Fake News Overlords in the EU

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The EU takes what they lable as fake news and propaganda very serious, so they say. In order to secure that the news is not fake, the European Union, some individual states, and some companies and NGO's, take actions, as such there are special offices that analyze the news and decide what should go on the list of fake news websites, who should be labled as a pro-kremlin troll, a pro-russian troll, a disinfor artist etc. Could we call these institutions Fake News Overlords? Certainly, there are such Fake News Overlords outside the EU, but for now I was thinking mainly to focus on the EU, or countries very close to the EU sphere of power, even though connections may lead us elsewhere. We will see :)

My hope is that we can collect and share knowledge about the work of the Fake News Overlords, their possible agenda, and overall learn something useful. It may be of particular importance now. The following was published by Danish Radio (Danmarks Radio) a state owned broadcaster of radio, tv and web news:

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/eu-tager-kampen-op-mod-rusland-vil-udrydde-falske-nyheder said:
The EU is taking the fight against Russia: Will eradicate false news
Russian interference may come to create further instability in Europe - and this is precisely the aim, says DR's EUROPEAN correspondent.
[picture]
During the us elections false news and misinformation were spread through social media - now the EU is trying to avoid the same thing happening during the upcoming European elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany. (Photo: Rick Wilking © Scanpix)
[...]
- So they have an interest in that, for example, Marine le Pen gets elected in France, because she has promised a referendum on EU membership within the first six months of her possible presidency. It would create great havoc in the EU cooperation.
[...]
Both in Germany and the Czech republic have introduced working groups to combat the false news.
In France, launches the French newspaper Le Monde 1. February a database that will make it easier for their readers to track whether a news item is false. The database contains 600 websites, which are known to spread the false news.
[...]
Also Facebook have after the US elections, set up an expert group, which will have the task to check the news that is being reported as being fake, just like the british media, the BBC has set up an editorial group to intercept and identify the false news.

Without going into a discussion of the above claims, this initiative to control news more, did not come out of nowhere. Below are some posts that formed the background, for the creation or boosting the Fake News Overlords

thorbiorn said:
Without making this long, there were two articles in arbejderen.dk Arbejderen.dk]One explains how a Danish FM Martin Lidegaard in the beginning of 2015 moved actively to get the EU to counter "the massive Russian propaganda" including organizing a conference in Copenhagen to achieve this goal, and succeeded. The EU has an office with 11 people called the "East StratCom Task Force", which are to do surveillance of medias in the EU and outside. East StratCom Task Force works with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and so far it has collected 2500 articles with alledgedly "pro Kreml disinformation'".

To give you an example of "pro Kreml disinformation" I found this in their newsletter from September 20, 2016:

http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=cd23226ada1699a77000eb60b&id=6faf648066 said:
Conspiracy theories on US terror

This week, Russian TV shows were active in reviving an old conspiracy theory. Fifteen years after the devastating 9/11 terrorist attacks, guests as well as hosts of Russian TV shows "Vremya pokazhet" and "Mesto vstrechi" stated that it was in fact the US itself that was behind the attack, with some claiming that Israel and Saudi Arabia were also involved in it (http://bit.ly/2cmst0s, http://bit.ly/2cvQFuZ). On the show "Voskresnyi vecher" it was claimed that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda never took responsibility for the attacks (http://bit.ly/2cmst0s). Of course, Bin Laden officially claimed responsibility in 2004 (http://bit.ly/2cfHs98).

The official 9/11 Commission report can be found here.
The news letter is called "Disinformation Review", another is called Disinformation Digest so there must be some truth in what they are saying ;)

It turns out that Martin Lidegaard is a member of the European Council of Foreign Relations http://www.ecfr.eu/council/members They explain about themselves:
http://www.ecfr.eu/about said:
About the European Council on Foreign Relations

ECFR is an award-winning international think-tank that aims to conduct cutting-edge independent research; provide a safe meeting space for policy-makers, activists and intellectuals to share ideas; offer a media platform to get Europeans talking about their role in the world. It was established in 2007 by a council of fifty founding members, chaired by Martti Ahtisaari, Joschka Fischer, and Mabel van Oranje, with initial funding from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Communitas Foundation, Sigrid Rausing, Unicredit and Fride.

Inspired by the role American think-tanks played in helping the US move from isolationism to global leadership, ECFR’s founders set about creating a pan-European institution that could combine establishment credibility with intellectual insurgency. Today, it has over 50 staff from more than 20 countries, and receives funding from a wide range of charitable foundations, national governments, companies and private individuals.

It is useful to see how this is all connected.
January 14, 2017:
thorbiorn said:
The EU has an organ called European Union External Action https://eeas.europa.eu One of their activites is the East Stratcom Fask Force
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/2116/-questions-and-answers-about-the-east-stratcom-task-force_en said:
Why was the East StratCom Task Force created?
The task force has been set up following the European Council in March 2015, which tasked the High Representative to submit, in cooperation with EU institutions and Member States, an action plan on strategic communication in order to address Russia's ongoing disinformation campaigns
[...]
What is the disinformation/myth-busting network? How can I join?

The network is comprised of more than 400 experts, journalists, officials, NGOs and Think Tanks in over 30 countries reporting disinformation articles to the task force. To join the network, please contact the team mail box of the task force.

What is the Disinformation Review? Does it represent official EU positions?

The Disinformation Review is intended to raise awareness of disinformation. It is a compilation of reports received from members of the myth-busting network. It can provide valuable data for analysts, journalists and officials dealing with this issue. However, since the data mentioned in the Disinformation Review comes from the myth-busting network, it cannot be considered an official EU position.
Actually I already wrote some background on this organisation: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,39733.msg676782.html#msg676782 anyhow the organisation has now made some headlines in DK, since a Danish woman Iben Thranholm has been called out by the new foreign minister as spreader of Russian disinformation. One paper that has carried some of her articles also cover this story,
STEEN A. JØRGENSSEN in http://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE9287669/udenrigsminister-blaastempler-eutaskforce-anklager-dansk-debattoer-for-at-sprede-russisk-propaganda/ said:
[...]

The Danish debater, and theologian Iben Thranholm have come in controversial company, after one of her op-ed has been stamped by the EU task force East Stratcom as pro-Russian misinformation. In the post criticized she, among other things, the EU of betraying christianity by granting asylum to refugees.

The task force's conclusion is shared by the Danish government, informed the minister for foreign affairs Anders Samuelsen (LA) during Wednesday's question time in Parliament.

[...]

Samuelsen replied in the affirmative on Marie Krarups questions:
"If the author is referring to the post from contributor Iben Thranholm, which was published by Russia Insider in October 2015, I agree with the task force's assessment that it constitutes a typical example of the Kremlin's narrative about the West's moral collapse," he said and referred thus to East Stratcoms justification to stamp this post as pro-Russian
[...]
That the one called out is a theologian, and a proclaimed Christian (Catholic), was not what I would expect as a first for DK. What I think this case will result in, is more power to the people that question the EU, their authority and how they administer the money and power which is given to them.

Basically, what the Danish FM is saying is that if we write something that can be interpreted by the policies of the East Stratcom task force, as coinciding with an opinion prevalent in Russian society and its leading figures, then we should be prepared to be labled by the EU task foce, supported by the Danish Government. What will this lead to?

I wonder if there are stories from Norway and Sweden of similar cases?

