Pizzagate & the American Right Wing

[rpenner]

Another example of this fake and bad news operation in action

Wow, people have really malleable memories and a bubble of counterfactual groupthink is not easily undone.

Take the Sinbad-as-a-genie movie truthers for example:
http://www.vox.com/2016/12/26/14062268/sinbad-genie-movie-science
http://www.newstatesman.com/science...doesn-t-exist-and-redditors-who-think-it-does

 

[ElectricFetus]

Wow, people have really malleable memories and a bubble of counterfactual groupthink is not easily undone.

Take the Sinbad-as-a-genie movie truthers for example:
http://www.vox.com/2016/12/26/14062268/sinbad-genie-movie-science
http://www.newstatesman.com/science...doesn-t-exist-and-redditors-who-think-it-does

That throw me for a loop there because I remember a shitty genie movie back in the 90's, no no the guy was way blacker than sinbad and was a basketball star, god dam is my memory that fucked, it was called Shazaam wasn't it?

but no it was "Kazaam" with shaq... so yeah human memory is noise and mallable, problem with storing inane facts randomly in an anaolg neural network.

 

[Capracus]

Hillary’s basement full of sex slaves; almost half of Trump supporter believe this to be a realistic possibility.

Remember Pizzagate? That’s the bizarre theory that Hillary Clinton was helping run a child sex slave ring out of a D.C. pizza joint, as allegedly proven by code words in hacked Democratic emails.

Lest you think this theory was espoused by only a handful of Internet nutjobs, observe that nearly half of Trump voters believe it’s true. This result is based on a poll conducted after a North Carolina man burst into the restaurant with an assault-style rifle, leaving only when he was satisfied that no child sex-slaves were harbored there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ve-crazy-wrong-things/?utm_term=.a4741d26fc57

 

[ElectricFetus]

Fake news or not?

So now there is supposedly a video of 4 black teens torturing a retarded white boy for racist and anti-trump reasons

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-beaten-tortured-streamed-live-Facebook.html

It is ALL over the alt-right media right now, they are just foaming at the mouth about it, claiming media won't cover it and the them poor trump voters are all victims in the coming race war or something.

Seems to me like typical teen shit: teens do shit like this to each other all the time! Stoned out of their minds, sure sickfucks that need to go to prison surely, but not the start of a race war.

 

[Russ_Watters]

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04...reat-while-public-is-deceived/#comment-330952

 

[iceaura]

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04...reat-while-public-is-deceived/#comment-330952

A long overdue and well deserved criticism of the WaPo for the decline of its former journalistic standards is satisfying to see, regardless of the distorting agenda of its critics,

but a couple of side issues are buried in there - one of them:

Whatever the motives, the effects of these false stories are exactly the same as those of whatever one regards as Fake News. The false claims travel all over the internet, deceiving huge numbers into believing them. The propagators of the falsehoods receive ample profit from their false, viral “news.” And there is no accountability of the kind that would disincentivize a repeat of the behavior. (That the Post ultimately corrects its false story does not distinguish it from classic Fake News sites,

This needs qualification.

One of the major differences between WaPo's dysfunctions and those of the Fake News sources is that its effects are somewhat curbed by accountability - it not only corrects itself, but is corrected by others in a media world frequented by its readers, and after that correction it no longer pushes the Fake News item. It can be embarrassed, and thereby discouraged from persisting in a particular slander or lie. This limits the effects - five years from now we won't have 75 % of WaPo's readers firmly believing that the Russians hacked the US electrical grid in 2016, due to years of repetition by WaPo, unless it turns out they did.

Contrast with the Fox and Breitbart presentations of the false accusations and slanders against Acorn - which we have seen repeated ever since, including on Fox and Breitbart, and are therefore confronted with to this day on this forum.

 

[iceaura]

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04...reat-while-public-is-deceived/#comment-330952

Another issue, buried in there, is the difference between "fake" stuff that is wrong about events, and fake stuff that slanders named individual people.

Although I have to admit there is a certain satisfaction in seeing the American rightwing pack suddenly discover the existence of phony and misleading news plants exaggerating the Russian threat and misrepresenting Russian evils. Fifty years late, but better late than never.

And there is more than a little satisfaction in seeing the rightwing discover the category of "bullshit" - stuff whose truth or falsity isn't even at issue, and does not matter to its promulgators. Now if we can arrange a mirror to be placed in front of their keyboards - - -

 

[joepistole]

Fake news or not?

So now there is supposedly a video of 4 black teens torturing a retarded white boy for racist and anti-trump reasons

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-beaten-tortured-streamed-live-Facebook.html

It is ALL over the alt-right media right now, they are just foaming at the mouth about it, claiming media won't cover it and the them poor trump voters are all victims in the coming race war or something.

Seems to me like typical teen shit: teens do shit like this to each other all the time! Stoned out of their minds, sure sickfucks that need to go to prison surely, but not the start of a race war.

