Sott.net "Black-listed" as Kremlin Propaganda according to the Washington Post

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Here's a funny story:

A website propornot.com, allegedly "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds", compiled a list of "Sites That Reliably Echo Russian Propaganda" that was published on Nov 9th.

http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html

We have used a combination of manual and automated analysis, including analysis of content, timing, technical indicators, and other reporting, in order to initially identify (“red-flag”) the following as Russian propaganda outlets. We then confirmed our initial assessment by applying whatever criteria we did not originally employ during the red-flag process, and we reevaluate our findings as needed.
Please note that our criteria are behavioral. That means the characteristics of the propaganda outlets we identify are motivation-agnostic. For purposes of this definition it does not matter whether the sites listed here are being knowingly directed and paid by Russian intelligence officers, or whether they even knew they were echoing Russian propaganda at any particular point: If they meet these criteria, they are at the very least acting as bona-fide "useful idiots" of the Russian intelligence services, and are worthy of further scrutiny.

Apart from Rt.com and Sputnik, the list includes Sott.net and other notable alt. media sites like counterpunch, anti-war.com, wikileaks, global research, infowars, paulcraigroberts etc. but is mostly made up of rather small and obscure sites.

Note that on their main page - the only page other than "the list" - they have the YT video of two supposed Russian "trolls" who were interviewed by US talk show host Samantha Bee.

http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html

The interesting thing is that RT exposed these two as fakers who did it for the money!

https://www.rt.com/news/366576-kremlin-trolls-full-frontal-hoax/

Anyway, two days ago the Washington Post penned an article on "Russian propaganda" during the US Presidential election, that referenced "the list"

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem.

There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.

“They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests,” said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who along with two other researchers has tracked Russian propaganda since 2014. “This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media.”

Watts’s report on this work, with colleagues Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger, appeared on the national security online magazine War on the Rocks this month under the headline “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy.” Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.

Here's a bit on the Foreign Policy Research Institute from wikipedia:

For most of its history, FPRI was deeply immersed in the intellectual prosecution of the Cold War.

The U.S.-led War on Terrorism is a central topic of FPRI research. In March 2003, it received a grant from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to study sources of potential terrorist threats to the state, and how to manage the risks.

The institute's primary fundraising event is the Institute's "Annual Dinner", which typically attracts 400 FPRI members in the Philadelphia area, local news media, and the contributions of various companies, including PECO Energy and Boeing. Past speakers have included such notaries as Henry Kissinger, Robert Zoellick, and Walter Russell Mead.

So there ya have it! Sott.net is either a Kremlin funded outfit or a "useful idiot" for the Kremlin. What do you guys think? :D
 
What took them so long? It almost lends credibility to sott... Why am I happy sott made 'the list' along with zerohedge and... wikileaks? Ahahahaha! Those were fake emails! Thanks, Joe. I needed a laugh ;-)
 
On a serious note, (from 'the list') what's up with _https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/? FOTCM copycat?
 
I think the Washington post should relocate and publish their news in Duck Town, the city of Donald Duck where fictional stories make more sense.

Reality isn't their speciality.
 
bjorn said:
I think the Washington post should relocate and publish their news in Duck Town, the city of Donald Duck where fictional stories make more sense.

Reality isn't their speciality.

Well, I am very disappointed in Jeff Bezos; I thought he might turn the WaPo around into a bastion of truth or something. After all, he IS a businessman with forward-thinking ideas. But somewhere along the way he got co-opted and his ego/greed took over. I think the way he is handling amazon and now the WaPo is a sign that he's gonna crash eventually.
 
They should have mentioned that the foundation of our world view is the Cassiopaean Experiment... can they blacklist them? Maybe we ought to write an article about it and point out that it's been going on for 20 years and predicted all this mess??? That should set their teeth on edge or make their hair stand up.
 
As stated
“They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests,”
these guys at Standing Rock might be 'useful idiots', cause they really are trying to erode faith in the U.S. government interests...
 
Laura said:
They should have mentioned that the foundation of our world view is the Cassiopaean Experiment... can they blacklist them? Maybe we ought to write an article about it and point out that it's been going on for 20 years and predicted all this mess??? That should set their teeth on edge or make their hair stand up.
It's OK, Laura. You just didn't know that it was Russian propaganda. Seriously though, why even mention Sott? Has it become that mainstream? It could actually be a sign that sott is gaining in popularity, thus a threat to be named. Interesting.
 