Edit: If you want to read what the Task Force publishes as examples of disinformation try https://euvsdisinfo.eu Analysis of the content of the newletter could be a subject for many posts, but does not belong in this thread.
thorbiorn said:
Update on the case I mentioned in the previous post, I found a text in Russian and a video on this page:
https://russian.rt.com/world/article/350381-kremlyovskaya-propaganda-datskuyа-zhurnalistkа said:
Danish journalist Eben Trenholm accused of spreading Pro-Kremlin propaganda for a skeptical position regarding the EU's migration policy. In an interview with RT, she said that in Europe there is "a new political tool": the man credited with the relationship with Russia, thus discrediting, and after all his statements can be called the propaganda of the Kremlin.
In the video, there is a dubbed translation (from Danish to Russian) of the question and answer session in the parliament. Can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/embed/eFlAY6421p4
Or in English:

https://youtu.be/W-P7_PU4NuM
thorbiorn said:
thorbiorn said:
[...]

I wonder if there are stories from Norway and Sweden of similar cases?

Edit: If you want to read what the Task Force publishes as examples of disinformation try https://euvsdisinfo.eu Analysis of the content of the newletter could be a subject for many posts, but does not belong in this thread.
Did not expect I would answer the question in the affirmative but in a Norwegian paper Aftonbladet.no I found:
http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/Svenske-medier-beskyldes-for-a-spre-russisk-propaganda--En-grotesk-anklage_-sier-kulturredaktor-612769b.html said:
Swedish media accused of spreading Russian propaganda. - A grotesque accusation, says cultural editor
THEA STORØY Elnan
UPDATED: 14.JAN.2017 5:48 p.m.
ISSUED: 12.JAN.2017 9:00 p.m.

Sharp media debate in Sweden about fake news, Russian influence and freedom of expression.

A new report from the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, published in the Journal of Strategic Studies, has created cultural debate in Sweden.

The report documents how Russia's attempt to influence Sweden in various ways through false news, disinformation, forgeries and military threats have increased since the conflict on the Crimean peninsula in 2014.

Russia's influence has been a much discussed topic in the media in the past, particularly in connection with US presidential elections. Last week they released US intelligence services NSA and CIA, as well as the federal agency FBI report that Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the order to influence the presidential election of Donald Trump's advantage. The methods they used were including hacking and the spread of Hillary Clinton's emails.

Both Aftonbladet and the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter accused in the Swedish report for spreading Russian disinformation.

Among the examples of Russia's entry into the Swedish news as cited in the report, the articles in Aftonbladet culture section. Scientists believe several of the section's publications have a "narrative that is the Kremlin-friendly."

- This is grotesque accusations and clearly an attack on press freedom, says Åsa Linderborg, cultural editor of the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.

A Russia-friendly narrative
The report says that Aftonbladet culture section in 2014 published more than 30 articles about fascism in Ukraine and criticism of the EU and NATO. For example, the fascists were the driving force in Ukrainian politics and that the referendum on Crimea reflected "people's will", which is to belong to Russia.

At least three contributors in aftonbladet's kulturseksjon be accused of being active in social media groups that the Kremlin-friendly. A journalist in the newsroom, a political refugee from Moscow, accused also of being a Russian agent.

-I have no word to express how serious this is [picture of Åsa Linderborg]
Linderborg does not agree with the accusations and think they are scary.

- It is clear we have written much about Ukraine, Putin and NATO. Why would we not do it when it's out of journalistic interest? I miss however hard facts and empirical evidence of what researchers believe to find. The report claims that if, for example, is against a Swedish NATO membership, so it's the same as being Putin-friendly, says Linderborg.

She thinks it's serious that state-funded researchers are attacking journalists to standards that do not fit "in their standard of what is right and wrong Russia-criticism."

- There is a serious attack on press freedom to hang out reporters to be Putin agents without special coating, just because they write things about fascism resurgence in Ukraine. I have no words for how serious this is, and it should be a matter for the whole media-Sweden, not only us, says Linderborg.

Must beware of conspiracies
The report has been discussed in many Swedish media since it was published on 5 January. Director of the Institute of International Affairs, Mats Karlsson, took yesterday distance of the report and underlined in an article published in Aftonbladet that the report was not released by the department, but the researchers' own initiative. This is referred to in the Swedish media that sensational, and the debate continues in Sweden.

Julie Wilhelmsen, senior scientist at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), believes that among journalists is much talk about the existence of Russian disinformation also in Norway, but she has not yet seen evidence that it actually exists in the Norwegian press.

- Russia's driver propaganda and news channels that are extremely unidirectional, we know. The spread of so-called false news into the Norwegian public sphere, however, I have not seen examples, but I read the not everything written, says Wilhelmsen. [picture of Julie Wilhelmsen]

She warns media against speculating too much about this.

- There are many conspiracy theories that are out walking. This I am used to from Russian politics, but I am amazed at how conspiracy similar reasoning gets a foothold in the public debate in our western countries. Russia is capable of much. They engaged in disinformation, which all major states do. However, I have no hard evidence that this is such a widespread phenomenon in Norway as it is often given the impression, says Wilhelmsen.

She points out that we must ask ourselves what is disinformation and not.

- For example, I believe that it should be discussed on sanctions against Russia are an effective policy tool; is the opinion disinformation planted by the Russians or it is my honest opinion? There is an important distinction.

Lacking resources to scrutiny
Åsa Linderborg believes the Swedish debate in the wake of the report shows that the climate of the debate in Sweden has become narrower to navigate.

- Democracy requires that all opinions should be possible. This has become more difficult in Sweden in recent years because everything should follow a standard for what is called "correct" opinions. This debate is the latest example, says Linderborg.

She refers to the media industry's major savings in recent months, fewer journalists and less time for factual check as deterrents to take false news at the roots.

- We throw ourselves over reports and matters indiscriminately, and we publish to be first and to get the most clicks. We do not have the same resources to investigate cases before. They engaged in disinformation is mightier and more than journalists. But we must continue to be critical, says Linderborg.

- Evaluating our best defense
It has not yet succeeded Aftenposten to get in touch with the researchers behind the report. Aftonbladet says one of the researchers, Martin Kragh, that the current information flow higher demands to the authorities, politicians and the media's level of knowledge.

- This is not only a Russian phenomenon, but a phenomenon in the world politics, says Kragh to Aftonbladet, mentioning IS as an example.

In addition, says Kragh to Aftonbladet that the fear of disinformation can help to sharpen our source criticism, and so work to our advantage.
Lets see what comes out of this, will it be more control, self censorship, more political correctness, less debate?
So much for the background. To be continued.
 
Where are somes place to look for the work of the Fake News Overlords? In the first long post there were links here and there. Below I have tried to gather something to start with:

The Twitter of East StratCom Task Force is https://twitter.com/EUvsDisinfo which links to
EU External Action Service https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/2116/-questions-and-answers-about-the-east-
The slogan of EUvsDisinfo is "Pro-kremlin disinformation: fake media stories that support Russia's policies" and "Don't be deceived! Question even more"
Let us see what that brings, if applied to what EUvsDisinfo flags

Their latest news letter which comes out on Thursday is http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=cd23226ada1699a77000eb60b&id=bb0c7a7f53 Here they write
"Thank you for sending your reports.
For new contributions and corrections, please e-mail disinforeview@euvsdisinfo.eu
To sign up for this newsletter, please click here: http://eepurl.com/bN1ub5"

As an example of a list with the sources in their network I downloaded https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/disinformation_review_26.01.2017_eng.pdf You will see the articles that have been flagged as propaganda and why. I attached it so we might have an example to work with.

On this page of the latest Newsletter there is a an option for past issues, but it does not go back too long http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/home/?u=cd23226ada1699a77000eb60b&id=b3e14c337c

On their FB https://www.facebook.com/EUvsDisinfo/ there was
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/24/russia-targetting-european-elections-fake-news-eu-task-force/ said:
Russia is targeting French, Dutch and German elections with fake news, EU task force warns
It seems that the message that was aired on the Danish radio has gone out to other parts of the EU.

