monday, RT did not name the company that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has compelled to file paperwork under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, but blasted the edict as overreaching.


“The war the US establishment wages with our journalists is dedicated to all the starry-eyed idealists who still believe in freedom of speech. Those who invented it, have buried it,” Margarita Simonyan, RT’s editor-in-chief, said about the registration.





Media organizations have been exempted from the law, which is wide-ranging in its disclosure requirements and generally applies to political consultants and those working in lobbying or public relations.



It would be a felony if RT is found to have willfully failed to register as a foreign agent, however.



The registration would not stop the organization from operating, but requires regularly submitted paperwork that lists its sources of foreign government-tied revenue and the contacts it makes in the United States, and it would require any reporting to be labeled as being influenced or financed by the Russian government. –The Hill



RT has also contracted with Julian Assange, who runs WikiLeaks and is suspected of leaking internal emails from the Democratic National Committee, so the fact that they are being singled out with attempts to silence their reporting is not a big surprise to anyone with functioning neurons.


RT must be a threat to the political elites and the establishment, or they would be left alone while outlets like CNN brainwash and lie for profit to prop up the wealthy and powerful politicians they will stop at nothing to protect.

Friday, September 15, 2017

State-Sponsored Intimidation, Or When FARA Goes Too Far

Authored by Andrew Korybko via OrinetalReview.org,


The US government is blatantly violating the most basic tenets of its purportedly “sacred” ideology of “human rights” and “free speech” by egregiously overstepping the bounds of FARA to engage in the same type of state-sponsored intimidation that it regularly accuses its geopolitical opponents of for far less.



Yahoo broke the story earlier on Monday that the FBI questioned former Sputnik employee Andrew Feinburg following his public complaints to the media about how the company is supposedly being run, and this reportedly came after another former employee, Joseph John Fionda, allegedly contacted the FBI on his own initiative to share “a big packet” of information accusing Sputnik of breaking the law. The legislation at the center of this scandal is the “Foreign Agents Registration Act” (FARA), a 1938 law originally passed to expose Nazi influence operations inside of the US. It’s since been used for registering anyone who works as a “foreign agent”, which stereotypically refers to Congressional lobbyists hired by foreign governments but is nowadays being proposed by some US voices to apply to Sputnik and RT as well.


The basis for this move is that both companies are publicly funded by the Russian government, and that this therefore supposedly makes them “propaganda” because it’s assumed by the American authorities that all of their employees lack “editorial independence” from the Kremlin. As could have been expected, the same forces pushing for Sputnik and RT to register as “foreign agents” under FARA aren’t interested in equally applying these expanded “standards” to other publicly financed international media outlets such as Al Jazeera and the BBC.





Using the same criteria as is being applied against these two companies, one could rhetorically question the “independence” of US Congressmen and American government-connected “think tanks” to the “deep state”, which is another word for its permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies that hold disproportionate influence over policymaking decisions.



In any case, what’s important to focus on is the difference between publicly financed institutions and those which are “government-run”. The first one simply means that taxpayers are paying the bills, whereas the second refers to government employees being the final decision makers on all matters. All government employees work for publicly financed institutions, but not all employees at publicly financed institutions are government employees. Sputnik, for example, is a publicly financed media platform where the editors always have the final say as decision makers in what is a globally recognized industry-wide hierarchical standard. This doesn’t indicate “censorship” or a “cover-up” – it’s just plain journalism.





If Washington-funded media platforms happen to accuse Sputnik and RT of being “government-run”, then it might possibly be that they’re falsely projecting their own unstated but widely assumed internal arrangements onto their Russian counterparts.



Moreover, just because two disgruntled employees seem to have experienced communication issues with their superiors and failed to resolve – or in some cases, even address – them prior to continuing with their given assignments doesn’t mean that there’s a “Kremlin conspiracy” because their bosses were displeased with their overall work at the company as a result. Outcomes like that happen in those situations. It’s life – nothing more, nothing less – and should be used as a personal learning experience, not as someone’s “15 minutes of fame” driven by their desire to more easily land a new job elsewhere, whether in the same industry or the “think tank” one. It’s natural for people to have divergent views on any given subject, especially when it’s related to politics, but editors always have the final say when it comes to the journalism industry, and employees are supposed to respect that.