The main stream media has covered it. The perpetrators have been charged with hate crimes. But, hey, right wingers don't need facts or reason. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating/

 

[ElectricFetus]

The main stream media has covered it. The perpetrators have been charged with hate crimes. But, hey, right wingers don't need facts or reason. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating/

Yeah that was yesterday, the alt-right certainly had a jump on this by a few hours because of how it helps their narrative. But yes within 24 hours the alt-rights claims that the "mainstream media" would not cover this was proven false and the thugs were charged with all sorts of crimes including hate crimes for racism (but black people can't be racist) and targeting the mentally disabled. Long story short: no race war.

I think we are seeing a switch here between right and left media, now the right needs narratives while the left merely needs to point out the facts. While before the left was saying everything is great except for this or that minority and if you disagree your a racist misogynist nazi, and the right merely needed to poke holes in that or make up bullshit. Now the right needs to say how great and glorious trump is, and we merely need to point out what a crock of shit that is.

 

[Capracus]

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04...reat-while-public-is-deceived/#comment-330952

A major news organization like the Post has no incentive to get these kinds of stories wrong, they lose too much credibility when they do. It seems a bit self serving on Greenwald’s part to not mention the most obvious reason, that in the rush to get ahead of the pack on the story, they got sloppy in verifying the details. And it’s not like hacking infrastructure by state actors is some implausible conspiracy theory, it’s something that’s routinely practiced as a military exercise by all sides. That Russia made an intrusion on that particular utility in this instance may be false, that Russia was doing it elsewhere is quite likely, just as we were likely doing the same to them. In spite of this reality, Greenwald laments the deceitful effects of the dissemination of the story, as if it somehow falsely painted the Russians as something they are in reality militarily obligated to be.

Greenwald’s other criticism of the Post is for their assertion that the Russians had a hand in spreading fake news. Specifically that one of their sources had wrongly implicated some information outlets, and by extension invalidated the entire premise. The Post didn’t name any of the offended outlets, and thus was not responsible for the sources error. The assertion by the Post was supported by other sources as well, and is even made stronger by more recent revelations. As in the utility case, Greenwald ignores the fact that governments on all sides engage in disinformation campaigns against one another. That he seems so unwilling to accept that the Russians could be implicit in this case, would indicate a lack of objectivity on his part.

 

[wellwisher]

The Wiki Leaks impacted the election. What it did was point out the truth, undermining the deceptions and scams of the Democrats. These ranged from rigging the debates to rigging the primaries. Bernie Sanders pointed out the rigged system in his own party. The propaganda machine was able to neutralize Bernie, until Wikileaks pointed out the deception. The deception games have started again. This is all they know.

When Putin ran for president, in 2012, the Obama Administration interfered in his election, backing his opponent. This explains why the Russians were not after all the candidates in both parties. Putin was getting even. The Obama Administration also interfered in the Israeli elections sending people to back the opposition. This should be part of the story since it explains motivation.

From what I heard the Russians began hacking the election over a year ago. Why didn't Obama and the Democrats complain when it started to happen. Why did they wait until after they lost the election to get self righteous? If Hillary had won, would they have said anything? Or is this all about scam?

 

[joepistole]

The Wiki Leaks impacted the election.

Okay. Tell me something I don't know.

What it did was point out the truth, undermining the deceptions and scams of the Democrats.

What it did was provide the basis for right wing conspiracies like Pizzagate. It doesn't take much to provide the basis for right wing conspiracies. The stolen materials were mundane. There wasn't anything scandalous in them. There was no evidence of wrong doing in them. The worst thing they revealed was that some Democratic staffers favored Clinton over Sanders in the primaries. That's not illegal. That doesn't reflect any moral turpitude on the part of Clinton. It was a last minute distraction. That's why Russia waited until just days before the election to release them. If they had released them after hacking them, many months earlier, there would have been time to vet them and understand they were mundane. What the Russian hacked emails were was a distraction released at the last minute in order to distract and confuse voters in order to get Trump elected, and in that regard the Russians were successful.

These ranged from rigging the debates to rigging the primaries. Bernie Sanders pointed out the rigged system in his own party. The propaganda machine was able to neutralize Bernie, until Wikileaks pointed out the deception. The deception games have started again. This is all they know.

Except that is all 100% pure unmitigated bullshit. There is no evidence the debates or the primaries were rigged. Unfortunately for you comrade, facts do matter.

When Putin ran for president, in 2012, the Obama Administration interfered in his election, backing his opponent. This explains why the Russians were not after all the candidates in both parties. Putin was getting even. The Obama Administration also interfered in the Israeli elections sending people to back the opposition. This should be part of the story since it explains motivation.

And your evidence is where or are you just mindlessly repeating what Republicans entertainers have told you? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs comrade. So let's see it.

From what I heard the Russians began hacking the election over a year ago. Why didn't Obama and the Democrats complain when it started to happen. Why did they wait until after they lost the election to get self righteous? If Hillary had won, would they have said anything? Or is this all about scam?

Where is your evidence the Democrats were somehow negligent or tardy in reporting the hacking of their servers? The fact is there is no such evidence. Democrats engaged the services of a professional IT security firm and reported the intrusion as soon as they became aware of it. One of the problems with you is you believe everything folks like Sean Hannity tells you.

