I understand all the anxiety over the Russian attempt to penetrate western media markets, but one huge question remains: who watches and listens to RT and its comrades? As a Russian-speaking American who spent much time in the Cold-War Soviet Union, I can tell you why the American media campaign was effective: it was much more interesting than what the official Soviet media broadcast. RT offers no similar competition. Let's credit our compatriots with the good taste, if not the good judgment, to ignore this stuff.
2
You don't become a respected player in any market by creating a slick production, being backed by billions, and demanding people pay attention to you. You have to earn it.
RT hasn't earned anything. They're just saying "Oh, by the way, we're here too" implying they deserve an EQUAL place at the table, suggesting if you don't accept their perspective then you're arrogant and unable to see past your nose.
I’m not player hating. The truly "FREE" press evolved over hundreds of years in the US, the British Empire, and WESTERN Europe where It is a staunch tradition. It Russia there has NEVER been a free press, only freedom to promote the official line, be it Tsarist, Soviet, or Putinist. Today, anyone who dares engage in investigative journalism in Russia may get a one-way trip down a stairway shaft, or off a roof, courtesy of the real powers that be and yet RT, making no secret that it is bankrolled by those same powers, pops up on the international news radar promoting themselves as some sort of unique perspective and they want people to take them seriously? Russians always insist on doing things their way but they should know by now this isn't the way it works.
When RT “journalists” drop a bombshell triggering investigations resulting in criminals brought to justice and those journalists live to talk about it, I might give it a second look. But now, RT is nothing other than the Voice of Putin, the voice of deliberate misinformation masquerading as vital information.
3
"At the moment, she said, that narrative was: “All world problems are Putin’s fault.”"
This is a classic "straw man argument." No, all the world problems are NOT Putin's fault. Nobody in their right mind believes that. But, Putin does have an agenda (or a few), has clearly done away with truly independent media domestically, and disdains democracy in favor of total control by him and a small group of scared sycophants like Ms. Simonyan.
4
RT's standards are sloppy, like a video version of the National Enquirer, because they need innuendo and a lazy audience that loves salaciousness. The US has both in spades.
2
"“Our Slavic brothers and sisters,” she told me, leaning forward for emphasis. “You bombed them with no permission, with no reason,” she said, “and in one day you lost Russia.”"
At the end of the day, Russians love to fall back on ethnic tribalism and the ever-present victim mentality. Objectively, Milosevic was a war criminal who did attempt genocide.
2
Predictably enough I guess, this article and the bulk of the comments are so Americo-solipsistic, they're laughable when they're not painful. I've lived a decade in Turkey and, via both satellite & internet, Russia Today has long been part of my staple diet in terms of world news -- and this largely because it is as American as apple pie even if the majority of Americans have by now long forgotten how that used to taste and to nourish. US folk like Chris Hedges, Ed Schultz, Larry King, Max Keiser & Stacy Herbert, Thom Hartmann, Peter Lavelle, Lee Camp, Tyrel Ventura, Tabetha Wallace & Sean Stone, Jesse Ventura, Ed Harrison, Abby Martin -- all these along with their regular US commentators & interviewees like Ray McGovern, Mark Sleboda, Philip Giraldi, Jokn Kiriakou, H.A. Goodman, Jim Jatras et al, as many of the most informed, intelligent and incisive folks out there, have enabled me to revive & to retain some affection & respect for the USA as, in this age of Trump and Hillary, the nation rapidly lurches into meltdown. Had the monopolistic and arrogant US MSM suitably and sufficiently accommodated alternative & dissenting points of view like those expressed by such folk -- all of them as American as apple pie -- then RT could & would never have happened and have gotten a foothold in the first place. As removed as I am from the US, I would take rt.com any day over the idiot CNN, MSNBC, BBC et cetera, and would appeal to all Americans to allow it to continue without hindrance.
2
"Afraid of how her parents would react, she went to stay with a 19-year-old male friend. The kidnapping and gang rape, she admitted, never happened."
This is one common pattern of false allegations of rape -- excuse for something she dares not reveal. Sometimes the accusation is against a named individual, not just a faceless nominal rapist.
It happens. This is a real problem. It needs to be addressed in efforts to reform rape laws.
How do we counter this cloak-and-keyboard threat? Putin and the KGB are pushing the world toward global dictatorship in their war on truth. The universal urge to freedom cannot be killed with lead bullets, but it can be lured into self destruction with cyber-bullets.
2
Russians are the masters of plausible denial and dismissal, and since no one bothers to call them out these days, they have reached the level of ever more implausible denials.
They're not interested in breaking any supposed information monopoly. They want to infiltrate it and establish dezinformatsiya (disinformation) as fact.
As for the person quoted with "The network allows him to cover news that may not otherwise “get the proper attention that we think it deserves.”
Yea, YOU. What YOU think deserves to be covered under the guise of “it may not convince, but it adds to the confusion between truth and falsehood and fosters that darkness of the mind in which dictatorships operate.” It is fertilizer for dezinformatsiya.
