Mock 'News' Sites With Russian Ties Pop Up in U.S. (rawstory.com) 199
An anonymous reader shared this story from the New York Times:
Into the depleted field of journalism in America, a handful of websites have appeared in recent weeks with names suggesting a focus on news close to home: D.C. Weekly, the New York News Daily, the Chicago Chronicle and a newer sister publication, the Miami Chronicle. In fact, they are not local news organizations at all. They are Russian creations, researchers and government officials say, meant to mimic actual news organizations to push Kremlin propaganda by interspersing it among an at-times odd mix of stories about crime, politics and culture.
While Russia has long sought ways to influence public discourse in the United States, the fake news organizations — at least five, so far — represent a technological leap in its efforts to find new platforms to dupe unsuspecting American readers. The sites, the researchers and officials said, could well be the foundations of an online network primed to surface disinformation ahead of the American presidential election in November...
The Miami Chronicle's website first appeared on Feb. 26. Its tagline falsely claims to have delivered "the Florida News since 1937."
Amid some true reports, the site published a story last week about a "leaked audio recording" of Victoria Nuland, the U.S. under secretary of state for political affairs, discussing a shift in American support for Russia's beleaguered opposition after the death of the Russian dissident Aleksei A. Navalny. The recording is a crude fake, according to administration officials who would speak only anonymously to discuss intelligence matters.
From the Raw Story: The network was discovered by Clemson University's Media Forensics Hub by researchers Patrick Warren and Darren Linvill, who tell the Times that its websites are designed to lend journalistic credibility to slickly produced propaganda. "The page is just there to look realistic enough to fool a casual reader into thinking they're reading a genuine, U.S.-branded article," Linvill told the Times.
While Russia has long sought ways to influence public discourse in the United States, the fake news organizations — at least five, so far — represent a technological leap in its efforts to find new platforms to dupe unsuspecting American readers. The sites, the researchers and officials said, could well be the foundations of an online network primed to surface disinformation ahead of the American presidential election in November...
The Miami Chronicle's website first appeared on Feb. 26. Its tagline falsely claims to have delivered "the Florida News since 1937."
Amid some true reports, the site published a story last week about a "leaked audio recording" of Victoria Nuland, the U.S. under secretary of state for political affairs, discussing a shift in American support for Russia's beleaguered opposition after the death of the Russian dissident Aleksei A. Navalny. The recording is a crude fake, according to administration officials who would speak only anonymously to discuss intelligence matters.
From the Raw Story: The network was discovered by Clemson University's Media Forensics Hub by researchers Patrick Warren and Darren Linvill, who tell the Times that its websites are designed to lend journalistic credibility to slickly produced propaganda. "The page is just there to look realistic enough to fool a casual reader into thinking they're reading a genuine, U.S.-branded article," Linvill told the Times.
I really do not have time to check these out. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I really do not have time to check these out. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Devil Wears Pravda?
But waddabout... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But waddabout... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, I'll bite. The real problem here isn't that Russian propaganda sites are posing as real news sites. The problem is that the quality of real news sites is so low that most people can't tell the difference. Whose fault is this? Who created the perverse incentives that led the news industry to destroy itself. Not Russia, surely. My guess is wall street did it.
Re:But waddabout... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I'll bite. The real problem here isn't that Russian propaganda sites are posing as real news sites. The problem is that the quality of real news sites is so low that most people can't tell the difference. Whose fault is this? Who created the perverse incentives that led the news industry to destroy itself. Not Russia, surely. My guess is wall street did it.
The problem is that the quality of real news sites is so low that most people can't tell the difference. Whose fault is this?
Technology. With the internet and the rise of "anyone can be a journalist" on Youtube and TikTok, actual professional reporting which used to have a valuable market is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. That which remains is often paywalled to try and preserve what little audience they still have with people who appreciate it enough to contribute back.
The world has 5.3 billion internet users. With them all being potential "journalists" it's not surprising quality suffers badly. Everyone gets free "news" now. And it is worth every penny.