One of the more popular fake news claims going around about Sputnik and RT is that the two outlets were heavily biased in favor of Trump during the 2016 election, but that’s frankly not true, as anyone would know by listening to Sputnik’s radio programs from that time, watching RT’s shows, or reading both of their websites’ archives. Both platforms lean closer to the liberal-progressive side of things as opposed to the conservative one. Simply reporting on the many unfavorable stories surrounding Hillary Clinton and not blindly fawning over her candidacy doesn’t qualify as “institutional bias”, though in largely controlled systems such as the American one where most of the media openly back the Democrats, then the Overton window concept would suggest that Sputnik and RT’s balanced reporting and analyses would understandably stand out as attention-grabbing and exemplary.


In addition, it should never be forgotten that it was the on-the-fence population of the Rust Belt who surprisingly turned the election in Trump’s favor. One would presume that the liberal-progressive masses in the solidly Democratic states on each coast would be Sputnik and RT’s core audiences given how these two outlets’ more leftist-leaning stance on many matters overlap with the prevailing preferences there, so it’s ridiculous to believe that these Russian companies somehow convinced voters to want to “Make America Great Again” in the more stereotypically nationalistic heartland with their liberal-progressive messaging. In fact, it’s uncertain how many people in that part of the US listen to, watch, or read Sputnik and RT in the first place when Fox News, CNN, and Rush Limbaugh dominate those media markets, and whether these Russian companies are even capable of making any difference at all in those swing states.



Another point that’s often brought up in the course of this conversation is that individual writers, analysts, and presenters might be “biased”, but human beings are unique and have their own way of understanding and relaying information, which in the media field leads to them expressing their individual viewpoints and perspectives in their work. There’s nothing wrong with this, and it should be celebrated that people feel comfortable enough in their professional environment to express themselves as they see fit, though provided that they’re not obnoxiously – and perhaps even deliberately – doing something to cross the line of the editorial standards which vary according to the media outlet. The Sputnik and RT employees that are in the public limelight sometimes have opinions that are just as passionate as their counterparts in The Washington Post and The New York Times, though the latter two are rarely – if ever – condemned for their zeal by the US government.


The double standard that’s being applied when it comes to Sputnik and RT should be clear for all to see, and it’s that the American “deep state” doesn’t tolerate foreigners having an opinion about the US unless they present it on a US-based media platform or on one of Washington’s allies’. Otherwise, as the witch-hunting “logic” now goes, they’re “foreign agents” possibly “spreading propaganda”, and their outlets need to be registered as such with the intimidating “scarlet letter(s)” of FARA if they’re foreign-funded. Even worse, the hysterical zeitgeist has now peaked at such a point that Americans are unable to talk about American-related issues (whether domestic or foreign) on non-American international media outlets publicly funded by a foreign government without potentially having to register as a “foreign agent” in their homelands, whether they still live there or emigrated already.





This is nothing less than state-sponsored intimidation, since Washington is implying that the Americans who work for and comment on these platforms might be “national security threats” because of their supposedly undeclared “foreign agent” status.



If Russia implemented the same media version of FARA that the US is seriously considering and decided to decree that its citizens working for publicly funded American information outlets both in the country and abroad are “foreign agents” that are forced to register with the Kremlin, then the US government would instantly condemn it as state-sponsored intimidation and political oppression, possibly even extending political asylum and an expedited path to citizenship for those said nationals who might be working in the US and are too afraid to ever go home again. Frighteningly, however, it’s not Russians who have to fear the long arm of their government in this respect, but Americans, though it’s “politically incorrect” for anyone to say so.



In the Twilight Zone of the New Cold War, Russia could plausibly – and with full ethical and legal backing behind it –contemplate granting its Russian-based American employees political asylum and potential citizenship because of the state-sponsored intimidation that they might become reasonably subjected to back home just because they decided to “Tell The Untold” and “Question More”. If the US government demands that Sputnik and RT employees register as “foreign agents” under FARA but selectively ignores enforcing this new “standard” against other publicly financed international media companies and their employees, then it’s not unrealistic to imagine that Edward Snowden might end up sharing a toast with some fellow American political refugees in Moscow before too long.