Laura said:
They should have mentioned that the foundation of our world view is the Cassiopaean Experiment... can they blacklist them? Maybe we ought to write an article about it and point out that it's been going on for 20 years and predicted all this mess??? That should set their teeth on edge or make their hair stand up.

Clearly even the C's have long been co-opted by Putin's ruthless propaganda campaign. Is nothing safe!?
 
Carl said:
Laura said:
They should have mentioned that the foundation of our world view is the Cassiopaean Experiment... can they blacklist them? Maybe we ought to write an article about it and point out that it's been going on for 20 years and predicted all this mess??? That should set their teeth on edge or make their hair stand up.

Clearly even the C's have long been co-opted by Putin's ruthless propaganda campaign. Is nothing safe!?
:D
 
Laura said:
They should have mentioned that the foundation of our world view is the Cassiopaean Experiment... can they blacklist them? Maybe we ought to write an article about it and point out that it's been going on for 20 years and predicted all this mess??? That should set their teeth on edge or make their hair stand up.

Well there's a list of about 200 sites and it seems most of them were selected for republishing anything from RT or Sputnik.
 
Joe said:
Well there's a list of about 200 sites and it seems most of them were selected for republishing anything from RT or Sputnik.

Which apparently constitutes "publications that supposedly comprise a "sophisticated" Russian propaganda machine." https://www.sott.net/article/334870-Insane-WaPo-Russian-propaganda-story-slammed-by-Greenwald-others-as-disgusting-smear

Geeze, remember the days when Vinnie Bridges and his gang was accusing us of being on Soros' payroll? Now we are supposed to be on Putin's payroll? SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!
 
Laura said:
Joe said:
Well there's a list of about 200 sites and it seems most of them were selected for republishing anything from RT or Sputnik.

Which apparently constitutes "publications that supposedly comprise a "sophisticated" Russian propaganda machine." https://www.sott.net/article/334870-Insane-WaPo-Russian-propaganda-story-slammed-by-Greenwald-others-as-disgusting-smear

Geeze, remember the days when Vinnie Bridges and his gang was accusing us of being on Soros' payroll? Now we are supposed to be on Putin's payroll? SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

Totally! Surely Putin could spare a few rubles for our work on his behalf! :lol:

Coming back to reality, RT responded to the WaPo nonsense piece:

In a statement, RT responded to the article built on “false, unsubstantiated claims”.
“It is the height of irony that an article about “fake news” is built on false, unsubstantiated claims. RT adamantly rejects any and all claims and insinuations that the network has originated even a single “fake story” related to the US election. It is telling that in publishing such outrageous and slanderous allegations, the article failed to provide a single example – via a hyperlink, a headline, or otherwise – to substantiate its case against RT.”
It continued: “Likewise, RT has never used #CrookedHillary hashtag in its coverage of the campaign – this is another fabrication that was neither fact-checked, nor challenged by the Washington Post. It is important to reiterate that these claims have not been presented as an opinion, but as unquestionable fact. In what is a particularly troubling development, RT was not contacted by the Washington Post prior to the publication of the article. In effect, RT was refused the right to respond to these absolutely absurd claims prior to their publication – claims that now have been reprinted by dozens of international media outlets.”
 
Laura said:
Well, I am very disappointed in Jeff Bezos; I thought he might turn the WaPo around into a bastion of truth or something. After all, he IS a businessman with forward-thinking ideas. But somewhere along the way he got co-opted and his ego/greed took over. I think the way he is handling amazon and now the WaPo is a sign that he's gonna crash eventually.

It gets better...

Americans keep looking away from the election’s most alarming story

By Eric Chenoweth, WaPo, November 25

In assessing Donald Trump’s presidential victory, Americans continue to look away from this election’s most alarming story: the successful effort by a hostile foreign power to manipulate public opinion before the vote.