Re: But waddabout... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: But waddabout... (Score:5, Informative)
I mostly like what the BBC does, but lately with the Israel-Gaza conflict they have really dropped the ball. Uncritical reporting of what the IDF and Israeli government reports, while everything from the Palestinian Authority has several caveats, and rarely any effort to get to the truth.
It's a shame because when BBC Verify does make the effort, they often do a very good job of dismantling claims from Israel. Their debunking of the first hospital raid and non-existent Hamas command centre that was supposed to be under it was excellent, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how the "I have a better news source than anyone else, but won't name it." got a +5 insightful. It really is a demonstation of the downfall of not only news, but the entire Slashdot moderation system.
I'm struggling to understand the difference between your post and the whole "doing your own vaccine research on your phone while on the shitter" comments. In both cases you expect us to entirely take your word on something without providing any ability for us to challenge you. Shame on Slashdot mod
Re: (Score:3)
Re: But waddabout... (Score:5)
I agree with OP that we're better people. And fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
The world has 5.3 billion internet users. With them all being potential "journalists" it's not surprising quality suffers badly. Everyone gets free "news" now. And it is worth every penny.
That was a very low effort post to try and explain why people don't trust the news outlets. Nothing I do affects the quality of BBC News or CNN news... and yet here you are, saying that because I own my own news outlet, the quality of CNN is reduced.
The real problem is that the news is not allowed to be The News. It is all about Social Manipulation and has nothing to do with actual News.
Could you imagine a news caster that was actually honest? If not, look at a few of the incidents where the mask has slippe
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the problem is that most Americans don't read/watch the news, they get snippets from social media instead. Or they read something their browser's home page (set it to be blank peeples). Now combine this with an attitude that everything online is true, a society that will start fist fights over the blue/gold dress, and a rah-rah sports team like attitude towards politics, and it means that influencing American political staces will actually work. Conspiracy theories abound; flat earth posts pop up
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
troll != disagree
Perhaps /. should add a moderation category of "Disagree" so that things are actually marked correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
No. There's no problem with the quality of real news. There's a problem with the people who think low quality news is real. To be fair that isn't entirely their fault. There's an orchestrated campaign to convince people that real news isn't real and direct people to low quality alternatives.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair, Rupert did employ Russian interviewer Tucker Karlmarxon for a number of years.
Good timing (Score:2)
You posted this literally one minute before someone did just that.
Putin needs trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody will benefit more than Putin if Trump wins. Aid to Ukraine will stop, he'll try to get out of NATO, he'll alienate the US from its allies and generally be corrupt, incompetent and polarizing.
Russia is going to throw a lot at this election, fake news sites are only a drop in the bucket.
Re:Putin needs trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Putin got a bargain. Buy off one Republican, get the entire party for free!
Re:Putin needs trump (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Putin had to buy him. I think he genuinely looks up to Putin. He was certainly eager to do Russia favors without as far as we know getting a quid pro quo in return.
That said, the Trump organization has longstanding ties to Russian oligarchs. That in itself is not corrupt on the Trump Org's side. The oligarchs have lots of money they want safely stashed in New York real estate. That money is surely looted from the Russian people, but arguably that's not Trump's problem.
Re:Putin needs trump (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly. But all that Russian money needing laundered didn't hurt. How do you think he was able to buy [wired.com] his failing [newyorker.com] golf courses in Scotland [vanityfair.com] with cash?
Unfortunately, and possibly the only time, the Scots lacked backbone [bbc.com] to investigate.
Re:Putin needs trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Please see this quick introduction video from an expert:
https://twitter.com/ruthbenghi... [twitter.com]
Re:Putin needs trump (Score:5, Interesting)
He genuinely looks up to any authoritarian
This. There's a reason Victor Orban was at Mar a Lago last week.