One should not confuse East Stractom Task Force with
https://twitter.com/STRATCOMCOE said:
STRATCOMCOE
@STRATCOMCOE
NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence
Riga, Latvia
stratcomcoe.org
Confuse, no, but there is probably cooperation.

As mentioned in the first post, there are national services, from Poland one player appears to be: https://twitter.com/Disinfo_Digest (Notice their logo) which leads to this page https://www.cybsecurity.org/analiza-nowej-doktryny-informacyjnej-rosji/
 

Attachments

  • disinformation_review_26.01.2017_eng.pdf
    99.9 KB · Views: 0
Thanks thorbiorn

It amazes me that even without their US overlord, the EU still remains a good team player for the Empire to keep Russiaphobia alive and well. Even when Trump basically tells them to **** of. It's kind of funny and sad at the same time.

I suppose Russiaphobia is all they got to convince the public why we need them. Bad tactic to go with, it didn't worked out so well during the US elections. So why would it work in the Netherlands, Germany and France during the upcoming elections?
 
bjorn said:
Thanks thorbiorn

It amazes me that even without their US overlord, the EU still remains a good team player for the Empire to keep Russiaphobia alive and well. Even when Trump basically tells them to **** of. It's kind of funny and sad at the same time.

I suppose Russiaphobia is all they got to convince the public why we need them. Bad tactic to go with, it didn't worked out so well during the US elections. So why would it work in the Netherlands, Germany and France during the upcoming elections?

Yes, it demonstrates that when you unplug, or lose, one part, (U.S. govt), the other parts still operate independently. Meaning there is a higher power calling the shots. It will be interesting to see how the power brokers manage after their strongest piece has been taken away. And there are quite a few crucial elections coming up soon as well which could further tip the board. Will get interesting for sure. When you are playing a game, or going to war, you do not want to lose your biggest, most important piece first...

Brexit was just the appetizer.
 
thorbiorn said:
Where are somes place to look for the work of the Fake News Overlords? In the first long post there were links here and there. Below I have tried to gather something to start with:

The Twitter of East StratCom Task Force is https://twitter.com/EUvsDisinfo which links to
EU External Action Service https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/2116/-questions-and-answers-about-the-east-
The slogan of EUvsDisinfo is "Pro-kremlin disinformation: fake media stories that support Russia's policies" and "Don't be deceived! Question even more"
Let us see what that brings, if applied to what EUvsDisinfo flags

Their latest news letter which comes out on Thursday is http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=cd23226ada1699a77000eb60b&id=bb0c7a7f53 Here they write
"Thank you for sending your reports.
For new contributions and corrections, please e-mail disinforeview@euvsdisinfo.eu
To sign up for this newsletter, please click here: http://eepurl.com/bN1ub5"

As an example of a list with the sources in their network I downloaded https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/disinformation_review_26.01.2017_eng.pdf You will see the articles that have been flagged as propaganda and why. I attached it so we might have an example to work with.

On this page of the latest Newsletter there is a an option for past issues, but it does not go back too long http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/home/?u=cd23226ada1699a77000eb60b&id=b3e14c337c

On their FB https://www.facebook.com/EUvsDisinfo/ there was
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/24/russia-targetting-european-elections-fake-news-eu-task-force/ said:
Russia is targeting French, Dutch and German elections with fake news, EU task force warns
It seems that the message that was aired on the Danish radio has gone out to other parts of the EU.

One should not confuse East Stractom Task Force with
https://twitter.com/STRATCOMCOE said:
STRATCOMCOE
@STRATCOMCOE
NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence
Riga, Latvia
stratcomcoe.org
Confuse, no, but there is probably cooperation.

As mentioned in the first post, there are national services, from Poland one player appears to be: https://twitter.com/Disinfo_Digest (Notice their logo) which leads to this page https://www.cybsecurity.org/analiza-nowej-doktryny-informacyjnej-rosji/

It is also clear when one starts to look, that the strategy of the Fake News Censorship organ, is to be able to attack any dissenting voices of EU. There is a lot of discontent within the EU where many are just as fed up with the lies of the establishment as in the US. Now with this strategy anyone who is critical of the EU will be slandered and shamed into silence as being a Putin troll, an agent of Russia or a Russian apologist as Thorbiorn has demonstrated with the example of Denmark. This is the establishment's answer to the threat coming from the EU-critical movements in Europe, whether that be Le Pen in France, or AfD in Germany, the 5th star movement in Italy, or Dansk Folkeparti in Denmark etc.

We might not have talked about it in a European context, but the model used about Russia of the Atlanticist versus the Sovereigntist is just as valid. The Atlanticists are strong in Europe currently as they are sitting on the power positions, but they are threatened by the anger of the people which translates into voting for the sovereigtist parties, those who wish to tone down the power of the EU and strenghten the sovereignty of the nation states. The atlanticist forces are totally behind the US or rather in the pocket of the US up until Trump came to power, and wish for sanctions towards Russia and all kinds of Russophobic actions. It is not so strange that Soros is key here and a main driver in setting up the EU Council of Foreign Relations. He is after all an experienced man in creating regime change or keeping his people in power, while using the guise of wishing for democratic and human rights values.

When one looks at the page that Thorbiorn linked to about East StratCom Task Force one finds this:
_https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/2116/%20Questions%20and%20Answers%20about%20the%20East%20StratCom%20Task%20Force

Why was the East StratCom Task Force created?

The Task Force was set up to address Russia's ongoing disinformation campaigns. In March 2015, the European Council tasked the High Representative in cooperation with EU institutions and Member States to submit an action plan on strategic communication.

European Council conclusions, 19 and 20 March 2015

What are the EU's objectives concerning strategic communications?

The Action Plan on Strategic Communication, presented in June 2015, has three main objectives:

  • Effective communication and promotion of EU policies towards the Eastern Neighbourhood
  • Strengthening the overall media environment in the Eastern Neighbourhood and in EU Member States, including support for media freedom and strengthening independent media
  • Improved EU capacity to forecast, address and respond to disinformation activities by external actors
A key word above is promotion, which leads to thinking that the task force is biased towards EU and will be clamping down on dissenting voices across the EU. Disinformation as described above is anything that does not please the Atlanticists to which the EU elite belongs.
What does the East StratCom Task Force do?

The team is engaged in developing communication products and campaigns focused on explaining EU policies in the Eastern Partnership region:
  • proactive strategic communications campaigns, based on focused analysis that explains key policy areas and creates a positive EU narrative;
  • ad-hoc communication on topical and relevant EU policy issues;
  • analysing disinformation trends, explaining disinformation narratives and myth-busting.
At the same time, the task force supports wider EU efforts aimed at strengthening the media environment in the Eastern Partnership region, in close collaboration with other EU actors.
So East StratCom Task Force is there to push the EU down the throats of the European people, whether they like it or not. If they don't like it, then it is because they are Russian trolls, end of discussion. At least it does not bode well for those who are questioning the EU. The witch hunt has started it seems and the EU could well be getting to Ukrainian conditions, where violence and intimidation is the order of the day for those seriously questioning the elite or who raises positive points about Russia.

Worst of all, it automatically leads to self-censorship, where people start to think twice before uttering something that could be seen as challenging the EU.

A couple of extra bits from their Q & A page:
Does the team engage in counter-propaganda?

No - the team's main task is to proactively promote the European Union's policy towards the Eastern Neighbourhood. When appropriate, it also identifies and seeks to correct disinformation.
An Orwellian way of saying " Yes, we do engage in counter-propaganda."

And:
Do you target anti-EU opinions?