5
RT openly portrays conspiracy theories and outright falsehoods — sometimes with a tenuous connection to fact, as in the Lisa case, sometimes with no connection at anything at all, and then serves it up as "credible information."
Sure, "Question More." Unless, of course, you're in Russia, where real journalists have an uncanny clumsiness to routinely fall down the stair shaft of a 19-story building, of off a building roof.
RT operates on the stated terms of WESTERN liberal democracy; they count themselves as news organizations, protected by the First Amendment .
So what is the rightful place of, say, CNN in the Russian landscape? Russia has no first amendment. RT should not be allowed to take advantage of this until CNN et al is able to open offices in St Petersburg, Moscow, and Yekaterinburg AND is able to broadcast what they wish without any interference. Then we’ll have a ball game. Not until then.
4
The U.S. and and Russia are not compassionate or intelligent countries, in my humble opinion. Although if you dig deeply, many people break out of the mold and do not like the direction this country is going in or share love for the brutal past. Russia has some pluses and minuses. My daughter and I have been homeless more than once. We have lost everything more than once after being brutalized by many men. In Russia, I have been told by people who know, that would never have happened. Maybe we would have been abused, but not homeless. We would have been given an apartment (probably not fancy, but I cannot even afford my rent for an old, unhealthy place where we live now, therefore my daughter had no birthday party this year). I want to go back to France. I want out of the evil empire. Patriarchy frightens me- the Russians jailed the punk band "Pussy Riot" because they were feminists. I am not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, but I admire and respect her. She would have been a good President and look at what happened to her here. Look at what happened to Heather Heyer. This does not bode well. Just two sides of the same coin, the U.S. and Russia.
1
A few anecdotes from watching:
1. Sometimes you can tell that they are in full propoganda mode, such as referencing the lawyer murdered after blowing the whistle on a tax fraud scheme being referred to as having "died in custody while imprisoned on suspicion of tax fraud." Ah. . . OK.
2. Other times I suspect that their coverage is more credible than the US MSM. For example, I closely watch the Syrian conflict from a variety of sources and I have to say that I find their coverage more plausible, with the only decent US MSM covering being a NYT Magazine piece published ~ 4 months ago. Consistent with that, an article in 2016 by a former NYT/Boston Globe reporter Stephen Kinzer,who actually spent time in Syria, referred to US MSM coverage of the conflict as "one of the most shameful episodes in the history of American journalism."
2
The Russians (and the Soviets before them) have been at this sort of thing for a very long time. But there are some key differences between then and now.
First, I would note that while Valeriy Gerasimov didn't invent the "Gerasimov Doctrine," he was the voice of authority within the Russian leadership to give the official stamp of approval to a form of warfare that more than compensates of Russia's relative weakness. Sure, they can push around their neighbors with impunity, but militarily, economically, and demographically, they are no match for the West in a traditional fight. For less than the price of a battle tank, they succeeded in changing the outcome of an election.
Second, there's something to be said for the simple elegance of a good intelligence operation. In the bad old days, guys with thick accents and shoddy suits made awkward assertions about moral equivalency. Today, well-tailored, flawless English speakers leverage technology to shotgun their focus-grouped stories to a huge audience... at bargain basement prices!
Finally, it doesn't hurt that the Russians have recognized that we're in the midst of a moment in history that will sustain the PhD dissertations of hundreds of future historians and political scientists. For in addition to having the means to distribute their messages, those messages are being consumed by credulous readers and listeners who are only too willing to believe the worst about their political opponents and government.
5
RT and Sputnik are Fox News writ large; what they all have in common is a desire to destroy the West's societal and political institutions. The week minded in our societies are easy targets.....
4
The future is going to be a very strange place.
2
Free press serves as check on government in power. That RT does not do this is probably its biggest journalistic failure- an error of omission rather than commission.
2
"As Stranahan told The Atlantic, though his paycheck might now come from the Russians, “Nothing about it really affects my position on stuff that I’ve had for years now.”
If you have a set of beliefs, and you suddenly get backing from a dictatorial media outlet – from a state that is a sworn enemy of your own – maybe it's time to reconsider those beliefs.
3
This was definitely the most important article in the September 17 issue of The Times. We citizens of the U.S. have to think carefully about the news sources we use and the veracity of the information we rely upon to formulate our own beliefs and opinions about the state of the nation and the world. From this detailed account, it seems that deep skepticism is a necessary tool.
4
The New York Times has little credibility in this matter. For example, the Intelligence Community Assessment that the Times links to in this article — ICA_2017_01 -- explicitly states on page 3 that "DHS assesses that the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying." Yet the TImes persists in using devious phrases such as "hackers who infiltrated voting systems," thereby implying the exact opposite of the report. The Times also has a history of making false claims about the parties to the ICA report and degree of consensus about it, giving far less prominence to its retractions than to its original front-page claims. The "new theory of war" in this article's title is indeed something about which readers be should informed, but for an example of it they can look to both RT *and* the Times.
1
I live overseas and currently in London.