Re:Putin needs trump (Score:4, Informative)
Well, what do you expect. Trump is a academic failure and unsophisticated to a degree that is staggering. Without his rather large inheritance ("self-made-millionaire", my ass) he would never have amounted to anything. And he likely would be in prison as a sex-offender as well. And deep down, he knows all that. Hence he tries to compensate by styling himself as the messiah. And a massive number of dumb fucks falls for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Putin is something like 5'4". Almost no one looks up to him, unless one of his goons has beaten them to the ground first.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. Trump just loves "strong men." He loves the idea of Putin and Putin's Russia, imagining himself in that position of a similarly transformed America. I wonder if Fred Trump had pro-Nazi leanings?
Re: (Score:2)
Given how careless and, let's just say it, outright naive and negligent Trump is, while at the same time being not exactly the most decent person, and given Putin's KGB background, I'd have to assume it's less admiration and more that Putin got some dirt on him that he could easily spill and cause Trump to fall very, very deeply.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd have to assume it's less admiration and more that Putin got some dirt on him that he could easily spill and cause Trump to fall very, very deeply.
To quote the man himself: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters"
I question whether there's anything Putin could leak that would impact Trump's standing amongst the True Believers.
Re: (Score:2)
He would still be arrested and charged for murder.
Not to mention that just because they'd let him get away with murder doesn't mean that his dupes wouldn't want to turn away from him if they found out that he's not "one of us" but rather the same kind of rich asshole who dumps all over them they tried to "stick it to" by voting for him.
Remember that a lot of his voters are the conservative type that go "USA! USA!" at every possible occasion. If they found out that he pretty much craps on the USA and would g
Re: (Score:2)
If they found out that he pretty much craps on the USA and would gladly sell the country down the river if there's a dime in it for him, I ain't so sure that they'd easily forgive that. Murder, ok, who gives a fuck about that, but the country?
But that'd mean they'd have to believe their god king is flawed and that's just not possible in their worldview.
Re: (Score:2)
For the longest time we thought that this was true for Jesus, too, but just see how he fell from grace now that he's considered "too woke".
Re: (Score:2)
He would still be arrested and charged for murder.
Not to mention that just because they'd let him get away with murder doesn't mean that his dupes wouldn't want to turn away from him if they found out that he's not "one of us" but rather the same kind of rich asshole who dumps all over them they tried to "stick it to" by voting for him.
Remember that a lot of his voters are the conservative type that go "USA! USA!" at every possible occasion. If they found out that he pretty much craps on the USA and would gladly sell the country down the river if there's a dime in it for him, I ain't so sure that they'd easily forgive that. Murder, ok, who gives a fuck about that, but the country?
Fake news, obviously. /s
Re: Putin needs trump (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think Putin had to buy him. I think he genuinely looks up to Putin. He was certainly eager to do Russia favors without as far as we know getting a quid pro quo in return.
Like Trump's kids said, they do all their banking with Russia... since after it came out that Trump had defrauded Deutsche Bank they didn't want to do business with him any more. The only reason they were still "loaning" him money was that they were afraid their incompetence and stupidity would become publicly known, and once it was, they had no reason to keep doing it.
So is there a literal quid pro quo? Unknowable. But it wouldn't be smart to bite the only hand that still pays him.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump genuinely looks up to many dictators. He sees them as "strong" and he says so. He admires how they cut through red tape and bypass democracy, and it makes him jealous. He was buddy-buddy with Kim Jong Un them they pissed each other off when a deal was rejected (Trump's "art" of making a deal is to present his first draft then have a tantrum if the other side wants to negotiate). He was pal-ing with Xi until his deal was rejected. Trump loves the bloody Putin. Trump loves the bloody Duterte. Trump
Re:Putin needs trump (Score:4, Insightful)
We may never find out what Putin has on Trump. However, I think it is safe to assume that Trump wants what Putin has. Lifetime presidency and the power that goes with it. Anybody who objects goes straight to prison. What is not to like?
And looking at the Republican party of today, I think these people are eager to give it to him. Many in the Republican party have been trained to admire Russia. And that training continues with the likes of Tucker Carlson signing praises of Kremlin leadership, their grocery stores, their whiteness...
If Reagan were to show up today, the Republican party would immediately reject him as a libtard. And Trump would come up with some choice nicknames for him.