The East StratCom Task Force does not target opinions at all. It is solely concerned with checking facts and information.
If a person is able to read what was said above and connect two dots, then the answer is "YES, we do target anti-EU opinions", because all anti-European opinions can be and will be said to be Russian propaganda with the aim of splitting the EU. This idea that Russia wants to split the EU is of course also a complete fiction. Goebbels would be impressed and so would STASI.

If one looks at the contributors to the weekly bullletin one finds a pre-dominance of contributions from Russophobes in Ukraine, the Baltics and also Poland if I am not mistaken, but that will be for another post as this post otherwise will be too long.

One last thing though. The initial link that Thorbiorn gave had this prefix _http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/ Does anyone know what the bit "us11" indicates? What is the thread or linkage that can be found there? Does it say anything of value as to who was the initial source of this organ "The East StratCom Task Force"?
 
Beware of fake news Frenchies! ;)

Google, Facebook Working Together To Fight Fake News In France

Google, Facebook, and news organizations in France are working together to combat fake news in the country. They'll collaborate through a project called CrossCheck that aims to ascertain the legitimacy of articles, specifically those about the 2017 French presidential election.

First Draft, a non-profit working to verify online media content, and Google News Lab came up with the idea. They consider it a "collaborative journalism project."

The French election is a major target of fake news in the same way as the US' 2016 presidential election. It appears much of the inaccurate and misleading content will be used to boost Marine Le Pen, a far-right candidate who has some potential of taking over.

http://www.nextpowerup.com/news/33677/google-facebook-working-together-to-fight-fake-news-in-france/
 
Aeneas said:
[...]

One last thing though. The initial link that Thorbiorn gave had this prefix _http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/ Does anyone know what the bit "us11" indicates? What is the thread or linkage that can be found there? Does it say anything of value as to who was the initial source of this organ "The East StratCom Task Force"?
I was curious too about "us11". When one signs op for their news letter, fx on https://euvsdisinfo.eu/ then one must agree to one's mail being transferred to MailChimp, which is a company that handles email distribution for companies. My guess is that us11 is a mailserver belonging to MailChimp

Looking into the latest newsletter, nr 56 I looked up the reference list https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/disinformation_review_02.02.2017_eng.pdf where one finds: "There was a coup in Ukraine in 2014." It was flagged by a Ukrainian former journalist Pavel Spirin with a note of rectification in the spread sheet saying:
There were democratic and inclusive Presidential elections held on 25 May 2014 in Ukraine. The OSCE characterised the elections as showing the "clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international
commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms." [...]
They totally forget about the Maidan event where Yanukovich and his elected government were taken down in what was a coup. Apparently this is the level of knowledge in the editorial team.

In the newsletter there is, and also reported by Pavel Spirin:
Another old and unfounded claim was repeated, namely that without Russian control of the country, Ukraine will embrace Nazism and fascism http://bit.ly/2kN9aCZ.
They refute it saying that it is only 1.8% of the people that voted for the Right Sector. And ignore that a law was passed on the initiative of the son of a close Bandera ally, Roman Shukevich that anyone telling the story of the Banderites as Nazi collaborators could face 5 years of prison http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,37292.msg700230.html#msg700230
Will they also ignore statements from the Polish PM:
https://www.rt.com/news/376511-poland-bandera-kaczynski-ukraine/ said:
[...]
In his interview with weekly Do Rzeczy, cited by Polish media, Kaczynski said that he had already shared his thoughts with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

“I plainly told President Poroshenko that they won’t make it to Europe with Bandera. It’s absolutely clear to me. We’ve already shown great patience, but everything has its limits,” he said.

“It’s the case of Ukraine’s specific choice,” the politician said of Kiev’s attempts to whitewash Bandera and other Ukrainian far-right radicals, who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.
[...]
According to Kaczynski, the Ukrainian nationalists “surpassed the Germans in their brutality against the Poles.”
[...]
“For many years there’s a cult of people who committed genocide against the Polish people,” the former Polish PM said.
The former journalist Pavel Spirin, who runs "Trolls R Us" http://trollsrus.org/di-review/, although that site seems to have gone into sleep mode this year, is a page where where standards for acceptable are those of Stop Fake, NATO, the EEAS, the Guardian and the BBC, must be itching to report the Polish PM.
 
In the context of the topic of this thread, there is a development to watch:
https://www.rt.com/news/376733-denmark-terror-fake-news/ said:
Fake news could trigger terrorist attacks by mentally unstable people – Danish security servicePublished time: 8 Feb, 2017 17:25
ake news and rumors may prompt mentally unstable or particularly impressionable individuals to carry out terrorist attacks, a Danish intelligence report says.

“The social media are increasingly being used for making threatening and hostile comments, for example against public figures and to spread rumors and fake news,” said the report released by the Center for Terror Analysis (CTA), run by the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET).

The report states that while the majority of these comments “do not lead to actual attack planning, CTA assesses that such commentary may lead people who are mentally unstable or easily influenced, to commit acts of violence that could constitute acts of terrorism.”

According to Danish media analyst Jan Birkemose, fake news could be “a huge problem.”

“I can definitely imagine how fake news could trigger a feeling that gets an extra twist when you aren’t concerned with the truth. It could definitely influence the mentally unstable and unbalanced,” he told Ritzau news agency.

Fake news is not the only problem, he said, adding that made-up stories “destroy our overall confidence in information, so that even real news risks losing credibility.”

The topic of fake news has featured prominently in headlines in recent months. Following the US elections, some experts speculated that it may have influenced the results.

This notion was, however, undermined by a post-election online survey carried out by professors from New York University and Stanford.

In January this year scientists at Cambridge, Yale and George Mason Universities even said they were seriously considering a “psychological vaccine” against fake news.

According to social psychologist Dr. Sander van der Linden, “Misinformation can be sticky, spreading and replicating like a virus.”

Google and Facebook have recently joined the battle against the spread of false and misleading news.

In January Facebook announced changes to its ‘Trending’ section, which it claimed may help prevent the spread of false news. The company is also taking part in the campaign to fight off fake news concerning the upcoming French presidential election.

Meanwhile, German politicians suggested legislation requiring social media giants like Facebook to remove fake news and illegal posts within 24 hours or face fines up to €500,000 ($522,000).
Is it always possible to veryfy a claim within 24 hours? I would say no. If the measure of fake news will be East StratCom Task Force then consider the referees to be along the lines of EU, NATO, BBC, and The Guardian.

European External Action Service is where information about the East StratCom Task Force is posted: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/2116/-questions-and-answers-about-the-east-stratcom-task-force_en So what is next? Will it be European Internal Action Service with a EU Stratcom Task Force, focused on the EU citizens?

From a perspective of power and wanting to stay real news is not a goal, fake news may serve as a pretext, real terrorists do exist and false flags are not unheard of. Let's see how this will develope.
 
thorbiorn said:
In the context of the topic of this thread, there is a development to watch:
https://www.rt.com/news/376733-denmark-terror-fake-news/ said:
Fake news could trigger terrorist attacks by mentally unstable people – Danish security servicePublished time: 8 Feb, 2017 17:25
ake news and rumors may prompt mentally unstable or particularly impressionable individuals to carry out terrorist attacks, a Danish intelligence report says.

“The social media are increasingly being used for making threatening and hostile comments, for example against public figures and to spread rumors and fake news,” said the report released by the Center for Terror Analysis (CTA), run by the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET).

The report states that while the majority of these comments “do not lead to actual attack planning, CTA assesses that such commentary may lead people who are mentally unstable or easily influenced, to commit acts of violence that could constitute acts of terrorism.”

According to Danish media analyst Jan Birkemose, fake news could be “a huge problem.”

