Meet the KGB Spies Who Invented Fake News

Intent matters.

Places can be removed from Google Maps on request. Not so with the Soviet maps.

 

I guess we don't do the same thing. That is what governments do, ours included.

 

It's only because you don't know what the Americans have done... the destruction they've caused since 1953. Why do you think the Hondurans are knocking on America's door, how many leaders in south America have been overthrown or assassinated... do you think South America and the Middle East ended up the mess that it is, all on it's own. They've brainwashed you with their news and you don't even know it.... as long as you fear "the Soviets" then "Muslims" now again the Soviets they will save you and make lots of money by draining your resources.... America First... you're very far down on their priority list, forget that at your own peril.

 

The Perfidious Albion, France, and Germany, made a hell of a lot of a mess in the Middle East, far bigger than the US ever could, but nobody cares. Not to mention the Soviet Bear...

But the US...yeah, right.

A new religion is being born as we speak (well, type). A religion whose American gods - responsible for every unsavory deed on the face of the Earth - with or without their allies in the Middle East - are the incarnation of unspeakable evil, facing the pure but helpless non-American humanity and their wingless guardian angels on the Political Forum.

If only reality was that simple...

 

We know that newspapers are now in steep decline and in mainstream media the line between fact and opinion is becoming increasingly blurred. The internet is taking over; more than 40% of Americans get their news from facebook which is largely unmediated or unchecked....some would say unreliable...certainly journalists have lost their monopoly on news thus public discourse belongs to everyone not any establishment...so is this a liberation or just a cacophoney of unchecked assertion and subjective abuse? What about the old ideals of objectivity and truth? Is it just a bit ironical that the campaign against “fake news” is being led by Mr. Donald Trump whose own grip on the truth has proved to be less than a stranglehold!

There are deeply worrying issues here not, or not just whether an American President is being traduced by the media, for if people don’t have access to reasonably accurate, fair and comprehensive information about the world in which we live then how can any society…or more accurately I guess.... any democracy function? On the other hand are we seeing a liberation of views…has the internet liberalised our view on journalism and news?

Do you think that the traditional, wholesome style of news reporting…for example the “today in parliament the Prime Minister said…” do you think there is still a role for that style or are we becoming, indeed demanding, a more dramatic or theatrical style of news? To me politics and the reporting of politics is by necessity more commercial which demands a sense of the theatrical; which I think mirrors the type of politicians we now see. Do you think we have a moral right to fair, reasonable and accurate news reporting?

You mentioned the internet and how its’ become the vector of choice for “fake news”. The problem with the internet is that it’s created an information environment which thrives on impact, emotion and popularity and is structurally biased against truth and unless you want to alter the dynamics of that environment one is fighting a losing battle. For me it is this whole structural imbalance that is the issue not just the purveyors of “fake news”. For me the business model of politicians and the fair, accurate and responsible reporting of politics is broken and those that sell "fake news" are just inhabiting a space created for them by the very people that are tilting against it.

 

Would the antidote to this problem perhaps be some kind of decommercialization of news?

 

Depends upon your idea of "decommercialization"? If your idea is the pure transactional sale of "news" then I doubt it; there are trans-national companies whose sole existence is the development, production and sale of algorithms designed to commoditise website interactions e.g. clicks, likes and retweets so whether it be accurate reporting or pure dross the mere act of following the link earns money. The "fake news" purveyors, be they spotty teenagers in Macedonia or sophisticated agencies of governments earn vast amounts of money from their activities - the owners of this site are the same, they earn money from it. Is it possible to de-couple the internet from the dynamic of financial gain? Personally I doubt it.

 

Fake news was invented long before 1984 - The CIA were already experts by that time.

 

I mean eliminating the profit incentive that has news outlets, real or fake, churning out click bait. It would at least help set real news apart from the fake stuff, as the fake stuff would look all the more sensationalistic in comparison to honest reporting.

 

You seem to imply that CNN is...what responsible for "fake news" an agent for "fake news" or what is your thought? Is everything they produce "fake news" or just certain aspects of it in your opinion? Not being American I have seen the international editions and like all mainstream news media I suppose they have their editorial issues but I would not say they go out of their way to deliberately and continually deceive their audience with fabricated and intentionally contrived information designed to harm or subvert an issue or event. I understand that the US President has a problem dealing with CNN but who is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes "fact" within the realm of politics and why? Do you think that an audience has a moral right to be given the "truth" and who decides what that truth is? We've seen the rise of "factcheckers" on Facebook and other social media sites in order to placate the view of them being purveyors of "fake news" but again who gives them the right to be the arbiters of "truth" ....do we have fact checkers checking the fact checkers?