Re:Putin needs trump (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think he actually has anything on Trump , as tantalizing but likely untrue the notorious "piss tape" was. Rather, theres a long standing set of ties and patronage with the Russian oligarch scene and Trumps empire. Those guys came to him for access to NYC property, and in return they gave him access to Russian property. Mutual patronage really. Its in his *business* interest to see the Russian relationship be stable.
And unfortunately that also involves a lot of envelopes being passed under desks. I scratch my back, you scratch mine.
And yeah the republican party in 2024 looks nothing like Reagans party of small govt and govts keeping their noses out of peoples business. Though I'd argue Reagans party went away the day George Bush Jr ignore the party brass warnings to keep the Cheyney/Wolfowitz neocon-crazies faction the hell away from defence.
Orbán: Trump 'will not give a penny to Ukrain (Score:3)
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán revealed details about his Mar-a-Lago meeting with Donald Trump, saying that if the former president is re-elected he would not provide Ukraine with financial assistance for its war with Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to buy off someone with so much debt, so many legal bills and judgements, and at a time when there's donor fatigue after eight years of "I'm so rich, please send me more campaign donations!"
Re: (Score:2)
Aid to Ukraine will stop, he'll try to get out of NATO, he'll alienate the US from its allies ...
Mitch McConnell, a Republican-party right-wing hard-liner, wouldn't save his own mother for free but there is one thing he does (or did, now that he is leaving): Maintain the USA's international presence. It doesn't matter who wins the election, that will stop once McConnell leaves. Plus, another McConnell back-stop, avoiding debt-default and medium-term government shutdown, will change to the Republican party forcing default and shutdown.
Several years of the Republican party promising to end the Affor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is unpredictable. Very few people expected his foreign policy during his 2016-2020 term to turn out the way it did. Much of it was guided by hands other than his. You don't really know what you're going to get with him.
Remember that while people claim Trump is some Russian asset, it was his administration that maintained an embargo on Nordstream 2. He directly warned NATO that continuing to buy natgas from the Russians would have dire consequences:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/w... [pbs.org]
Of course he was
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing going for Trump when it comes to Putin is that he is much like Putin when it comes to keeping contracts and his word: Any signature and word of either of them is worth fuck all.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And the usual morons will eat it up.
Re: (Score:2)
All they need is a scandal concerning Hunter Biden near election time to bring every Trumper out of the woodwork and slant enough popular opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Not difficult given they just made up the last one and then refused to admit it. I'm honestly surprised someone finally ended up in court over that.
Re:Putin needs trump (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that was amazingly good grammar and spelling for a MAGA spouting conspiracy theories and outright lies.
Re: (Score:2)
"As far as polarizing, well that's because liberals like you are insane"
That's my opinion, neither conspiracy theory nor lie. Many liberals are insane, IMHO
I'm clearly the sane person, its everyone else who is crazy!
Re: (Score:3)
Many liberals are insane, IMHO
Many fringe political loons are insane. Independent on what deep end they're about to go off. You can have liberal nutters, conservative nutters, libertarian nutters, communist nutters... there really is no shortage of people who take a political position to an extreme that is simply and plainly untenable.
A wee bit of moderation would probably do wonders to US politics. But for some weird reason, that's not possible. And that's interesting on more than one level.
For the longest time, the fear of political s
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not going to get into a pissing match online, but you might actually want to read that MSNBC article more carefully. There are a lot of weasel words used "could have, might have, possibly" and so forth.
It's all speculation that if we had left Ukraine to their own devices, none of this would have occurred.
Might I remind you of a little treaty Russian broke about nuclear weapons and Ukraine?
No matter how you slice it, the US isn't the bad guy you want them to be.
Re:Putin needs trump (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so stupid. The war in Ukraine didn't have to happen at all.
Agreed. Russia could have stayed on their side of established international border. If they were concerned about "ethnic Russians" being oppressed and eradicated, they could have brought some evidence to the international community and it'd be Ukraine under sanctions, not them. Ukraine is not China, so odds are pretty good someone in the world community would have taken it seriously. Y'know, if it was that bad.
The Biden administration wanted it.