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Failing POTUS Took a Leak….and Another Leak

Failing POTUS might need to call in his immigrant tailor and get re-fitted for his Depends, because they---he---are leaking. Yes, he himself is the source of most of the leaks.


There are leaks. Real leaks---as opposed to gossip regarding the palace intrigue in his ‘nutjob’ Administration---have been few (5), and four of those have come from Failing POTUS himself. The fifth leak saved the US from having a traitor as National Security Adviser, on the payroll of both Russia and Turkey.


AG Sessions said Friday that ‘4 people have been charged’ with leaking, but that is not entirely accurate. He included those people charged with unreported contacts with foreign intel services, which happens to be 4 of 4. Such is the veracity of this Administration, who now wants to go after journalists who publish even palace intrigue. The term for that is: Dictatorship.


Flashback: When Failing POTUS held his little Oval Office shindig with Russian FM Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Kislyak---with only a TASS photographer and FSB/SVR case officer in attendance----Failing POTUS ‘let slip’ some code word intel provided to the US by a foreign liaison contact. As irresponsible as that was---leading to the death of a covert asset who had infiltrated a dangerous terror cell---it taught Failing POTUS one thing: he has the authority to declassify anything any time. (That was one leak.)


Failing POTUS has used that authority several times, albeit in an underhanded way. Two ‘leaks’ coming from Failing POTUS do not actually qualify as leaks, since if caught he can claim the authority to declassify. Failing POTUS even leaked one time before he knew he had declassification authority.


What is this leak? The Deven Nunez Dog and Pony Show. Remember that? Here is the script:


The White House calls Nunez (Republican House Chair of HPSCI) and tells him to make an announcement that “I found some critical information I need to deliver to the White House immediately”. Nunez called reporters in the Capitol and made the breathless announcement, even though at that moment he did not actually have any material; he had to go over to the White House to get it, merely to give it back to them.


Once inside the White House Nunez and his WH friends concocted the easily disproved fabrication of Nunez getting a late night call, being escorted into the WH grounds after hours, and getting info that---for some odd reason---Nunez then had to give to the WH. Reporters pressed for WH Logs, which detail every single entry and exit on to WH grounds---including who signed in the visitor. The WH immediately answered by making logs private, not public as they had been under President Obama. Nunez was, of course, lying. He had not visited late at night, as logs would have revealed. Nunez lied.


Nunez was given both this silly story as well as the material the WH wanted leaked. What prompted this was a desire by the WH to discredit the Obama Administration and divert attention from the then-nascent Russia investigation. An NSC employee brought in by traitor Michael Flynn, a 30-year old named Ezra Cohen-Watnick, had used his new access to the NSC database and looked at all the times ‘unmasking’ had been undertaken by former NSA Susan Rice. (Unmasking is a regular occurrence---despite Failing POTUS’ many attempts to imply otherwise---and takes place when otherwise hidden names of US Persons are revealed in order to provide context to some intel reporting. Unmasking is not a leak, and it is not universal. Only the one who requests unmasking is given the name. The Failing POTUS’ Administration, while trying to imply there is something untoward about unmasking, is a regular and aggressive user of it itself. Yes, they are hypocrites.)


Now armed with the material the WH wanted leaked, Nunez called WH reporters to an outside microphone and revealed the material. Repeat: in his first assemblage of reporters back on Capitol Hill, where Nunez said he had info he needed to deliver to the WH immediately, he did not have anything. Only after meeting with the (now fired) Ezra Cohen-Watnick, did Nunez get his script. This entire amateurish attempt at a covert op was the idea of Darth Bannon and the Failing POTUS himself, with input from the grossly overpaid ‘adviser’ Jared the Eunuch.


Deven Nunez is not going to get an Oscar for that performance, as it would have been camp and trite even in a grammar school class play. Nunez embarrassed even his own Party and had to back down from much of his role as Chair of HPSCI.


Theoretically what Nunez told reporters on the WH grounds would constitute a leak, but since he received the material at the behest of Failing POTUS---who has instant declassification authority---there was no prosecutable offense.


Other than with Failing POTUS’ poorly educated base, who think Men in Black is a documentary, the ruse failed.