RT is not just available here on cable but also so called "FreeVew" which you get for paying annual tv license for your tvs at home. (through rabbit years, yes).
I used to watch Russia Today when it really did show about goings on in Russia. I remember it glamorized Russia.
I like Russia and its people, I worked there and still have many friends whom I visit. While you could not watch it 24 hours - for that matter BBC - it was interesting.
RT has now become Al Jazzera of Russia. It hardly shows anything about Russia - you would think Russia does not exist. On Al Jazzera, they show nothing about Qatar.
And RT has evolved into a talking head show - who imitate CNN in everyone shouting and talking over each other.
While some of this propaganda stuff is sophisticated beyond my abilities - I for one quit watching RT when I realized that their reporting was about everything wrong about America.
I then said, if that's the case; how come there are long lines at our embassy in Moscow seeking visas and none at their Washington embassy.
And it is not so different in London which at one time was called Moscow on Thames. (Now it is Shanghai or Beijing on Thames).
When I realized that I quit watching RT.
2
" I for one quit watching RT when I realized that their reporting was about everything wrong about America."
That only took me less than one afternoon.
1
Another effort in Russian expansion, pipeline connection with North Korea, Syria, Media large enough to "compete" with BBC, CNN and others. While we play with with being great again with a voter suppression commission. Ouch!
2
We need to recognize who enemies are and treat them as such. I'd say Russia, ISIS/Radical Islam and China would top that list and we are empowering them all. There is no constitutional right for foreign investors to buy up media companies. We can take the counties that spew ISIS and Russian hate of off the Internet by pulling somes cables and writing some sever/router software, esp if all the Western countries unite. China and Russia support N Korea for a reason, we can embargo them both.
We are in an Orwellian situation with a madman holding the nuclear "football." I have not been this worried about the possibility of Atomic war since Nixon was in charge. Well at least going to church helps me. Happy and blessed Sunday to all.
3
Rt is the only news I watch, because it's the only one I can access.
I don't have cable tv, only internet, and am not able to watch CNN/ABC/CBS/.. online.
So I watch RT all the time.
In the 50's, in our, defense industry heavy places, S. California or Seattle, warnings about Russian Propaganda were regularly given, even in grade schools. Whoever decided this was no longer necessary must share part of the blame for RT & Sputnik today. As for Ed Schultz, what he's lost, in the way of fans or reputation, will never be regained, even if his "Outstanding health care",( from RT) picked up the entire tab of Obama-care. At least his former listeners know what he meant when he laughingly called himself, "The Big Red-Head", we're not laughing, he played US for fools, with his "All-American Ed" Con job.
3
There is nothing significantly different about the false accusation of rape by the German 13 year old, and then media sensation based on it that riled up people to protest and similar incidents of intentional false accusations of sexual assaults on US campuses, and US police shootings and false accusations that they were racially-hate motivated made by Leftist and blown up by our media so they could have "cheap fill" discussions about sexual assault and race relations in the USA. And the neo Marxist Left NY Times and the rest of the US media later implies that these outright propaganda fiction lies allowed productive "dialogue" and so were not damaging as long as in the end the truth is known via our "free" and diverse media. So why is it that a few false media stories and the ruckus they cause are considered such a terrifying existential threat just because some usually transparent, rapidly found out and discredited Russian deceptions caused them? What happened to all the how 'resilient real democracies are' rhetoric that is used to excuse and dismiss the damage caused by the riots the American Left causes via their provocative deceptions and witch hunts. If anything what this article suggests is that Germany has way too many Russian immigrants - as well as Islamic ones, who like too many of the millions of invader migrants from the global south refuse to swear allegiance to and be patriotic citizens of the nations that were so charitable as to have accepted them,
2
ok so i did not read the whole thing
but CBS news said the author states this was Russia's way of making sec Clinton not trustworthy and damage her chances of getting elected or something to that matter.
Duh isn't that what OUR media tried to do to Trump?
1
I was disturbed to learn that Chris Hedges is a host for RT, the Kremlin's propaganda arm.
4
Finally, I've found a newsmedia that brings FACTS instead of LIES & FAKE NEWS monitored by governments!
4
Surprise,
Russia is a functioning country with leadership that knows how to form and execute a strategy.
Too bad all we can do is fight a war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen (plus soon North Korea).
Our ability to do anything other than "send Tropps" someplace they don't need to be is: zero.
7
This is a rather frightening read. I just returned from a trip to Slovakia and in searching through the hotel's cable channels, I discovered RT--broadcast in English. Was it because that part of the world associates English language channels with truth and reason? And this was a subtle way for the local population to be convinced the RT version was true? Outside the tourist areas, far fewer Slovakians were English speakers. While continuing my channel hopping, in addition to CNN and the BBC, I found a French channel and a German channel broadcasting the news in English. Strange, indeed.
2
The name of the game is: Where do you prefer to live? Russia or the USA?
3
The Trump victory came about for many reasons, but fake news is only part of it. The greatest triumph for fake news in the modern era was the propaganda campaign that led to the invasion of Iraq. This newspaper was part of it.