“I can definitely imagine how fake news could trigger a feeling that gets an extra twist when you aren’t concerned with the truth. It could definitely influence the mentally unstable and unbalanced,” he told Ritzau news agency.

Fake news is not the only problem, he said, adding that made-up stories “destroy our overall confidence in information, so that even real news risks losing credibility.”

The topic of fake news has featured prominently in headlines in recent months. Following the US elections, some experts speculated that it may have influenced the results.

This notion was, however, undermined by a post-election online survey carried out by professors from New York University and Stanford.

In January this year scientists at Cambridge, Yale and George Mason Universities even said they were seriously considering a “psychological vaccine” against fake news.

According to social psychologist Dr. Sander van der Linden, “Misinformation can be sticky, spreading and replicating like a virus.”

Google and Facebook have recently joined the battle against the spread of false and misleading news.

In January Facebook announced changes to its ‘Trending’ section, which it claimed may help prevent the spread of false news. The company is also taking part in the campaign to fight off fake news concerning the upcoming French presidential election.

Meanwhile, German politicians suggested legislation requiring social media giants like Facebook to remove fake news and illegal posts within 24 hours or face fines up to €500,000 ($522,000).
Is it always possible to veryfy a claim within 24 hours? I would say no. If the measure of fake news will be East StratCom Task Force then consider the referees to be along the lines of EU, NATO, BBC, and The Guardian.

European External Action Service is where information about the East StratCom Task Force is posted: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/2116/-questions-and-answers-about-the-east-stratcom-task-force_en So what is next? Will it be European Internal Action Service with a EU Stratcom Task Force, focused on the EU citizens?

From a perspective of power and wanting to stay real news is not a goal, fake news may serve as a pretext, real terrorists do exist and false flags are not unheard of. Let's see how this will develope.


There are different aspects of this Fake News scenario for sure. Hand in hand with that, is the protests that stem from it, with well known celebrities making statements about wanting to kill Trump and other extremely inflammatory things. If they want things to go off, either bit by bit, or all at once, I am sure the triggers will be in the words coded into the media. It does seem now, that Fake News can be used for many purposes, and seems to be leading to a scenario long prepared for.
 
Hello H2O said:
There are different aspects of this Fake News scenario for sure. Hand in hand with that, is the protests that stem from it, with well known celebrities making statements about wanting to kill Trump and other extremely inflammatory things. If they want things to go off, either bit by bit, or all at once, I am sure the triggers will be in the words coded into the media. It does seem now, that Fake News can be used for many purposes, and seems to be leading to a scenario long prepared for.

Yes, it basically works as a thought police and as Thorbiorn suggested then with the referees to be along the lines of EU, NATO, BBC, and The Guardian.

It can and is, already being used to stifle questioning of the establishment, the EU, NATO and so on. One does not find BBC, or the Guardian in the weekly bulletin of Fake News. Nor NOAA and NASA for that matter despite the recent revelations of serious manipulations of data connected with global temperatures. So the new though police wil be used to define the boundaries of free speech.
 
On the page of NATO Strategic Communication http://stratcomcoe.org/online_library one can find many papers about Russia and what NATO does and wishes to do to promote its agenda.

There is for example Russian Information Campaign Against the Ukrainian State and Defence Forces
On page 95 of the pdf there was:
http://stratcomcoe.org/download/file/fid/7504 said:
Contrary to our expectatons and similarly to the results of the online news analysis, the content of the Facebook posts was present-centred and references to historical events, especially to WWII, were rare. Less than 5% of the stories contained references to WWII. The same applied to the Soviet period and even the events related to the on-going crisis, such as the Vilnius summit or the annexaton of Crimea. The sources referred to also reflect the present-centred stance of the stories; most ofen they cited either the Russian press or other social media sources. In the case of social media, YouTube videos were frequently cited (very ofen these were videos from other Russian or separatst news channels), Vkontakte also fgured to a lesser extent. It is important to note that many of the videos were no longer available due to copyright issues or accounts being closed. Therefore, we can assume that at least some sort of countermeasures to Russian information warfare are being carried out.
They are surprised that people are present centered, but why? That information from FB is being taken down is seen as a good thing, but we know from experience that also valuable information disappears from FB, but then no evidence no argument.

That the paper is focused on what Russia is doing can be expected. What if they used the same methodology to analyze what the US/EU NATO countries have done to bring Ukraine to the place they are in now?

It bothers me that the pressure among the elite to maintain the sanctions policy against Russia functions like an iron wall, peddled by anti-Russian, or perhaps more an anti-EuroAsian (anti Russia, anti Iran, anti China) stance. The lies promoted to convince the people that sanction are necessary may lead to and a distorted world view on a collective level. At the moment it seems the authorities in the EU are occupied by the unstable loner who goes out to do something crazy, but they themselves have led a foreign policy that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead people and broken lives, but that is apparently hardly an issue.

In another paper by E. Lange-Ionatamišvili, she discusses the problem of "Increasing the resistance of democratic states to hostile foreign propaganda—what is the right recipe?" I found some paragraphs that may be enlightening as to the present level of discussion in NATO about how to handle the information flow in NATO countries and the EU.
From page 55 in http://stratcomcoe.org/e-lange-ionatamisvili-increasing-resistance-democratic-states-hostile-foreign-propaganda-what-right or http://stratcomcoe.org/download/file/fid/7197 said:
Three types of propaganda
One should remember that propaganda can be white, grey, or black. White propaganda clearly identifies its source/author and normally presents true and factual information, albeit one-sided. White propagandists will withhold undesirable informaton, while promoting information that supports their cause. Practitioners of white propaganda normally employ standard public relations techniques and rely heavily on soft power in order to persuade audiences.

Grey propaganda is variously defined. Some authors state that practitioners of grey propaganda do not hide their sources; they simply avoid determining the validity of the information they spread because it serves their interests. Other authors say that for something to be called grey propaganda, the source must be obscured or unattributable, and one can only guess who is behind it by trying to analyse what particular interest is being promoted. A bold example of grey propaganda are the posters which appeared in Crimea prior to the 16 March 2014 referendum, anonymously urging voters to chose between grim ‘Nazi occupaton’ represented by the Kyiv government or a bright future with the Russian Federaton.4

Last but not least, practitioners of black propaganda falsely attribute their sources/authors, and are usually promotng a subversive goal. By creatng bits of informaton that would cause the alleged author embarrassment, black propagandists ofen resort to falsifed document leaks, gossip and rumours, inappropriate humour and offensive visual symbols. For example, the stories spread by the Russian media concerning the cruel treatment and even executions of children by the Ukrainian Army in east Ukraine can be classifed as black propaganda, especially since the eyewitness reports presenting this informaton were later proven to be false. But let’s not forget that this kind of propaganda spreads like wildfre on social networks, precisely because it is made up of human-interest stories.
[4= htp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26552066]
What about the assertions made in the paragraph about black propaganda. There is no reference, as if it was already known og did not need to be documented. Or perhaps she does not care to search, but knows it is true? To me it is pretty black propaganda, given black comes in shades. Being curious, I tried to look it up, and found:
_http://www.stopfake.org/en/the-crucifixion-of-a-3-year-old-the-u-s-helped-kiev-shoot-down-flight-17-and-other-tales-the-kremlin-media-tell/ said:
The crucifixion of a 3-year old, the U.S. helped Kiev shoot down Flight 17, and other tales the Kremlin media tell
This article represents personal opinions of the author. Stopfake editors may not share this opinion.