Failing POTUS’, armed with knowledge of his instant declassification authority, recently leaked a transcript of an NSA intercept of former Russian Ambassador Kislyak, where it showed AG Jeff Sessions lied about his meeting with Kislyak. According to the intercept, Kislyak reported to Putin that Kislyak and Sessions---before Failing POTUS took office---discussed pulling back the US sanctions on Russia. It is, of course, illegal for an incoming Administration to discuss policies with foreign officials before taking office, as it implies authority they do not yet have.


Failing POTUS leaked the NSA intercept as part of his failed attempt to get rid of the AG, in the hope Failing POTUS could appoint a new AG who could then fire SC Robert Mueller. The ruse was so transparent that the self-claimed ‘Great Dealmaker’ showed just how incompetent he really is. Failing POTUS’ own Party fought back and has now obviated any way in which FP could get rid of Mueller (Congress has the authority to appoint a Special Prosecutor, and would obviously appoint Mueller if it ever came to that, so Mueller and his team would not lose a step.)


This week Failing POTUS has leaked transcripts of his own phone calls with the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Australia. FP can now blow his two favorite dog whistles: ‘unauthorized’ leaks and ‘the Enemy of the People’, aka the Free Press installed into the nation’s fabric by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, written by people infinitely smarter than FP. FP’s base will be newly energized, too stupid to realize they have been punked again.


Incidentally, the universe of those who receive transcripts of POTUS discussions with foreign leaders is extremely limited. Only the folks in the White House Situation Room (who do the transcription), senior advisers, and key Cabinet Officials get them. In other words, every person who had access to the transcripts is a Failing POTUS appointee. Of course that is merely for background, as Failing POTUS himself is the leaker.


The transcripts of the phone calls are damning, in that they demonstrate just how weak, impotent, whiny and amateurish Failing POTUS is, and they also show that The Wall is not a part of national security, but rather just a political ploy to appeal to FP’s ignorant base. Rational people already knew that no wall is going to stop anybody, as many migrants simply use tunnels. Of course, so woefully ignorant is FP’s base that they think installing solar panels on a 900 mile structure somehow generates usable power, other than perhaps to run a few flashlights along the way.


Why would Failing POTUS release transcripts that would damage his credibility and lay bare just how incompetent and whiny he is? Because he knows his base doesn’t read much, would never go through dozens of pages of a transcript, and can be made to believe anything in 140 characters or less. Those who already think Failing POTUS is a clown will just have more on which to base their opinion, whereas for Failing POTUS’ shrinking base of morons, the poorly educated, and the brain addled who think Alex Jones is something more than the Performance Artist his lawyer claimed him to be, the transcript release will do no harm. In fact, because it will allow Failing POTUS to act all indignant and jump on the Free Press again, he will be able to use it to some advantage.


Prediction: Nobody will be prosecuted for the ‘leak’ of these telephone transcripts, nor for the ‘leak’ of the NSA transcript of the Kislyak conversation. Nobody will be prosecuted because these ’leaks’ are just a Failing POTUS Pee Party. Okay, maybe Failing POTUS will pull a Putin and finger some immigrant "bad hombre" who washes dishes in the White House as the source and prosecute the poor soul.


Back when the phone calls took place, a report of the gist of the conversations made it into the press. Failing POTUS called the reports "Fake News", and claimed both phone calls were civil and "great". The transcripts, now released, not only prove Failing POTUS was lying, but that the news was anything but fake. FP also called reports he referred to the White House as "a dump" Fake News, but nine people who overheard him say he is lying yet again.


Pre-emptive Warning: Now that it is public that SC Mueller is utilizing at least two Grand Juries, note that what comes out of that will NOT be leaks. No one who is called to testify before a Grand Jury is required to keep the hearing private. Anyone who meets with a Grand Jury is free to go straight to the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC---even Fox---and tell all. They can write a book or even Tweet. A persons testimony to a Grand Jury is not classified.


Expect much more to become public in our democracy, not just Failing POTUS’ orchestrated ‘leaks’.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Snopes.com Implodes, Resorts To GoFundMe

Via StockBoardAsset.com,


Snopes.com is a liberal blog from 1994.  The website claims to be the internet’s oldest and most popular fact-checking site. Last year, Snopes Co-Founder was accused of embezzling company money, and spending it on prostitutes.