Iraq is an extreme case, but only because the consequences were so massive. It wasn't that far out of the ordinary in other respects. The mainstream press in the US usually follows the lead of D.C. politicians and think tanks ( with fundinding from various interested parties) in how it covers issues. The result is often slanted coverage of extremely important issues.
I don't actually see how RT changes things much. We already have people inside and outside the US spinning everything to fit their interests. Any lies they told about Clinton were going to be similar to lies homegrown in the good old USA. Lies about issues overseas-- well, every government including ours does that and there are other governments with much more influence here than the Russians could hope to have.
7
If Alexey Nikolov is so touched by the memory of the horrors of Stalinism, which affected his own family, how can he justify RT not covering the plight of Memorial Society, the largest independent non-governmental organization in Russia addressing the crimes of Communism and its aftermath? The Kremlin has defined Memorial as "a foreign agent" and RT has merely chimed in. There is backsliding on access to archives and a resurgent of pro-Stalin manifestations. RT is not part of the critical media covering this.
Sure. New theory of propaganda. What have Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Marti been doing all these years? Let's get the mote out of our own eye before we get back on our high horse.
The problem is the willingness of the US public to believe anything they see on TV. Critical thinking? Why do you need that we all that it required it to make American Great Again!
JP
7
In what respect is all this different from what the US has been doing for the last 70 years at least all over the world in order to rig elections, organize coups against democratically-elected leaders or even have them assassinated ?
9
the real problem is that our own media is also using its power to exert policies to influence the public, for economic / corporate interests instead of political. That makes it difficult to adapt first amendment arguments to deal with regulations required to enforce accuracy and truth in reporting. Just think of climate change where network pundits mislead and confuse the public. Germany and France have been able to get a handle on the issue, China never had such a problem, but we are stuck in our own mess of confused ethics.
2
Interesting article but based on the usual false premise that there is a good side and a bad side. I do not believe RT has done more damage to the world than Rupert Murdoch and Fox News. The fact that we still do not have an effective strategy for dealing with climate change is also due corporate influence over the media. It turns out that a the idea of a strong democratic government supported by an educated citizenry was actually quite clever. Unfortunately, there are very few of those left.
6
Bravo! The best article written this year, anywhere.
3
I don't think we can stop RT, Fox, Breitbart, or any of a thousand other propaganda outlets from spewing drivel. Propaganda propagates rapidly through digital media.
What we desperately need are means of distinguishing reliable news from falsehood. This paper, WAPO, the Guardian, MSNBC and a few others have been fairly reliable sources, but unfortunately they don't reach a lot of the propaganda consumers.
But the digital media that now predominates is still young. I hope that as it evolves (as with newspapers in the 19th century), means of discerning reliable sources from everything else will evolve as well.
Not being religious, I nevertheless find the Bible apropos: 'then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'
8
I believe the only lasting solution is education. Can we dream of educating our young people as thoroughly as the Founding Fathers were educated? Then the youngsters might understand how to keep a strong democracy functioning. Our education turned years ago into credentialing, saving businesses money by screening employees for them, in effect. Our schools should be far more demanding, with well-paid teachers and clear statements of the objectives of education. It takes money and commitment from political powers and focus on people instead of businesses.
4
Excellent point, but you fail to mention Critical Thinking as the salient part of education.
As for money, Washington DC spends far more $$$ per pupil than, say, Finland or Bulgaria, and look at how those compare when it comes to actual results.
This teacher of some 4 decades is not whining about teachers' pay, but hates to see funds spent on tennis courts, nurseries and additional "staff" earning inflated salaries.
2
In the interests of balance, maybe when you're next writing about the BBC you could refer to them as the "UK state-financed international TV network". Unless you feel that's too biased...
1
Wow...it looks like the Russians have learned from American media. Sounds a lot like the "Duke Lacrosse Case"...remember that one? Or all the retracted stories that have been run just this year alone? I find it somewhat hypocritical to point to Russian fake-news while we get enough of it from our own media establishment...
7
I share the question of Mr. Simmett: what is the problem here? Obviously, reporting a fake attack by Muslims on a German girl is a problem. But we have similar examples from our own media. Other than that example, the article seems to be saying that the Russian propaganda machine is mimicking the American propaganda machine. Article was fascinating, but I do not feel any more threatened by Russia after reading it than I did before.
3
So, they could not find a greater "mistake" of RT than a 2016 story about the girl of Russian origin living in Germany who first said she was raped and later corrected her story? The American mainstream press had been reporting that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that Obama was worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize and a number of other things which are much more important than the German girl's story. But the American mainstream media are not "fake news", of course. By the way, because of the girl's story, the German authorities started a criminal case against the correspondent of Moscow's Channel One in Germany, against a Russian citizen. But germany has such a great protection for free press against the state's prosecution. I am jealous of you, Western guys.
3
Remember Jessica Lynch. I expect RT to slant the news, but when american mass media buys into Weapons of mass destruction nonsense and outright propaganda like the Jessica Lynch fairy tale, I get mad. Let's clean our own house too. Judith Miller is still working and actually a CFR member.