Democrats said something several months ago...long before the election...oops. Unfortunately for you comrade facts do matter. When they discovered the intrusion they notified the FBI and they made it public. Unfortunately, the public didn't pay much attention, in no small part because Trump was dropping a stream of tweet turds which were a constant distraction, and still are. But now that he is president-elect he's getting a lot more media attention and the media is being more aggressive in its coverage of him. This is something that would happen to any president-elect.

 

[Russ_Watters]

One of the major differences between WaPo's dysfunctions and those of the Fake News sources is that its effects are somewhat curbed by accountability...

Somewhat, yes. But not enough that it isn't still considered by many to be a major problem.

This limits the effects - five years from now we won't have 75 % of WaPo's readers firmly believing that the Russians hacked the US electrical grid in 2016, due to years of repetition by WaPo...

If I said that, you'd probably turn back around and remind me that a surprisingly large fraction of Republicans still believe Obama's citizenship to be illegitimate. One universal component of bad news stories is that the retractions/corrections are never as widely circulated as the original story.

 

[Russ_Watters]

A major news organization like the Post has no incentive to get these kinds of stories wrong, they lose too much credibility when they do. It seems a bit self serving on Greenwald’s part to not mention the most obvious reason, that in the rush to get ahead of the pack on the story, they got sloppy in verifying the details.

Those two sentences directly contradict each other. I agree with you that WaPo probably just rushed the story out without checking it (or having the expertise to understand what they were reporting). But that makes it a conscious choice to at least risk "getting these kinds of stories wrong". Because the incentive to at least risk getting the story wrong is in "getting ahead of the pack".

To say it another way: they didn't get it wrong on purpose, they only risked getting it wrong on purpose. It means their business model includes a certain fraction of error - a low average level of quality - that they find acceptable. After several recent high profile failures, I suspect they will decide they set the bar too low, but maybe I'm just being an optimist.

 

[iceaura]

"This limits the effects - five years from now we won't have 75 % of WaPo's readers firmly believing that the Russians hacked the US electrical grid in 2016, due to years of repetition by WaPo..."
If I said that, you'd probably turn back around and remind me that a surprisingly large fraction of Republicans still believe Obama's citizenship to be illegitimate.

If you said what?

If you said that people don't become consistently misinformed by WaPo's type of poor journalism because the exposed errors don't get repeated for months and years on end, I would simply agree.

If you tried to claim that doubts about Obama's citizenship were not repeated for months and years after they had been debunked, thereby creating false impressions and false beliefs in the audience of the fraud "news" sources, I would laugh at you.

That's a major difference between the rightwing fraud news and other media, however slipshod the other media may be.

To say it another way: they didn't get it wrong on purpose, they only risked getting it wrong on purpose. It means their business model includes a certain fraction of error - a low average level of quality - that they find acceptable

And even there they remain a full level - an entire classification - above the fraud news outlets: because Fox and Friends don't consider the chance of getting it wrong a risk.

Where WaPo suffers from embarrassment when it gets caught being slipshod (and will continue to suffer, because they have cut back too far on their journalist staff and gone to far over into dependence on the rightwing media manipulation feed), Fox does not suffer at all from such "mistakes", but is instead rewarded with major corporate money.

Again, allow me to congratulate the rightwing crowd on the discovery of nascent bullshit in a news source. Now comes the next step: recognizing when bullshit is the intended product, the business model, not a bug but a feature.

 

[Capracus]

Those two sentences directly contradict each other. I agree with you that WaPo probably just rushed the story out without checking it (or having the expertise to understand what they were reporting). But that makes it a conscious choice to at least risk "getting these kinds of stories wrong". Because the incentive to at least risk getting the story wrong is in "getting ahead of the pack".

Talk about contradictory statements, what about the title of the article vs the meat? WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived. And how were they richly rewarded? They weren’t, on the contrary they got slammed. And in a larger sense was the public actually deceived? Not really, considering the story was quickly corrected and the general assertion that the Russians are in reality committed to engaging in such activity on a regular basis is actually true.

Then there’s this soup of contradictions.

But what was the Post’s motive in publishing two false stories about Russia that, very predictably, generated massive attention, traffic, and political impact? Was it ideological and political — namely, devotion to the D.C. agenda of elevating Russia into a grave threat to U.S. security? Was it to please its audience — knowing that its readers, in the wake of Trump’s victory, want to be fed stories about Russian treachery? Was it access and source servitude — proving it will serve as a loyal and uncritical repository for any propaganda intelligence officials want disseminated? Was it profit — to generate revenue through sensationalistic click-bait headlines with a reckless disregard to whether its stories are true? In an institution as large as the Post, with numerous reporters and editors participating in these stories, it’s impossible to identify any one motive as definitive.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04...about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/

Here Greenwald basically says their motive could have been attributed to anything, and it’s impossible to pin down. Yet the title and general gist of the article is that the Post tried to enrich themselves by way of intentional deceit, rather than the likelihood of unintentional lack of due diligence.