Now you can find the blog begging for $500k in funding via GoFundMe. So, far the campaign has raised $18,000 in 3 hours via 710 people...



Another victim of the fake news campaign backfiring on the left.


* * *


Some additional "color" from iBankCoin:


A key member of Facebook’s ministry of truth, Snopes, has hit a major snag which may force them out of business. Apparently too cheap or stupid to run a contract for their primary source of income past an attorney, the ‘arbiters of truth’ appear to be in major financial trouble after claiming a vendor is holding ad revenues hostage, and have set up a gofundme page which has raised $130,000 of it’s $500,000 goal within hours.





We had previously contracted with an outside vendor to provide certain services for Snopes.com. That contractual relationship ended earlier this year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage.


Unfortunately, we have been cut off from our historic source of advertising income. –savesnopes.com



That outside vendor was none other than San Diego based Proper Media, which bought out Snopes co-founder Barbara Mikkelson’s share in the company for $3.6 million following a nasty divorce.


According to the San Diego Union Tribune:





Established in 2003, Bardav, Inc. was the joint venture of Snopes creator David Mikkelson and his then-wife Barbara Mikkelson, who each owned one share and 50 percent of the company. The couple divorced in 2015. In July of 2016, Barbara sold her stake to Proper Media’s five equity holders for $3.6 million.


Prior to the sale, Bardav had contracted Proper Media for web development and advertising services on Snopes.com, with the companies agreeing to split revenue earned from advertisements.


In May, Proper Media filed suit against Bardav and Mikkelson with the San Diego Superior Court of California over ownership of the site, alleging that Mikkelson attempted to gain control over the business and block Proper Media from its share of profits. Snopes counter sued, arguing that Proper Media has not paid Snopes its share of advertising revenue since March. Motions by both the plaintiffs and defendants are scheduled to be heard on Aug. 4.



Who could have imagined that the biased ‘fact-checking’ website run by militantly liberal rabid anti-Trumpers and co-founded by a cheating, whore mongering, cat-abandoning, embezzling degenerate would sign a sloppy contract?



The arrangement with Proper Media follows revelations that David Mikkelson secret PayPal account to allegedly funnel advertising revenue from Snopes into his personal accounts so that he could travel around the world banging whores behind his wife’s back – according to court documents obtained by Wesearcher / Gotnews.



As iBankCoin reported in December, while engaging in debauchery behind his wife’s back, Mikkelson wrote off just about everything as a business expense, embezzling a reported $98,000. The Snopes co-founder has since settled down and married a [NSFW] part time porn actress, Snopes.com administrator (spicy!), and sex worker. As in, she has a website devoted to being a whore.  Apparently she’s a pretty good one despite being “past her time as an adult model.”


In the same divorce papers, David Mikkelson fired back, claiming his ex-wife Barbara took millions from their joint account and bought property in Las Vegas.


No word on whatever happened to the cat…


Thursday, June 29, 2017

Rebellion At The NYTimes: Newsroom To Walk Out After "Decrying Direction Of Paper"

Exhausted and demoralized after repeated buyouts and cutbacks in the newsroom, it seems the downtrodden journalists at the New York Times have finally had enough: In a pair of letters delivered to executive editor Dean Baquet and managing editor Joseph Kahn, the News Guild of New York said the New York Times editorial staff will leave the newsroom on Thursday as a demonstration of solidarity as management threatens jobs, according to MarketWatch.


Unlike the employee rebellion at the Wall Street Journal last year, when staffers confronted management about unequal pay practices and a paucity of female reporters and editors in leadership roles, the uproar at the times is centered around the repeated paycuts and cutbacks, which have left the newsroom feeling “demoralized.” One letter was sent by the organization"s copy editors, who are facing dramatic staffing cuts, while the second letter was sent by reporters in an expression of solidarity with the editing staff. Both detailed frustrations with the repeated rounds of buyouts, and the lack of transparency surrounding management’s decisionmaking.





“In the copy editors’ letter to Baquet and Kahn, they say they feel betrayed and disrespected in the newsroom, and ask that management reconsider staffing cuts that are expected as the paper plans to restructure.