4
"When people read these anti-Russian stories they should keep in mind a few facts: Russia is encircled by NATO...."
I don't know if that comment was posted by a Russian troll, an American, or a Martian, but whoever the person is, he or she is either a purveyor of false facts -- more accurately known as lies -- or woefully ignorant. Last I checked China, Mongolia, and several other countries bordering Russia were not members of N.A.T.O.
3
If we as citizens want to understand what is occurring in the world, it is imperative to watch RT on tv, and go to Pravdareport.com, RT, and Sputnik. Russia and China are about to introduce gold backed yuan and rubles, while moving away from the dollar. Find this on Sputnik online. Where is it in the NYT? Our economy is going to be shattered due to official incompetence and criminal activity by the bankers and the Federal Reserve(a private stock bank).
2
Such a great read! This reminded me and made me wonder about Aljezeera America and how odd placed I first thought that media company was for wanting to put up shop in the USA.
My takeaways are that it does appear that RT operates on both fringes of the political spectrum, their purpose to expose delicate political, societal and economical issues and give credence to real problems facing citizens. On the other hand, RT is a state funded platform and behaves more like a catalyst that exposes audiences, particularly those on the fringe who are likely to be activists by nature, to ideas or stories they normally wouldn't of seen.
"Information is power," wielded by any entity with the money and resources but the onus is on the the individual reader and citizen. We can't believe everything we read, or pick up every article and run with it because it matches our ideology. We as people need to question "not (only) more," but to question the source. That is, to find out more about the entity presenting the news, where they get their money from, if reputable, etc.
I also enjoyed reading the historical anecdote about USA media operations in post world war II. All governments have an agenda, USA included.
3
Aah man! Tired of groveling, defeatist commentary. Impossible to stop? The United States owns the internet. Companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter can bring this Putin mess to a screeching halt. What we as a nation don't need is acquiescing to a coup, a direct assault on our way of life. GROW A FREAKING PAIR!!! Stop making it a love fest for Putin and company.
5
You need to update your understanding of the Internet. The United States relinquished ownership to a private international committee. That was some years ago!
Those companies you named do NOT focus their efforts on doing what is best for the United States, they are focused on doing what is best for themselves!
3
"By way of example, he pointed to “this girl, from show business, Kim Kardashian.” Kardashian is among the most popular people in all of social media, with 55 million Twitter followers ..."
Pescov's observation is both scary and disheartening. Scary because it shows the immense speed with which a person with huge following can disseminates a message and incite an action. Disheartening because astounding number of people following Kim Kardashian reflects an average American's focus and priorities.
16
RT have also repeatedly featured AIDS denialists, the very worst of conspiracy theorists given that people who fall for their lies about HIV not causing AIDS can die as a result (many have).
1
When the internet was first starting to take off, there was a lot of talk that it would eventually bring down the world's totalitarian regimes by opening up a global flow of information, making it impossible for state-run media outfits to continue duping their citizens by exerting a monopoly over information.
Now, we see that these optimists had it exactly backwards. The internet makes it possible for despots who understand the science of influence to expand their "message" (which is not so much an ideology as a mindset of fear and paranoia directed at enemies of the despot) far beyond the reach of their own state-run media mouthpieces. To boot, the internet also offers up the personal identities and financial accounts of every free citizen on the planet to any hacker who is willing to put in a little effort to dig it up. And the icing on the cake: the internet sucks the masses into a constant smartphone-induced stupor that saps them from being productive at much of anything, least of all watching their own backs.
It's hard to see how this ends well of the free world.
6
RT is infinitely more reliable than the fake news
(((New York Times)))
2
Have you ever watched RT? Because it gives Noam Chomsky a platform does that make Chomsky a Russian spy? While recognizing it's a Russian government organ, I learn a lot from RT that I don't from the MSM, and I certainly get a refreshingly different perspective. The MSM coverage of Crimea and Ukraine is as much propaganda as RT's. Why is RT different from VOA?
6
How is what RT and Sputnik any different from what Voice of America has been doing for decades? We may not like Russian propaganda. They do not like ours. We are upset that Russia meddled in our elections. Just like we meddled in dozens of elections around the globe, incl. Ukraine (remember Victoria Nuland?) and Russia via all sorts of government and so-called NGO programs. Hypocritical to cry foul.
That said, if we believe that our narrative is "right", we should fight the info war with truth, not whining about RT.
21
This is not a 'tit-for-tat' situation. USA has had its nose where it should not have been. It's our 'double standard' form of diplomacy. But the real problem here is that Russian software was installed in government computers. Only proves we are a lot dumber than they.
As Stranahan told The Atlantic, though his paycheck might now come from the Russians, “Nothing about it really affects my position on stuff that I’ve had for years now.”
Spoken like a true hit man. As long as you get to spread poisonous disinfo it's all good.
Stranahan, you're working for the RUSSIANS, you fool!