U.S. intelligence agencies determined that the Russian government actively interfered in our elections. Russian state propaganda gave little doubt that this was done to support President-elect Trump, who repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and excused the Russian president’s foreign aggression and domestic repression. Most significantly, U.S. intelligence agencies have affirmed that the Russian government directed the illegal hacking of private email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and prominent individuals. The emails were then released by WikiLeaks, which has benefited financially from a Russian state propaganda arm, used Russian operatives for security and made clear an intent to harm the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

From the Russian perspective, the success of this operation can hardly be overstated. News stories on the DNC emails released in July served to disrupt the Democratic National Convention, instigate political infighting and suggest for some supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — without any real proof — that the Democratic primary had been “rigged” against their candidate. On Oct. 7, WikiLeaks began near daily dumps from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email account, generating a month of largely negative reporting on Clinton, her campaign staff, her husband and their foundation. With some exceptions, there was little news in the email beyond political gossip and things the media had covered before, now revisited from a seemingly “hidden” viewpoint.

Russian (and former communist) propaganda has traditionally worked exactly this way: The more you “report” something negatively, the more the negative is true. Trump and supportive media outlets adopted the technique and reveled in information gained from the illegal Russian hacking (as well as many “fake news” stories that evidence suggests were generated by Russian intelligence operations) to make exaggerated claims (“Hillary wants to open borders to 600 million people!”) or to accuse Clinton of illegality, corruption and, ironically, treasonous behavior.

Part of the Russian operation’s success is that we cannot measure the effect. Did the DNC emails depress the Sanders vote for Clinton? Did the Podesta emails turn off independents? Would voters have responded differently if major media had reported the email releases not as legitimate news but as an intelligence operation by a hostile foreign power aimed at undermining the integrity of U.S. elections? There are no clear answers. But there are certainties: The email operation increased negative stories about Clinton, fueled an immense propaganda attack and diminished coverage of actual issues. The large polling lead Clinton gained after the debates slipped significantly under this barrage of negativity — even before FBI Director James B. Comey’s bombshell.

Again, was there coordination with this foreign intervention? Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei A. Ryabkov, boasted that government representatives maintained multiple “contacts” during the campaign with Trump’s “immediate entourage.” (Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks issued a denial.) This is on top of reported U.S. government suspicions that a Trump adviser met with the intelligence operative directing the hacking. Where are the committee chairmen in Congress demanding an investigation? How is it that Republican Party leaders accept the intervention of a foreign power in the election of their party’s presidential candidate?

Putin is pursuing large strategic goals: recognition of the annexation of Crimea and international acceptance of foreign aggression to change state borders; Russian control of Ukraine; weakening or even dissolution of the European Union and NATO; restoration of Russia as a great power; and restored dominance over the former Soviet bloc and its environs. In pursuing these aims, Putin is engaged in a disciplined effort to influence democratic politics in the West, including financial and propaganda support for the narrow Brexit victory and for a network of far-right (and pro-Russian) nationalist political parties and groups throughout Europe. Now he has achieved what had to have been his most improbable goal: helping elect a sympathetic U.S. president who wants to form an alliance against terrorism. What will Trump give in exchange? He has already reaffirmed his intention to end support for pro-Western rebels in Syria, which effectively gives Russia a free hand to make President Bashar al-Assad its satrap. The greater danger is Trump’s attitude toward NATO as a “soft” alliance that, like the Western powers in 1939, won’t “die for Danzig.” It would mean the alliance’s end.

In his book “Putinism,” Soviet and Russian historian Walter Laqueur describes the varied ideological strains that animate the former KGB agent. The “Russian national idea” that has emerged is to defend Russia, Eurasia and the world from the anti-civilizational corruption of Western liberal democracy. Frighteningly, Putin’s worldview has resonance in the populist and nationalist fixations of Stephen K. Bannon, the president-elect’s senior counselor, whose stated mission is to “destroy” the “establishment” and end the domination of the “donor class.” Bannon’s “closing argument” ad for Trump, redolent of Russian propaganda, described the United States as a corrupt and failing state because of nefarious “global special interests.” It all points to grave danger for democracy and a world order that has kept the peace for 70 years. Is this what America voted for?

Yeah, "kept the peace" through a reign of terror.

The way they accuse Russia of being behind everything that is true about the US world order makes it seem like Truth/objective reality is so foreign to these people that they literally need to invent a two-dimensional foreign conspiracy in order to conceptualize it. So it`s not so much that they`re in denial of reality; rather, like their inability to understand what we mean by a "fact", they don`t know what "reality" means.
 
Back
Top Bottom