On July 12 Russia’s main state television channel, Channel One, interviewed a Ukrainian woman with a heart-wrenching story. The woman said she had witnessed the public execution of a 3-year-old boy, who was crucified in the crowded main square of Slovyansk in eastern Ukraine. The town had been a rebel stronghold but was retaken by the Ukrainian army a week earlier—and that’s when the execution took place, the woman said. Viewers of the prime-time news program were told that the Ukrainian “animals”—descendants of the fascist collaborators during World War II—cut the little boy’s flesh and made him suffer for an hour before he died. The woman added that the boy’s mother was then tied to a tank and dragged until she too was dead.
The Russian correspondent shook her head compassionately. “Are you not afraid to tell us this story?” she asked the woman three times, without trying to verify the facts.

Just as well—there weren’t any facts. The story was fake. As fake as the stories reported in Russia about the Ukrainian fascists who staged a coup in Kiev in February and then attacked the Russian-speaking southeastern Ukraine. As fake as some of the supposedly indigenous separatist leaders. The rebels’ self-styled defense chief, Igor Girkin (aka Strelkov, or “shooter”), for instance, is a former or maybe even current Russian security-services officer with a passion for theatrical re-enactments of battles in the post-1917 civil war.

The narrative of the civil war in Ukraine was scripted in Moscow and executed by state television channels that have substituted reality with fiction. The consequence of this fiction is the spilling of real blood and death, including the deaths of the 298 people on board Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

Fortunately Stop Fake have made a disclaimer below the headline which I have put in bold, but going on there are no links that I could find. What kind of text is this, white, grey or black propaganda? Stop Fake is by the way one of the contributers to the efforts of East StraCom Task Force as can be seen on https://gallery.mailchimp.com/cd23226ada1699a77000eb60b/files/6f01d319-21d5-4e25-ad77-d3543a3b7911/Disinformation_Review_09.02.2017_eng.pdf

It is not that all which Stop Fake writes that can be discredited. In this particular case the article was taken from Wall Street Journal, published July 28, 2014 and written by Arkady Ostrovsky. Did I just conclude that WSJ is involved in black propaganda? #FakeNews?

In continuation of the presentation of the dangers of propaganda she writes on page 57-58:
NGO's as ‘agents of influence’
Hostile foreign propaganda is often channelled into a target country through the so-called network of ‘agents of influence’; NGOs can play an actve role in this. An NGO established, lead-by, or mobilised by a foreign government’s agent of influence becomes part of a covert operaton to conceal the identity of, or permit the plausible denial of the real ‘sponsor’.
Is that why Russia recently closed down the activity of some NGO's in Russia? Did the author get this ”original” idea from …?
As during the Cold War, when influence was exerted on target audiences through seemingly apolitcal organisatons and events such as youth conventions, cultural or religious societes, environmental movements and the like, today we can also observe the creation of various NGOs or movements whose goals and actvites seem to have nothing to do with the politics or promotion of interests of a foreign government at frst glance. However ‘innocent’ or ‘noble’ the cause, the organizaton promoting it may well be serving as a tool for disinformation.
Subversive NGOs atack the core values of a society in order to create confusion and distrust, either in the government, between societal groups, or even between countries. Their tactcs include discreditng partcular individuals, politcal forces, or the country at large. Moreover, if such NGOs have partners among legislatve decision-makers (for example, Parliamentarians), they can introduce desired legislatve changes or at least disrupt the politcal process.
If the ‘innocent’ or ‘noble’ cause the NGO stands for contains a human-interest story with highly emotional content, it provides an additonal advantage: the mass media are likely to give it coverage. Unfortunately, those media outlets lacking professionalism and resources will do so uncritically, without verifying facts or analysing statements, let alone the people behind the NGO. Thus they unwitngly become a platform for promoting a hidden party’s interests, e.g. those of a foreign and competing government. [...]

Does this need a comment, or should I ask what the Western sponsored NGO situation in Ukraine was prior to and during the Maidan? Actually looking beyond the present conflict one can begin to look for cases where NGO’s in the West direct the line of thinking to the detriment of the nation states, if there within the accepted style of political correctness are any? Or one can begin to ask if mayor news outlets ever presented FakeNews?
The author presents a case a Russian NGO, which works as a influencing agent, which is both enlightening and paradoxical:
page 65 said:
The case of Georgia
A very recent example of the promotion of Moscow’s interests in Georgia, which has mostly gone undetected, was the 10th World Congress of Families (WCF) that took place in Tbilisi in May. The chairman of the Georgian commitee of the WCF, Levan Vasadze, said at the event on 16 May that the ‘Western Project’ in Georgia has turned out to be a flop, and he calls for Western institutions to stop meddling in Georgia’s internal matters and for Georgia to block sources financing the promotion of Western liberalism.19 He also said, ‘As one of the oldest Christian nations on earth, we think this [WCF] will be a refreshing opportunity for me and my fellow Georgians to meet Westerners, unlike those sent to Tbilisi by George Soros, who afirm human rights for all persons from conception to natural death, but also defend the Truth, Beauty, and Goodness found in the Natural Family as the fundamental and only sustainable unit of society’.
According to Larry Jacobs, Managing Director of WCF, ‘despite the lies and atacks from the sexual radicals and neo-liberal elites, WCF leaders and Georgians together will show that true equality, fairness, diversity, justce and authentc freedom can only arise from God-centred and family-centred civilizatons’.21

Such statements are clearly biased towards undermining the European idea and democratc values, but are in line with a conservative and Orthodox-centred worldview.
[19= htp://www.ipress.ge/new/32318-levan-vasadze-saqartveloshi-dasavluri-proeqt-daemkho
20 and 21 = htp://www.christannewswire.com/news/37076974.htm]
In the above excerpt I have bolded "Westernes, ... who" as the sentence otherwise is not clear, but of course you can try read "Soros" as "who".
If you want some details with arguments, villifying Russia, WCF and its leadership, look up the passage and read on for more insight into the complexities, becuase they are there too. Notice that everything problematic one could say about Soros is withheld, or maybe the author is unaware?
Also apparently, George Soros’ view on democracy and his version of an NGO is the one NATO’s communication officers wish us to embrace. That Soros funded NGO work in non NATO is apparently fine and the author does not wish to spare Geogia for that kind of an ”influencing agent.”

I don’t think by the way that Marine Le Pen is onboard with George Soros, it is hardly surprising that the French seret service is expecting Marine Le Pen’s candidacy to be tainted from the get go with Russian influence. Never mind that many people probably support her genuinely.

After presenting several cases to substantiate her claims, the author finally has some suggestions for learders in politics and government administration to take into consideration.
pages 68-70 said:
3. what can be the recipe?
Building resistance to hostle propaganda must start with a serious effort to raise awareness
among senior level decision-makers—members of Cabinet and Parliament, and journalists, focusing on the following issues:
• understanding and recognising the different types and techniques of propaganda
• learning about the various channels of spreading propaganda
• grasping the variety of ways how hostile foreign propaganda may target the cornerstones of democratic systems, including through seemingly ‘innocent’ and
‘morally right’ topics like social issues and religion.
Such awareness raising should be followed by a social advertising campaign for the general public. It does not necessarily have to give real-life examples of hostile foreign propaganda, but must clearly explain the propaganda techniques against the background of attempts to re-define or disfigure European values. That would also serve as a mythbusting activity.

the second step could be support and encouragement for investigatve actvites (e.g. Re:Baltica in the Latvian case) to track and expose different agents of influence working to spread hostle foreign propaganda that contradicts the principles of democratc society and the European idea. It is important to note that all such investigations should be presented in a language and manner that is accessible and interesting to society at large, rather than for ‘elite’ circles, as it stll regretably the case more ofen than not.

the third step could be increased funding for responsible media regulators to monitor media content activites to prevent different actors from spreading disinformaton. Due to lack of resources, current monitoring actvites seems sporadic and can be interpreted as politcally motvated, rather than corresponding to legal
requirements. This should go hand-in-hand with a signifcant public diplomacy effort to explain to the allies the current problem and the legal, democratc means of
dealing with it.

the fourth step could be ensuring the exposure of all segments of society to information sources of European origin by making them more widely accessible than Russian state-controlled media sources. That would also include either increased knowledge of foreign languages among certain audiences, or increased allocation of resources for translaton, since lack of language knowledge prevents certain segments of society from accessing or crosschecking informaton.

last but not least, more effective strategic communicaton on the behalf of the EU would be of significant value. In the case of Georgia, there is a clear sense of fatigue from Euro-Atlantic integration due to the lack of tangible deliverables with immediate benefts for the society. As in Latvia, there is dissonance between the current European narrative, weakened due to politcal and economic turbulence, and the conservative worldview of a society looking for a sense of stability and safety.