Hey look, random words.
There's no way this administration wanted this war. Sure, it makes Trump's allies look like suicidal zealots to anyone who doesn't get a hard-on when they hear "remove term limits". So that's good PR with their own base. But it obligates the US to spend, spend, spend in an economy suffering global record inflation because compassion, which immediately triggers the political right into a frenzy only rivaled by the words "she, hers" because the Never, Ever Be Caught Being Nice To Anyone party can't stand compassionate spending. Graft? Sure. Charity? No way.
Trump was already president, he didn't say anything about leaving NATO. Why would he?
He didn't? You mean other than this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
As for why? Because... well, see previous comments about his party and charity. It doesn't matter that having friendly countries between you and your enemies is in your best interest. It doesn't matter that helping the oppressed is moral. It only matters that some countries (full disclosure: my own included) aren't contributing as much as they agreed to.
All he pushed for was our NATO allies to pay more for their own defense instead of relying on the US to pay for it all.
All he pushed for is you are wrong. That's all. But that's how it goes with his followers and apologists. Lies, misinformation, and ignoring the truth whenever it's inconvenient. As in... pretty much always.
If asking them to pay their bills is "alienating" that's fine.
As far as polarizing, well that's because liberals like you are insane
Uh-huh. Look, very close to every single day Trump was in office he said or did something that had the international community throwing a Picard WTF in the air. The guy was unhinged, and still is. It doesn't matter - for instance - that there's effectively zero evidence of Democrat meddling with the election results and that there's actual evidence of Republicans tampering with voting machines, but... he still doesn't understand math well enough to get that he lost. Since the Biden administration came on board, other than some occasional something, something his kid's laptop something, something, there's almost no scandal. Why? Because not a sociopath. That's why.
Sorry for the rant, but man, this post rubbed me the wrong way and I couldn't let it stand as-was.
Re: (Score:2)
This is so stupid. The war in Ukraine didn't have to happen at all. The Biden administration wanted it.
If only Biden had not forced Ukraine to invade Russia this all could have been avoided.
Re: (Score:2)
Make that 8 years, not half a year. The invasion of Ukraine began in 2014 with the occupation of Crimea.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have "forgotten" about Georgia in 2008 at the tail end of the George W Bush administration. You must have Putin's dick so far up your ass that all that Russian semen has clogged your tiny brain.
Re: (Score:3)
Where exactly does this come from? Seriously. I would love to know, because I just love stupid conspiracy nuttery. Yeah, it's a hobby of mine, I tend to read that shit when I feel stupid and need to see that someone is even stupider.
Biden has nothing to gain from a war in Ukraine. Nothing. The very last thing Biden needs now is trouble in Europe because he already has enough on his hands with Taiwan and the crap going on in the Red Sea. Yes, the US is the hegemonic of today, but even the US can't stretch it
Re: (Score:2)
Where exactly does this come from? Seriously. I would love to know, because I just love stupid conspiracy nuttery. Yeah, it's a hobby of mine, I tend to read that shit when I feel stupid and need to see that someone is even stupider.
You have some really low standards there. On the other hand, these morons will always deliver. People like you and me _cannot_ be that stupid.
We already have this (Score:5, Informative)
It's called Fox "News".
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out that broadcasting lies comes with a price, $787 million to be precise. https://apnews.com/article/fox... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Science reports on Fox?
C'mon, play for your audience!
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell when Fox has recently covered a topic because it's as if all the right-wing NPCs out there have been updated with a new set of dialogue scripts for discussing it, it's uncanny how little variance there is between any two of them. Fox viewers see the whole world outside of Fox as being a bunch of identical talking points because any mainstream or respectable media operates in an objective reality that concerns itself with facts, which Fox viewers see as a restrictive box fenced in by elite-guided
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it heartwarming when a toddler learns a new word and tries to use it?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it heartwarming when a toddler learns a new word and tries to use it?
Yeah. It was really “heartwarming” to watch medical professionals lie their way out of actually helping people during COVID in favor of towing the “horse paste” party line. About as heartwarming as a flatline.
