No they didn’t. They ran a story about another organization which published such a list. Later they added a note pointing out that some organizations had expressed concerns about the list’s methodology. Seems like responsible journalism to me.
5 Likes
And it wasn’t presented as a list of Russian propaganda sites, just fake news sites or users of click-baity headlines. Although this was poorly explained at first.
3 Likes
I’d much rather see an analysis of what his tweets are trying to bury out of the news cycle.
History shows he uses a strategy of bombastic tweets to shift focus away from bigger, more important stories.
5 Likes
In retrospect, this is obvious. But the first step towards engineering a solution is understanding the problem.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Honestly the sites you read that false description of the WaPo article are the ones you should be much, much more critical of. They lied to you, you believed it, and walked away completely misinformed. Might be something worth thinking about. Greenwald’s started enough disinfo campaigns recently that you’d have to be really gullible to trust him.
5 Likes
I don’t even know where to start with your comment. I didn’t say anything about The Intercept or Glen Greenwald. But, yes, he thoroughly debunked the article, yes, it was factual, but several journalists and outlets thoroughly ripped that WaPo article to shreds. I am basing my statements on several of these debunkings, but mainly TruthDig (they were on WaPo’s list), uh, Robert Scheer’s Truthdig (he didn’t win a Pulitzer like Greenwald, but he was nominated and a finalist for his work at NYT). Are all of these journos in on Greenwald’s ‘disinfo campaign’ or is it a solo thing?
Have you even spent 5 minutes researching ProporNot, the anonymous new ‘research’ group that refuses to disclose a single thing about their membership, methodology, sources, etc (and behaves like a Partisan alt-left teenage trolley group, based on their juvenile twitter posts), that the Post article based it’s claims on? You want to tell me they have more credibility than the entire progressive press?
It is baffling to me that you can even defend that WaPo piece. I’m not going to waste another word telling you why it’s trash at best, and straight up intentional propaganda at worst, because it is so obviously so, that the onus is on you to show how in the fuck that piece a) should have been published b) has a shred of credibility.
Uh yeah, they did publish a list. Please be informed before you post. Publishing a piece accusing several well-known and established progressive news sites of being actual Russian propaganda based on one single anonymous, unverified source, who refuses to reveal a single thing about their methodology, membership, or funding seems like responsible journalism to you? (Not a single other journalist previously would touch this group, even Buzzfeed laughed at ProporNot). Sounds legit.
He’s the one who started that disinfo campaign, which is why I’d mentioned him specifically.
You can only believe that if you didn’t read the WaPo raticle he was carefully misframing and misrepresenting.
Others chimed in once he started, though not all were dishonest. There are very serious issues with PropOrNot, and not everyone lied about WaPo listing names, lied about nonexistent “blacklists”, etc.
The section on PropOrNot had issues, but the article wasn’t about PropOrNot per se, they were one of four sources, and they weren’t a central source.
If you looked at the article, you’d discover this isn’t true. That should be a concern - you’ve been lied to.
Well glad to hear it. I’d recommend you might want to read the WaPo article itself carefully and consider the claims made about it, it’s remarkable how much misinformation was levied, and given the topic of the article, the propaganda campaign against it’s rather interesting.
3 Likes
Yet you have yet to give a single example.[quote=“nemomen, post:30, topic:91352”]
the propaganda campaign against it’s rather interesting.
[/quote]
Not really. It was yellow journalism. They got called out.
Your analysis is puzzling. I have read the article, I have researched ProporNot, and I am a longtime reader of Truthdig, so I have seen all sides.
One of the hallmarks of the Red Scare is that the individuals so accused were given little opportunity to “confront the evidence against them”.
The problem with the propornot list is that it’s a list of names and very little else.
I can go to some of those sites and pick out the Putin valentines almost immediately. But other sites? Show me the stories. I can believe that some of the antiwar sites would print Assad propaganda. Belief, however, is not enough.
As Admiral Ozzel would say,
“I want proof, not leads!”
A free society demands skepticism.
1 Like
Criticizing PropOrNot’s totally reasonable, their model’s terrible (their idea of what’s influenced by Russian propaganda seems very loose), and there are serious issue with their lack of transparency. Some of the sites on their list are especially questionable.
Criticizing WaPo for writing an article describing various researchers looking at Russian online propaganda/media manipulation in which they used four different researchers, linked to their research/info to allow verification, and in which one section referred to a bunk source could be done well. Unfortunately there was a response from some left-wing media sources that lied about the article naming names (which they never did), lied about them publishing a “blacklist” (which is simply false), and misrepresented an article covering many various topics to suggest it was only about thing, which aren’t valid criticisms at all, esp. when WaPo added an editor’s note/retraction on their article to explain issues with PropOrNot as a source. So there could be legit. criticisms of the WaPo, but much of the propaganda that came (starting with Greenwald who began the disinfo campaign) wasn’t legitimate at all and many of th responses were explicitly deceitful (claims of naming names, claims of blacklists, misframing the article as being centrally about PropOrNot etc.)
4 Likes
Not impressed. The example they use finds two main errors in Trump’s tweet:
-
Donna Brazile was not yet the acting-chairman of the DNC. At the time, she was merely a very senior-level member of the party.
-
Trump said it was done “illegally.” But the truth is, it was merely against the rules.
This isn’t exactly stop-the-presses kind of stuff, particularly given Twitter’s short-message length. They seem to have missed what Twitter is really about.
Here’s all I could find. If you have a link to an article in the WaPo with the actual list, please share it.
3 Likes
Good God, you’re all managing to be right and wrong at the same time.
The Washington Post did not publish a black list. WaPo did, however, take PropOrNot at their word without examining their claimed creditials despite being a few months old. WaPo fucked up and was slow to respond (probably because they were making sure they didn’t fuck up twice).
Greenwald never said WaPo published a list, instead he danced around saying it as much as possible in order to induldge in hyperbole and pontificate his opinion in his articles that did have journalistic merit (and, yes he is very hypocritical in his style of journalism despite being very able). The Intercept, and many other of the sites offended by PropOrNot, stepped out of bounds in their reports by trying their damnest to turn “fake news” into a meaningless term through false equivalence and blanket accusations.
Both “leftist” sides (oversimplification) in the media chose to fight fire with fire (which oddly generates traffic to their stories) with little consideration for implication and it got personal on all sides which just brought the net quality of reporting on the election down. Passionate journalists are prolific and entertaining, but there is a tipping point to where (for example Greenwald) promotes pay-for-play conspiracies with no evidence.
3 Likes
Sort of. He’s used this same trick a lot of making carefully framed insinuations in an article, but then explicitly lying when he promotes his article before:
2 Likes
That is true, and I know I have mentioned Greenwald going a bit unhinged on twitter to you before. He also has heavily criticized that exact behavior extensively, and knowingly chose weasel words to make the implication WaPo posted a blacklist without saying it. Then again, I think Greenwald gets brought up in these discussions at all because he has hurt his integrity in the past 6-8 months and it’s easy to point to his mistakes in handling the election. The rest of the staff much less so, but he is the big name on the site.
My personal hatred is of sly editorializing in media without acknowledging it, and The Intercept and Wikileaks are certainly very guilty of that along with The Huffington Post and Fox News and more and more and more news period.
2 Likes
Newspapers seem pretty damned relevant to me!
Well, would it be better if they were animated?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