Ask any former Soviet bloc citizen what it was like living under Russian rule.
The West has much to answer for but these are objectively BAD GUYS.
Hedges, Schultz, King...I fear for you souls. Stranahan's was lost long ago.
1
This quote was misleading, since the author of the piece never contacted me.
Are you familiar with my work?
For about ten years, I've been ahead of big stories like the Syrian refugee crisis and the Pigford scandal. My reporting on Pigford was confirmed by the NYT in 2012 in a front page, above the fold story.
A large part of the story but not maybe not the largest part. Ever since Russia had been discovered "tampering" with our election, the gag reflexing response from the GOP — and only after being dragged kicking and screaming to admit such tampering — is, "But no votes were changed. Not one. Not ever!" Despite the fact that a handful of voting machines across three vulnerable states supplied the measly (yet precise) 77.000 votes necessary to put Trump — Putin's favorite for countless reasons — into the White House. This might be the shoe that never drops but it is a size 13 and it is hanging over our heads, despite the denials of the Republican Party and their swamp managers.
5
Put a name to an allegation. Gratuitous use of the phrase "he told us on conditions of anonimity" caused me to lose trust in BBC. NYT should try to avoid that route.
1
Without anonymity, people who reveal corruption and wrong doing become targets for backlash, physical attack, or more. Watch the movie "All The President's Men" to see how the only way to expose President Nixon's crimes was with an anonymous source INSIDE the White House. If his identity had been revealed, Nixon would have stopped him and gotten away with his crimes! Do you think if the newspaper published his name he'd been able to go back to work the next day and gather more information against Nixon?
There is definitely a place for anonymous sourcing or else we'd never get information on wrong-doing inside government and business. Responsible journalism is guided by a code of ethics to pursue the truth but sometimes the truth puts the revealer in danger. Entities like the BBC, NYTimes, and others understand this and practice by a code of journalistic ethics. They will always put out corrections and retractions when proven to be mistaken or untrue.
These journalistic institutions are vital to democracy. How else can citizens hold leaders accountable? Your "losing trust" in the BBC isn't the fault of the BBC but of your own lack of understanding of journalism's role and process. Truth almost always skews "liberal" which is why authoritarians and extreme conservatives attack these great institutions by labeling them "fake news". It's only "fake" because truth threatens the power of those who control and profit from an uninformed citizenry kept in the dark.
1
If NYT attempts to teach me to be distrustful of RT, it will only succeed in teaching me to be distrustful. Consequently, I will learn to be distrustful of both NYT and RT. That is human psychology.
2
Disinformation, distorted facts, fake news, outrageous lies? Sounds like any weekend sermon at your church, synagogue or mosque.
2
Before 'Lisa' there was that 12-13 year old kuwaiti girl, who claimed that she saw Iraqi soldiers ripping babies out of incubators and throwing them out the window.
Using false news, as propaganda and justification is not acRussian invention.
5
There has always been fake news. There has always been propaganda. There are always many sides to any issue depending on your perspective. Intelligent people have always understood this.
Beach ball theory. Someone describes the side of the beach ball I am unable to see. I understand the description comes from their perspective. It can add or detract from my understanding, but intelligent people know this, too.
The world was made round... thank goodness. Makes life so much more interesting, like this article. But as Mr. Twain was fond of saying, "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uniformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed."
Some things never change.
3
If Rusian propaganda influenced the just enough to influenced just enough to give DT an electoral victory in three states,why were the results validated?
Because, unfortunately, there is no way built into the system currently to catch this influence and expose it before the results are validated at the end of election night.
Gees, people, think! Why are there so many commenters from American states displaying such poor reasoning skills about what this article is stating? It took months to gather all of this intelligence, analyze it, double-check conclusions, and disseminate these facts. Voting results are only checked by local poll officials to verify that people who were registered to vote, voted properly, NOT to see if they were somehow influenced by the many targeted Russian disinformation campaigns. The results were then vailidated because they passed these standards. That doesn't make the fact that gullible, low-information voters were swayed by the propaganda any less true!
3
How can we stop it when we have a president who says Russian interference isn't a problem and a Congress that doesn't have the backbone to hold the president accountable?
3
Remember folks, the Russians are incapable of creating anything on their own. They are brilliant at stealing and copying. Jet engines rockets, nuclear, everything is a copy!
They are rather a devious lot, too........
WRONG! I'm old enough, and then some, to remember Sputnik, you know the interspace rocket they launched while we sat back and watched? They were FIRST, and it was President Kennedy that entered the space race.
The best thing to ever appear to help the KGB and Soviet propaganda planners was the New York Times and the Senate Democrats under Ted Kennedy.
While Teddy was offering to help out the Russians with their public-relations disasters of the 1980's like Afghanistan, the Times ran pretty much anything the Reds needed the American voters to read and believe.
Unlike today, there were the James Restons offering dissonant opinions on the pro-Soviet mania along the American coasts, but a real Stalin would look at the thousand anti-Trump (and anti-American) stories of the past year as his dream coming true.