What I think I found in this post was how a supernational organization, NATO, wishes to influence the public in such a way that their destructive leadership an management can continue for a longer period of time. Where is this going to lead?
 
As mentioned on other occasions, the EU East Stracam Task Force publishes a weekly newsletter and to the newsletter there is also a report. I will provide a couple of observations regarding the latest report from Thursday the 9th 2017 https://gallery.mailchimp.com/cd23226ada1699a77000eb60b/files/6f01d319-21d5-4e25-ad77-d3543a3b7911/Disinformation_Review_09.02.2017_eng.pdf

First something about those who contributed, how much and a bit about their background:

Pavel Spirin, former journalist 20 entries
-"Pavel Spirin" has a webpage http://trollsrus.org/about/ but not updated, main focus seems to be Czech and Russian language sources.

East Stratcom Network 7 - they need no introduction

Promote Ukraine NGO 4
-Promote Ukraine NGO http://www.promoteukraine.org/
"About Us
Promote Ukraine is a Belgian NGO that consists of a thriving team of Ukrainian professionals who on voluntarily basis seek to give voice to Ukrainian civil society in the EU and more particularly in Belgium ."

StopFake.org 3
-StopFake is "Created by studs/alums/faculty of Mohyla School of Journalism." in Kiev, The school is led by Yevhen Fedchenko, apparently a former Fulbright scholarship student at USC Annenberg.

BDR Associates (East Stratcom Network) 1
-BDR Associates works with Strategic communication. It is a Public Relations Agency in Chisinau, Moldova.

Kremlin Watch (European Values think-tank), http://www.europeanvalues.net/kremlinwatch/ 1
-Kremlin Watch (European Values think-tank), http://www.europeanvalues.net/kremlinwatch/ https://www.facebook.com/kremlinwatch/ based in Prague/Czech Republic They publish a Kremlin Watch Reader: http://www.europeanvalues.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Kremlin-Watch-Reader-2016-ENG.pdf
and a Kremlin Watch Monitor every week: http://www.europeanvalues.net/kremlin-watch-monitor-february-9-2017/

NATO 1 - need no introduction

Myth Detector 1
-Myth Dectector "Myth Detector debunks myths and reveals disinformation about Georgia's Euro-Atlantic Integration in Georgian Media."

I have not checked all the reports, and don't know how many of the judgements are okay, misrepresentations or plain wrong. At first sight it seems that the main part of the reporting activity comes from Eastern Europe, which does not mean they all are form Eastern Europe, even if it at appears to be the case. For example the Myth Detector from Georgia is probably not

To just give on example of an entry I have chosen one made by the East StratCom Network regarding the expressions of Marine Le Pen.

On 01.02.2017, there was an interview with Marine Le Pen by CNN's Christiane Amanpour https://www.facebook.com/camanpour/videos/10158228012290370/
Marine Le Pen according to East StratCom said:
There was a coup d'etat in Ukraine. Russia did not invade Crimea. [In the referendum] people decided they want to be part of Russia. The sanctions have created a major economic problem for the EU.
East StratCom comment said:
The spontaneous onset of the Euromaidan protests was a reaction of large parts of the Ukrainian population to former President Yanukovych’s sudden departure from the Association Agreement with the European Union in November 2013. // There were free and democratic elections in Ukraine in 2014. // Any decision relating to Ukraine's sovereignty or sovereign choices can only be taken without undue external pressure. This socalled referendum was organised in a matter of weeks by a self-proclaimed Crimean leadership lacking democratic legitimacy and installed by armed Russian military personnel following the seizure of public buildings. The EU does not recognise it.// Since Russia put in place its ban on EU agricultural products in 2014, EU global exports of agricultural goods have increased by 5-6%. This means that EU exporters have found alternative markets in other third countries that more than compensate for their lost sales in Russia."

First of all there is much information about the involvement of EU/US/NATO/Polish in the Maidan process and papers have been published about the events leading to the shootings at the Maidan. Everything that followed was a result of these events, it was not a "spontaneous" event Marine Le Pen is much closer to reality of what happened.

The way I read this it is clear that someone at EU East Stratcom do not wish Marine Le Pen as the winner of the French elections.

When the discussion involves Marine Le Pen I found an article on the previously mentioned European Values Think Tank, that have asked an expert panel of 5 people to select their weekly top candidates for a "Putin award": http://www.europeanvalues.net/kremlinwatch/putins-champion-of-the-week-en/ So far there are three awards:

Oliver Stone 2,4 out of five "For helping Putin’s dictatorship by blaming the war in Ukraine on the United States and absurdly claiming Washington did it to “keep the concept of NATO alive”.
François Fillon 3,7 out of five "For appeasing Russian aggression and blaming the West which allegedly “provoked” Moscow."
Marine Le Pen 3,6 out of five "For relentlessly supporting Putin’s aggressive foreign policy, such as illegal annexation of Ukrainian land in Crimea."

The words are like those from Neoconservative hardliners, no?

Who decides on such judgements? The "expert" panel being used for this purpose consists of:
Jessikka Aro Investigative journalist of the Finnish Broadcasting Company, Aro has published a book about Russian internet trolls.

Peter Kreko Senior Associate at Political Capital Institute. Probably Hungarian, the Political Capital Instituite is an influential think tank in Hungary, website http://www.politicalcapital.hu/our_partners.php

Anton Shekhovtsov Fellow at the Legatum Institute is a well published academic with speciality in the politics of far right movements in Europe see http://www.shekhovtsov.org/publications.html Anton Shekhovtsov is probably either Ukrainian or Russian, as he was working at Sevastopol National Technical University in 2011. Shekhovtsov has a given a lecture with details about the links between nationalists in Western and Eastern Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM_LkVLdwCw He has many good observations, see also http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.dk/2016/11/what-lessons-can-european-leaders-learn.html but he also leaves many details out as if they were filtered out by an Atlanticist/EU/US perspective. Shekhovtsov has published together with Peter Pomerantsev, born in Kiev and according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pomerantsev this Pomerantsev is aligned with neoconservatives, see also https://www.thenation.com/article/neo-mccarthyism-and-us-media/

John Schindler Counterintelligence analyst and author at Observer. His articles can be read here https://20committee.com/ Here is one summary:
http://www.businessinsider.com/author/john-schindler?r=US&IR=T&IR=T said:
John R. Schindler is professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, where he’s been since 2005, and where he teaches courses on security, strategy, intelligence, terrorism, and occasionally military history. Before joining the NWC faculty, he spent nearly a decade with the National Security Agency as an intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer. There’s not much he can say about that, except that he worked problems in Eastern Europe and the Middle East with a counterespionage flavor, and he collaborated closely with other government agencies who would probably prefer he didn’t mention them. He’s also served as an officer specializing in cryptology (now called information warfare for no particular reason) in the U.S. Navy Reserve.
John Scindler appears to be a pro and has "connections".