“Cutting us down to 50 to 55 editors from more than 100, and expecting the same level of quality in the report, is dumbfoundingly unrealistic,” the letter reads. “You often speak about the importance of engaging readers, of valuing, investing and giving a voice to readers. Dean and Joe: We are your readers, and you have turned your backs on us.”



“Editors — and yes, that especially means copy editors — save reporters and the Times every day from countless errors, large and small,” they say in the letter. “Requiring them to dance for their supper sends a clear message to them, and to us, that the respect we have shown the Times will not be reciprocated.”



The editorial staff is accusing Times management of being too opaque in its efforts to restructure the news operation, which includes consolidating two separate groups of editors into one group and asking copy editors to resubmit applications for roles in the newsroom.



Indeed, morale is so low at the NYT that its reporters and editors said they actually feel more respected by readers than by management. The letters referenced an internal report in which the copy editors were compared to dogs urinating on fire hydrants.


That’s quite the claim  - considering President Donald Trump’s relentless bashing of the “failing” news organization has turned public sentiment squarely against it.





“And that is why it feels like such a profound waste that morale is low throughout the newsroom, and that many of us, from editors to reporters to photo editors to support staff, are angry, embittered and scared of losing our jobs,” the letter reads.



The rebellion comes at a time when advertising revenues for print – formerly a powerhouse of the media industry that has been precipitously eroded by the rise of free news on the internet – continue to shrink, and gains in digital advertising are failing to make up the difference.


In the first quarter, print ads declined by 18% while digital ad revenue increased by nearly 19% and accounted for more than 38% of the company’s total ad revenue. Still, the paper’s stock remains buoyant; shares have risen more than 35% year-to-date, compared with a 9% gain in the S&P 500.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Sarah Sanders Blasts CNN For "Fake News"; Sparks Epic Meltdown From 'Triggered' Reporter

After suffering through a series of complete embarrassments this week (and it"s only Tuesday) it should surprise almost no one that CNN, and it"s constant barrage of "fake news", took center stage at today"s White House press briefing.  Unfortunately, after a seemingly delusional reporter made the mistake of asking why the White House wasn"t satisfied with CNN"s recent dismissal of 3 "journalists", as if that was supposed to suddenly absolve them from months of reporting fake news in a thinly-veiled effort to topple a Presidency, Sarah Huckabee Sanders decided to launch an epic rant that will go down as one of the most entertaining press briefings of the year and undoubtedly made CNN"s week even worse.  


It all started when Sanders suggested that all the reporters in the room, and the American public at large, should take a look at Project Veritas" latest undercover bombshell (we covered it here) which featured a CNN producer effectively saying that their constant coverage of Russia was "mostly bullshit" and that CNN"s CEO Jeff Zucker was only pursuing the fake narrative for ratings.  If true, Sanders said the video is a "disgrace to all of media, to all of journalism."





"I think it"s the constant barrage of fake news directed at this President probably that has garnered a lot of his frustration."



"There’s a video circulating now, whether it’s accurate or not, I don’t know, but I would encourage everybody in this room and frankly everybody across the country to take a look at it."



"If it is accurate, I think it’s a disgrace to all of media, to all of journalism, I think that we have gone to a place where if the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a dangerous place for America."



"And I think if that is the place that certain outlets are going, particularly for the purpose of spiking ratings, and if that"s coming directly from the top, I think that"s even more scary and certainly more disgraceful."



But things got even better when Sanders" answer seemingly triggered one snowflake "journalist" in the corner who apparently felt like the briefing room had become and "unsafe space" and left him feeling "inflamed."





Triggered Reporter:  "Come on, you"re inflaming everybody, right here, right now with those words.  This administration has done that as well.  Why in the name of heavens, anyone of us is replaceable and if anyone of us doesn"t get it right the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us.  You have been elected to serve for four years at least, there is no option other than that."



"We"re here to ask you questions and you"re here to provide the answers.  And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say "see, once again, the President is right and everyone else out here is fake media"."



"And everybody in this room is only trying to do their job."