 

But who decides what real news is and why? The clickbait items may well be consumed by some for there mere entertainment value, some will see their denial of that entertainment as a form of censorship. But ultimately who decides? Don't get me wrong I have no answer I just found your post thought provoking. As I said in my earlier post do we have a moral right to truth? And if so how do we go about determining what that is and who is the arbiter of truth.

The internet has provided a forum for every possible viewpoint from every type of person. That environment has no limits so the only limiting factor is a personal bias as to what you choose to read and what you choose to discard. The sheer volume of readable possibilities and the limitation of time is where the glancing eyeball and the clicking finger is open to abuse or entertainment - who decides which is which?

 

Indeed and yellow journalism - look at Joseph Pulitzer of the prize fame for example

 

Until you lived through what I and others my age lived through during WW2, you only seen marshmallow cream and nothing serious. Seriously, if you think this is propaganda, look back at the WW2 films on the news of that era.

 

Well, I'm not all that familiar with how journalism works, i.e. how standards of truthfulness and accuracy are ensured, but I know what unbiased, fact-focused news reporting looks like. Do we have a right to that? We have a right to have it available, at least, for liberty's sake. Disinformation cannot be allowed to drown out information, because that does become a hazard to society and a national security risk at some point.

 

The Democrats perception of themselves is that a few ads taken out on Facebook totally destroyed them.

 

This (disinformation) is a very different beast from simple propaganda. In fact, the distinction is explained in one of these episodes. Propaganda makes a direct, overt effort to get people to believe something, whereas disinformation attempts this in a subversive way. I suppose it might be thought of as subliminal propaganda. It is also far more dangerous than propaganda precisely because of its viral and difficult to detect nature. Disinformation - fake news - alters your perception of reality by altering the apparent facts you see around you. You can't be sure of what is real and what is not.

 

CNN was exposed by the DNC and Podesta hacked emails that were published by Wikileaks being in collusion with the DNC.

CNN has been politicized and are no longer in the news business but are political operatives.

The same can be said about the N.Y. Times, especially MSNBC and some what with most of the MSM in America.

Today's journalist are no longer journalist but political operatives.

I remember when CNN was in the news business.

FYI:
When CNN was politicized by the DNC the purge began.
The last original member of Ted Turner's CNN to be purged from CNN was Lou Dobbs.
Lou Dobbs was working for CNN from day one in 1980.

 

Your MSM is full of misinformation. Take things like they allege the CIA reports..... Yes study that part. Sources they allege ... they do not quote the CIA. Even this last dust up, a report from behind the curtain so anything gets said as claimed by the CIA. If the Arab royal family used saws on the dead man, name the CIA officials. Let's all hear them say the things claimed. That to me is misinformation. What is the purpose? To make Trump look bad. To make the Royals look bad? Hell no, it is to make Trump look bad. Same thing they do to Trump over Putin.

 

Correct. It did start out fine.

 

The MSM doesn't need any help to make a walking disaster like Dirty Donnie bad. He does it every time he opens his mouth and lies about something. How can you tell when Dirty Donnie is lying ? Easy, his lips are moving.

 

Another issue with fake news is that it easily sets off the less mentally or emotionally stable members of society. People have a natural tendency toward conspiracy theories and some are more prone to this than others. Fake news triggers those tendencies by its very nature, as it creates an alternative narrative that by its nature implies a conspiracy on the part of those who don't subscribe to that narrative (such as government officials). Of course, fake news often enough attacks governments outright as well, as happened in the case of AIDS bioweapon lies.

 

I see this daily in the trashing of Donald Trump. Yes, I indeed do see it happening. The moment Trump was sworn in, it was like a flood of trash poured down a major river and the trashers of Trump became known for the TDS.

 

Or the Tonkin incident but, it goes much further back than this.

 

Then why does the MSM keep making it about Russia Russia Russia ?

Is America so low information and their brain housing group can't comprehend what's really going on they depend on MSM political operatives to tell them what they should believe ?

Journalist should only report the "5 W's"... Who, What, When, Why and Where and not opining.

All of the opinions should be kept in the editorial, commentary section of a newspaper or on Sunday mornings talking heads news programs.

That's the way it use to be when there were real journalist in the business not political operatives.

 

You don't attempt to think. You just try to twist everything into your preferred narrative.