Michael Weiss Senior Editor of Daily Beast American. The most flattering account is not presented by https://www.rt.com/op-edge/318011-daily-beast-weiss-russia/ but anyone who wish to improve on it can look around :)

There are five expert, I guess the wording could come from the last two.

IMO the EU East StratCom and people associated with this East European so-called European Values Think Tank in the Czech Republic try to influence the French elections much more so than others they blame for influencing. Perhaps, if we have articles where European politicians express themselves, like Marine Le Pen, Oliver Stone, François Fillon or others, perhaps one needs to link to articles that back them up, when it is possible.

Yesterday, I found a Tweet from a Danish politician, worried about East Stratcom. Why is it that these people who feel threatened do not dig into the dynamics and motivations behind the opinions behind EU East Stratcom and allied organisations, individuals, NGOs and think tanks? If they did they might be able to qualify their worries and challenge some of what East Stratcom publishes and free themselves.
 
There was also this article:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/helsinki_to_host_hub_aimed_at_curbing_cyber_warfare_threats/9307244 said:
[ 21.11.2016 17:04 updated 21.11.2016 17:04
Helsinki to host hub aimed at curbing cyber warfare threats
The Finnish capital Helsinki is to host a new centre to combat what officials describe as an increase in hybrid warfare threats. The Helsinki centre will be a joint venture involving 10 other countries including the US, Germany and Sweden, among others.[...]
Examples of hybrid warfare include the dissemination of disinformation or fake news via social media, cyber attacks on IT systems or as in the case of the conflict in Ukraine, disinformation and the use of anonymous troops, also dubbed “little green men”.

According to Arvonen, on the basis of recent discussions taking place in Finland, Russia and the extremist group Islamic State have maintained a hybrid influence in the country.
[...]
It sounds good in a Finnish paper to write "on the basis of recent discussions taking place in Finland", as Finland has to pay more than the other countries. Actually there were also talks in the EU including the UK: ‘Ridiculous & insane hysteria’: Russia placed alongside ISIS in new EU resolution debated by MEPs https://www.rt.com/news/367881-russia-isis-propaganda-eu-parliament/
'Witch hunt': Report urges UK to ‘map,’ ‘challenge,’ and expose public figures with Russia links https://www.rt.com/uk/367688-rt-sputnik-russia-report/

Besides, in Finland the previously mentioned Jessikka Aro did a study on Russian Internet Trolls which brought her a lot of attack http://kioski.yle.fi/omat/my-year-as-a-pro-russia-troll-magnet
Some of them were no doubt genuinely from people who favored the narrative of the DPR/LNR or Russia, expressed in a manner that was unpleasant to her. Others might be people who acted as "Russian Trolls", for money to help their handlers "proove" the existence of Trolls. Finally some may have just done it for "fun". In any case it all helps to justify the measures taken by interests in NATO and the EU.

As an example of Cyber Warfare coming from a different direction than NATO usually warns us about, there is the case of Danish man held over cyber-attacks on Finnish state sites http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/danish_man_held_over_cyber-attacks_on_finnish_state_sites/9128105 The article explains, this person had also attacked Norway, Denmark and probably the US. Such attacks probabaly happen all the time and it is easy to blame the party you don't like.

There is a report which came out a few weeks after the center in Helsinki was announced. It is written by Jon Hellevig a Finn writing for Russia Insider EU's Infowar On Russia - Putting In Place A Totalitarian Media Regime And Speech Control http://blogengine.hellevig.net/post/2016/12/16/EUs-Infowar-On-Russia-Putting-In-Place-A-Totalitarian-Media-Regime-And-Speech-Control.aspx

It has been referred to in REPORT: EU Using Russia as Pretext to Crack Down on Internal Dissent http://russia-insider.com/en/under-guise-russian-propaganda-eu-cracking-down-internal-dissent/ri18234 where Jon Hellevig himself summarizes his findings.

For both critique and comments to the article by Hellevig, there is EU’S INFOWAR ON RUSSIA http://katehon.com/article/eus-infowar-russia by Luis Lázaro Tijerina from January 31, 2017. Tijerina a historian and former US military. Tijerina presents a nuanced perspective using theory of warfare to argue his point:
Tijerina said:
There are two major military theorists, Carl Von Clausewitz and V.K Triandafillov, who wrote succinctly, but with verve, about the propaganda wars which are part of the core essence of winning any war.

Clausewitz said about diplomacy and political agitation: “Accordingly, war can never be separated from political intercourse, and if, in the considerations of the matter, this occurs anywhere, all the threads of the different relations are, in a certain sense, broken, and we have before us a senseless thing without an object” What Clausewitz is referring to regarding “political intercourse” is a normal, interaction of diplomacy and propaganda agitation, although such a term was not used in his lifetime. In other words, I would say that Clausewitz instructs us to use our political culture, diplomatic culture, and our propaganda views as a “character of policy”, to use his term. When one strikes out against an enemy for the way they wage their propaganda war against us, should we behave in their manner, should we claim that we are cleaner than they are in the war of political words? Would it not be more sensible, and even more ethical to the masses of our given country, to not only point out the insidious and reckless behavior of our political enemies abroad, but to also admit that we too have our short comings regarding our political contractions, and that we will also wage a war in dealing with our own governmental problems?[...]

In the text, I inserted links to Clausewitz and Triandafillov. Regarding the suggestion to "wage war in dealing with our own governmental problems" there is a challenge for the EU, for NATO, the US, and levels of administration right down to the level of the citizen her/him/it/whatever-self to do that.

There are many problems, like immigration, unjustified participation in wars, lack of transparency, (the TTIP negotiation may be sleeping, but the way the closed only open to business they went around doing it will not be forgotten). One could compile a whole wish list of problems the EU could look at.

Besides people are here with different ideas of what they want and do in life. There are people whose political action are out of personal greed for money. There are those who are motivated by duty to their country, the will to protect and help others, the love of their chilcren. There are those that act because of lust for power, because of fear, because they want revenge for some reason, because they are hateful. Some are blackmailed to act as they do. Some are ideologically convinced that there is no need to change their perspective. Some represent the interest of others and get paid for it. Some may be inflamed by a feeling of superiority for what ever reason. Some just follow along, don't want to know og don't care, some may hold there has always been political control of information etc. including a mix of all these causes.
 
In a previous post https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,43633.msg702354.html#msg702354 there was
Oliver Stone 2,4 out of five "For helping Putin’s dictatorship by blaming the war in Ukraine on the United States and absurdly claiming Washington did it to “keep the concept of NATO alive”.
2.4 out of five means if we have five voters (2+2+2+3+3)/5 or less perhaps even 1+2+2+3+4. This reveals to me that something like what Oliver Stone has done has an effect. Compare this to
François Fillon had 3,7 out of five "For appeasing Russian aggression and blaming the West which allegedly “provoked” Moscow."

Whereas Oliver Stone has film with some facts and blames the US, François Fillon is more general, he does not have a film, and does not quote sources, same with Marine Le Pen. This observation may go to show that presenting evidence of wrong doing is harder for to refute than political statements.
 
It seems that the East StratCom service is led by a UK diplomat, Giles Port who gave some advice at a meeting apparently attended by a Cormac Smith, working with the British Foreign Office and a "Strategic Communication Advisor" to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. In a tweet from the 12th of October 2016
Smith has a Tweet which lists som challenges when dealing with misinformation: Network, Funding, Partnering more, Translating more, Better quality of rebuttals _https://twitter.com/CormacS63/status/786109739830767616

Troubled politicians will know what homework is needed.
 
Back
Top Bottom