Sure, CNN"s "journalists" are just trying to do their jobs...that is, assuming their "jobs" are to ignore all facts and report whatever salacious headlines pop into their heads so long as it serves to advance their fake "Russian collusion" narrative...yup, they"re doing their jobs.


Saturday, February 18, 2017

The Washington Post Actually Takes Russian Government Money (Unlike The Websites It Helped Slander)

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,



Earlier this week, Tucker Carlson interviewed the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple and brought up the fact that the paper regularly receives money from the Russian government to publish propaganda known as “native advertising” within the contents of the newspaper. This was news to me.


Here’s the clip.



As you heard, the paid Russian propaganda sections are known as “Russia: Beyond the Headlines.” The earliest article I found about it was published in Slate back in 2007 in the piece, Hail to the Return of Motherland-Protecting Propaganda! 


Here are a few excerpts:






Soviet propaganda hit the skids during the Gorbachev era, and as the empire broke up, its propaganda essentially vanished. But the heavy-handed purveyors of party-line orthodoxy and nationalist cant have returned with the rise of President Vladimir Putin, and a demonstration of this lost art’s resurgence can be found in a 10-page advertising supplement to today’s (Aug. 30) Washington Post, titled “Russia: Beyond the Headlines.” (It can also be viewed on the newspaper’s Web site.)



Produced by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the official Russian government newspaper, the section mimics the look and feel of a hometown paper, with news, an op-edsection, a sports feature (Maria Sharapova), two business pages, an entertainment page, and even a recipe for “Salad Oliver.” But beneath the shattered syntax of these laughable pieces beats the bloody red heart of the tone-deaf Soviet propagandist.



On the opinion page, we learn in “Dog-Walking - a Gateway to Wisdom” that Vladimir Putin likes Labradors and takes Connie, his Lab, with him to televised events. “Russia’s citizens like Putin, and that’s probably why there are a fair number of Labradors on my neighborhood streets,” the writer states. All glory to Labrador-loving Comrade Putin and his patriotic walking-dog, Connie!




Now check out the following excerpts from a 2015 article on the topic from The Daily Caller titled, China, Russia Pay Washington Post To Publish Their Propaganda:





Chinese and Russian propaganda supplements are regularly included in The Washington Post, but the widely read newspaper won’t say how much money it gets on the deals.



China Watch – a China Daily publication – and Russia Beyond The Headlines – a Rossiyskaya Gazeta publication – have both appeared in the Post for years as paid advertising supplements. Both foreign periodicals are owned and operated by their respective governments.



The Russia Beyond The Headlines material has appeared in other major news papers, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.



I find all of this extremely interesting, as well as disturbingly dishonest and hypocritical, considering that The Washington Post itself played a major role in falsely claiming that 200 websites (including this one), were somehow doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin.


As I discussed in last year’s post, Liberty Blitzkrieg Included on Washington Post Highlighted Hit List of “Russian Propaganda” Websites:





What’s particularly interesting about this list, isn’t the fact that a bunch of anonymous whiners decided to demonize successful critics of insane, inhumane and ethically indefensible U.S. government policy, but rather the fact that the Washington Post decided to craft an entire article around such a laughably ridiculous list. This just further proves a point that is rapidly becoming common knowledge amongst U.S. citizens with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. The mainstream media is the real “fake news.”



Let’s take Liberty Blitzkrieg for example. Despite the fact that my site is mentioned on “the list,” nobody from PropOrNot bothered to contact me while doing their “research.” They could’ve asked very simple questions about how the site is run, who owns it, and who makes decisions about editorial content. Furthermore, I doubt they did any such research with regard to any of the mentioned sites before slandering them.



Since they failed to do any real work, let me answer several of these questions. I, Michael Krieger, am the 100% owner of Liberty Blitzkrieg. I am the only person who makes decisions on what to publish and when. I have absolutely no connections, financial or otherwise, to the Russian government, Russian interests, or the interests of any other government or government related group. Moreover, there is simply nobody on planet earth who has any influence on what I write or what I publish. I left a very successful and financially lucrative job to do what I do now because my passions and ethical grounding pushed me in this direction. If I was interested in making enormous sums of money, I could’ve easily stayed on Wall Street.