The facts and truth are starting to tell the story now, so we’ll see who the toddlers and the liars are.
Re: (Score:2)
There were medical professionals promoting horse deworming stuff as cure for Covid?
Most important question, did their approbation get nixed?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me how many times each day you find those talking heads using the exact same regurgitated points, with all of them using the exact same keywords.
The amount of Fox viewers who suddenly started using the phrase gain of function was amusing. Same with comorbidities. Too bad they couldn't tell you what those words meant.
Feel free to enlighten us as to how the “experts” recognized those. I’ll get my popcorn and body bags.
Again (Score:2)
Links, please (Score:4, Insightful)
All these sites have been shadow-banned by the usual search engines. I'd love to see one so I know what to watch for.
...laura
Re:Links, please (Score:5, Interesting)
Use Yandex search engine. It has lots of stuff that the 'western' engines block.
I searched the sites in TFA above, and it found and listed them.
Baidu (China) is also good as an alternative and doesn't censor stuff that the 'western' engines block either.
Both are good when trying to get past the "Great Firewall of the West" ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Can confirm, yandex will find stuff that google refuses to tell you, including apolitical stuff like "that web serial has been published buy it plebe". Just keep in mind those search engines merely have different masters. For example, top result from baidu for "1989 Tiananmen" is "Tiananmen massacre a myth".
Re: (Score:2)
So, essentially, if you want to know whether a site you visit is a Russian shill, compare Yandex results to Google results.
Thanks, that's useful information.
Sorry (Score:3)
I thought journalism was a worthless major? What difference does it make which news sites are where?
STEM is all that matters.
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
STEM is not about integrity beyond structural one.
LLMs (Score:5, Interesting)
LLMs will make this sort of thing much, much easier. Use something like Google Translate to translate from Russian to English. Then run that output through ChatGPT asking it to format it like a well written major news outlet story, and there you go. That will clean up all the typical translation and grammatical errors that make it easy to spot these kinds of fake sites.
Russian intelligence (Score:3)
Thankfully, not all Russians are deceivers, my beautiful and totally Russian girlfriend is a very sweet and trustworthy soul that is far removed from all this.
She's extremely beautiful, and for some reason is interested in me, even though she's way out of my league. I was so lucky to have met her online, can't wait to meet her in person someday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was even her who suggested using scp for the transfer, precisely to protect ourselves. Smart and beautiful!
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, until here it sounded legit, but a girl who knows what scp is?
Easy way to find those sites (Score:3)
The network was discovered by Clemson University's Media Forensics Hub by researchers Patrick Warren and Darren Linvill, who tell the Times that its websites are designed to lend journalistic credibility to slickly produced propaganda. "The page is just there to look realistic enough to fool a casual reader into thinking they're reading a genuine, U.S.-branded article," Linvill told the Times.
Here is an easy way to find those sites; run legit sites with web contact forms and you'll automatically get links to those sites straight from Russia. I had already "discovered" those sites quite a while ago. By the way, I filter out web form spam with keywords + spam assassin. I still have to review what spam assassin flags as spam to find false positive so I use keywords in mod_security to reject the obvious submissions and have less spam to review.
All news is propaganda (Score:2, Insightful)
All news sites in the US are propaganda or sensationalism . . . . or both.
They are the unofficial fourth branch of government, the one that shapes / manipulates public opinion.
They're so blatant about it these days ( they're all government mouthpieces, leaning Team Red or Team Blue depending on site ), it's comical.
The days of what used to be known as " The News " actually reporting non-biased, factual ( read that, useful ) information are long gone.
You literally could not pay me to watch any of it in this
Re:Intelligence community (Score:5, Informative)
> This is likely just more of the same "Russia hacked the election" bullshit
The GOP-majority congressional report confirmed Russia had their fingers in our pie.
Re: Intelligence community (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but manipulating votes and doing clandestine operations to oust leaders is OUR things! They copied us!
Isn't there a provision in the DMCA that outlaws that?
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when the GOP used to take their July 4th vacations in the USA. Now they spend July 4th in Moscow. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-m... [msnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They're trying to export democracy.