This crazy story of how Russian gov't-controlled media went to extremes to sell a fake story is the precursor to the past year's fake Russian collusion stories. This must be where the Times, WaPo, and CNN got this whole idea.
When I was young and newspapers were still important, I learned that the easiest way to judge a good paper from a poor paper was the number of wire services it subscribed to; 2-3 was very poor, while 10-12 was excellent. Then came the 80s and the media buy-ups. The number of different points of view quickly diminished. Now there are more voices available again, but they tend to develop within strange echo chambers of similar beliefs. In the end we now have few reliably broad views of the world, or even the nation, and great swathes of the doctrinaire.
2
When one sees all that alarm, from Brussels to (non-Trump) Washington and MSM and their talking heads one must inevitably wonder:
Is a non-communist, Putin's Russia really in any way a similar or even worse threat to us and to Western democracy than commmunist USSR under Stalin or even Brezhnev ever were?
One might understand that - especially some, yep not only those defense contractors - might always need some enemy even when:
a) Soviet communist block has been history and the PRC's (Chinese) communism is more an amalgam of nationalism and hard knuckle capitalism our corporations have been for decades eager to do business with and
b) Non-existing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were "missed" by our system of "checks and balances" as well as independent media.
We are supposed to see Russia as major threat while our Middle East ally, Saudi Arabia & Co. have been for decades with petrodollars funding bedrock of jihadism, Wahhabism etc.
On top of that, Russia, with its own 17 millions of Muslims and being a neighbor to some Muslim countries is our natural ally concerning the threat of islamist terrorism.
1
Because most Americans are hopelessly stupid and ignorant and because our president is ignorant, stupid and greedy person with a severe personality disorder bordering on sociopathy?
1
"When people read these anti-Russian stories they should keep in mind a few facts: Russia is encircled by NATO...."
I don't know if that comment was posted by a Russian troll, an American, or a Martian, but whoever the person is, he or she is either a purveyor of false facts -- more accurately known as lies -- or woefully ignorant. Last I checked China, Mongolia, and several other countries bordering Russia were not members of N.A.T.O.
3
Margarita Simonyan was baffled by the stupidity of American youngsters who asked her if they had dogs in Russia.
I remember well how I was baffled in 1972 when I visited a Methodist parish in Evanston, Ill. and at an evening party, with a glass of wine, I was friendly asked by young people of my generation: "Do still have people like Hitler in your government ?"
These were children of quite upscale families, probably future economic, cultural, political leaders, and who did not have the slightest idea of what was happening outside their golden ghetto.
It seems that the naivety of American voters, TV and social media users has not advanced very much when interpreting political info coming from abroad.
But there is another point:
If RT and its clients can thrive in the US it is also because mainstream journalists don't do their job. They have left parts of US social and political reality out of their vision and thus created a niche for attack.
And a last one:
Apparently, media users are not enough educated, got no real media education in school to interpret TV, social media, the print press. When you need conspiracy histories to try to understand what is happening in your country and around, the zero level of political particiation has been passed.
2
What if US media were to do a better job of keeping us informed? RT, for example, is a breath of fresh air.
2
So the Russians open are declaring war, and have completed a 9/11 scaled attack, and The Donald says nothing, does nothing other than go d reasons to support Putin.
He took an oath that says,
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
When will Republicans stand up to threats both foriegn and in The Donalds case, domestic?
3
To answer your question - when it's too late.
The spin put by the German government and now by NYT on the Lisa story is truly disgusting. That girl WAS raped - plain and simple - by her "19-year-old male friend" and by the 23-year-old child rapist. Those rapes were filmed and the videos were available to the police. Yet the child rapist was let off with a reprimand by a German court. In what universe does a proven child rapist get a suspended sentence? In what society do young girls have adult "male friends"? If all but calling a 13-year-old child a "whore" and claiming that her sex with grown men was "consensual" is not a cover-up I do not know what is. A child (even a troubled one) cannot consent to sex with adults. Just because she lied (like scared and confused children often do) to her parents and to police in her original statement does not mean that there was no crime. Maybe it is common in Germany for a child to have "consensual" sex with an adult, but it is not legal in Russia and certainly not in the US. Her parents and their relatives and neighbours were understandably and justifiably concerned when German authorities tried to blame everything on Lisa. Now they (with an assist from NYT) try to present the whole story as a "Russian hit", as if Russia sent in the rapists and then refused to prosecute the criminals. Have you no shame at all?
5
Dear NYTimes... how many of the comments here can you authenticate? How many of these commenters are authentic people?
3
Certainly not the ones coming from the "Middle of something", that's for sure.
1
Peskov's quotes discussing an information war and information disaster immediately bring to mind Paul Virilio's "The Information Bomb". The most basic thesis of this work being that every technological advance in speed has a corresponding increase in magnitude when it inevitably crashes. From the Hindenburg to the Concord and from the mechanics of a musket to the mechanics of a nuclear weapon. The speed of information follows a similar corollary path, where our real-time present seems tantalizingly close to revealing what this new kind of crash looks like. The Russians seem poised to deflect this force most capable when it arrives.