Moreover, I rarely write about Russia, with the exception of trying to prevent insane neocons and neoliberals in our government from actively seeking a military confrontation, because I — like most normal human beings — would prefer not to contribute to the manifestation of World War 3. Likewise, I try to prevent war breaking out in all circumstances where I think it can and should be avoided. I intentionally almost never use RT as a source, and I’ve never quoted anything from Sputnik. Unlike The Washington Post, I try to be extremely diligent about not publishing fake news, but I am a very strong critic of U.S. government policy, because much of U.S. government policy is certifiably insane and unethical. You can disagree with my opinion on that all you’d like, but I challenge anyone to find anything that could reasonably be considered pro-Russia propaganda on my website. If Liberty Blitzkrieg really is a Russian propaganda site, this should be easy to do since I’ve published thousands of articles over the years.



The fact that The Washington Post would give credibility to a obviously ridiculous organization with an entirely invented list of “Russian propaganda websites,” knowing all the while that they themselves were the ones taking Russian government money is the height of hypocrisy, dishonesty and deceitful journalism. Once again proving the obvious point: The mainstream media is the real fake news. 


Finally, if you want to help us in the struggle between real, independent media and fake, billionaire-owned mainstream propaganda press, consider visiting our Support Page.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Visualizing The Fake News Problem

PEER OPINION FILLS A VOID LEFT BY FALLING TRUST IN MASS MEDIA


There’s been no shortage of blame passed around for the so-called “fake news” epidemic that has been front and center since the U.S. election.


As Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins explains, social media has been singled out as one key factor leading to the spread of misleading or false news. However, low barriers to entry for creating content, hyperpartisanism, confirmation bias, and the echo-chamber effect have also been identified as causes or symptoms in the proliferation of such stories.


It’s certainly a complex problem to unravel, and many proposed solutions are just as alarming as the symptoms they try to treat. The decentralization and fragmentation of information is the core of what makes the internet great, and this democratization helps to decouple power away from the established institutions that may or may not have our interests at heart.



Source: Visual Capitalist


How do we regulate news for its authority and legitimacy without stifling alternate viewpoints, differing narratives, and independent sources of information?


ROOT CAUSES


In today’s landscape, people are turning away from traditional media and gravitating towards digital content. In this new digital media paradigm, who is considered a trustworthy and convenient source of information?


As long as they could remain reputable, the mainstream outlets that garnered eyeballs throughout broadcasting history should have been the obvious benefactors of this transition. Groups like CNN and Fox News, or The New York Times and The Washington Post, could have remained unquestioned authorities on the issues.


However, Desjardins continues, it seems like this opportunity has been recently squandered to some extent. These outlets have been slow to adopt their business strategies to the digital landscape, and they remain in damage control mode as advertising revenues drop and profitability wanes. Publishers have been under immense pressure to generate views, and have taken shortcuts in content creation to do this. Hyperpartisan viewpoints that confirm existing biases (aka, the Huffington Post or Breitbart models) and sensational clickbait headlines have been one easy way to build traffic. Some publishers also have an itchy trigger finger, and it seems that getting a story out first has become more important than verifying its validity.


These above factors have, ironically, led to mass media as being a direct part of the “fake news” problem. The retracted stories on Russian propaganda by the Washington Post have been a lightning rod for scrutiny, and entire posts are dedicated to keeping misleading stories from established media at bay. Having a track record with zero blemishes is obviously a difficult target to hit, but the reality is that we are seeing misleading news from everywhere now: “fake news” outlets, mainstream outlets, and the White House itself.


FALLING TRUST IN MEDIA AND INSTITUTIONS


Even before “fake news” hit the mainstream, a poll by Gallup showed that Americans’ trust in mass media was hitting an all-time low. In September 2016, only 32% of people said they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media, which is a decline of -8% from the previous year.


A report from Edelman from January 2017 is even more damning. Trust of the media declined -5% from 2016, which is faster than trust is declining in government (-1%), business (-1%), and NGOs (-2%).


As we mentioned earlier, the rise of fake news is complex and very difficult to untangle. However, the fact is that established news outlets aren’t doing themselves any favors. If people feel like they can’t trust the Washington Post or other such sources, then it should be no surprise that they are turning to the power of “word of mouth” from their peers more often – no matter how fallible this might be.