They noticed that they are not gonna need a lot of it anymore pretty soon, so they're trying to find a place to dump our outdated government model. You know, just like we dump our old weapons on Ukraine, maybe Russia would like the government we no longer need.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the news outlet that popped up last week and claims to have been operating since 1937 is surely the pinnacle or journalistic integrity. Leaded gasoline definitely explains all the boomers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What are you afraid of? (Score:5, Insightful)
CNN tells you whatever they think keeps you watching. Russian news tells you whatever Putin finds useful to convince you of.
If I had to pick between the two as my primary source of information, it'd be CNN. It at least starts as news.
Good catch on incentives (Score:2)
As a follow-up, I prefer sources that I pay for. They still have an incentive to keep me, but less so to do it second by second with hits of adrenaline. Look long enough and it's possible to find scrupulous truth tellers in many political positions.
Sigh. Craigslist is good, but when newspapers could pay reporters from advertising, that stabilized things.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had to pick between the two as my primary source of information, it'd be CNN. It at least starts as news.
The proper choice is not to play. Neither side has your continued health in mind. You exist merely to be a pawn in someone else's machinations. If you think otherwise, try to really own a piece of land. Someone will take it from you eventually. The laws do not protect the citizens, they protect the predators.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia's agenda is literally to weaken and destroy the US and its allies by all means. No national media in the US can be worse than that agenda.
Assuming CNN has a political agenda, this is part of the game. The press does not have to be apolitical. CNN is composed of people of your country and they legitimately try to influence viewers in directions they like, by hosting candidates and political voices of their choice. Russia does this as well legitimately, by running "Russia Today" (their well known news
Re: (Score:2)
True, true...
It's like watching Captain Planet and then comparing it with reality. In Captain Planet, Teh Evil destroys the planet because he wants to, in reality, that's just a side effect of their actual plan.
The difference is maybe that Captain Planet was a (very crappy) kids' show, while Russia is unfortunately real. Just as much of a shit show, but more like some sort of reality show.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN fits nicely into that category, having an obvious lack of appetite for speaking truth to power.
Re:Anonymous Intelligence Officials (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Anonymous Intelligence Officials (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump only talks about things he understands.
Sorry, but that cannot be true. He's running his mouth constantly and it's very obvious that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Seriously, that goofball understands so little it's hard to even figure out just how little. Which arguably makes him very likably for a large amount of conservative voters. One of us, one of us...
Re: (Score:2)
What's great about those statements is that you can negate them and it just works for a different set of people.
It's kinda comforting to know that people are so easily manipulated. But then again, I'm in that business, so maybe it's just strictly business.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason I read articles from around the world across the political spectrum for a few hours a day, (other than being retired) :-). They all lie. A lot. Usually by leaving things out that destroy their narrative. Second is twisting things. And least common is flat out fucking lying but that's becoming more common in recent years.
Slashdot is basically an ultra lefty mindless bubble for the most part, most of the libertarian techies who made up the bulk of the early users have left. So I find it
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to care about things I can either influence or that influence me. So please accept my apologies when I say, I don't really care enough about that laptop to bother finding out what it's really about. Twice so because the only thing I actually DO know about it is that there's a lot of "he said, she said" and very little substance, if any at all. Come again when there's any substance to it and I'll find out if I care.
I prefer to go by reality instead of hints and allegations. I know, that's very unfashi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you know there's no reality, if as you say, you didn't look into the laptop in a serious way?
How would you find out there was anything there? From what source? The same sources that told us for 2+ years it wasn't his laptop and was pure Russian disinformation? The people busted for flat out lying about it when they -knew- it was true years before?
You go by reality and not rumors or hints but you said yourself you didn't look into it.
We can talk about multiple problems at once. If you had a kid in
Re: (Score:2)
Then you have to stay away from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok and all the other antisocial media sources, too.
Is it really worth that?
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of hardcore NYT subscriber mods here. Lol
Jesus... even decades ago, super lefty Noam Chomsky did an entire movie tearing them apart for their lies and deception.