I'm wondering if registering Sputnik and RT as foreign agents is a positive step. Will social media reflect that information when an innocent "victim" reads a source that passes that propaganda?
My God! We taught the Russians how to do this! They learned by studying Voice of America and Fox News! How could we think Voice of America was unbiased? It was the voice of America, not some totally dispassionate intergalactic observer.
And what do we do now? Already some Americans listen to RT and Sputnik just as they do Fox. And refuse to remember Fox was never intended to be unbiased. It was born to be the right-wing answer to ABC and NBC and CBS.
And now RT and Sputnik have the UN"s implied endorsement. How soon before Ford and GM start advertising on RT?
I began fearing for our country when Trump was elected. Almost every day I read stories like this one and my fear grows greater.
12
Never hurts to ask but doesn't the Western mainstream media behave in the same way, seeking to help to reinforce the political agenda from the West, does it?
2
What we experienced in the 2016 election was the 21st Century version of an invasion. To think our own President benefited directly from this is sickening; and to think that it is possible that he and his people conspired with the invaders is even more disturbing. They took a key tenant of our democracy, freedom of speech and turned it back on itself, tapping in to human flaws and weakness of mind while seizing the perspectives of many American citizens who now, will fight before admitting to the fact that they were manipulated.
6
Europe with its general population being better educated than residents of the U.S., is less likely to fall for this, although it causes them great consternation
You have to wonder, Will RT buy FOX?
Will the propaganda be monetized so its paid for with the things we buy?
Will the four mix to result in a new media channel/brand/GOP/Column 5.0
(GOP is thrown for free when RT buys FOX.)
Would any of this be illegal?
Does our tax-starved government have the resources to chase these real challenges effectively?
1
Stop foreign infiltration! Would that include Russian émigré infiltration of Germany?
Seriously, what this article fails to point out is how Russia's strategy reveals the country's inherent weakness. Russia produces nothing of value other than raw materials (which don't have quite the value they once had); its economy generally and its political process (if one can call it that) are at dead-ends; its military power, though great, is no match for the Western alliance; culturally it counts for nothing anymore; and it remains mired in social decay -- alcoholism, drug abuse, falling birth rates, decreased longevity, etc. Relative to the rest of the world it's in worse shape than pre-1914 Tsarist Russia was. Don't be fooled by the glittering capitals of Moscow and Petersburg. The rest of the country is one big Potemkin village.
3
I think this article acts as PR for RT. Untruths told as facts are not "other viewpoints." They are incorrect information. There's has to be a distinction beyond "everybody is entitled to their own opinion." News agency have a non-delegable duty to only report the truth. Other views are not newsworthy simply because they upend the reality of a situation and deliberately reflect it back in a way that distorts or changes its fundamental truthfulness.
5
Democracy requires an educated, tolerant and questioning society. America no longer qualifies.
3
RT and Sputnik are the most followed sources of trump and his dim wit supporters.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that trump is directly funding and enabling RT and Sputnik with our tax dollars. they are definitely supporting trump.
3
Russians do "it," and so do we and so do others.
Russians happen to be much better at it than anyone else.
Proof? See the circulation, especially in Muslim countries, of the "Protocolls of the Elders of Zion."
Countering the Russians' effort calls for something the West, and especially the US, have neglected or abandoned of late.
It is called Education.
Even the slickest propaganda would have little chance in a society that critically examines every "news item," instead of swallowing every slogan and base their day-long dreaming on them.
And creating such a society is not difficult: We have the teachers, we only need policies that allows them to teach, really teach.
3
Yes, we have the teachers, however the politics we need to 'allow them to teach' would require some adjustment - it's called Socialism. Our capitalism has been allowed to run amok and provides only for the privileged, not for the general public. Our public schools are one more shameful disgrace.
"Socialism" tried to mis-educate me while ruining my birth-country from 1948 to 1989, so I can only gently spit on any opinion that offers Socialism as a remedy for anything
1
For all the Trump supporters who believe Russia's attempt to influence America's elections is propaganda ginned up by the "lamestream" media, Russia's lapdog-media spokesman is quite cavalier about the truth: "It's war."
To my family members who are Trump-loving servicemen and veterans, he said: "It's war."
Let that sink in for a minute.
1
Actually i found this article alarmist, long and boring and not very informative. From what I have watched of RT I have seen some good intelligent alternative viewpoints. Watch it and make up your own mind, yes there may be some propaganda but then most channels have their own viewpoints and hidden agendas. Fox news to me is 10 times worse than RT, granted that's a low bar.
4
Fox news is allowed to continue only because of freedom of speech - no blow is low enough. You're excused.
Tim Tam: Just goes to show you how good they are at doing what they do.
Their sophistication leaves yahoos like FOX in the dust.
RT works in an open and free market. No one is coerced to watch RT, yet it is the most viewed TV-network on YouTube, far ahead of CNN, BBC and all the others. Thus it's a simple case of commercial success. As for bias towards its home country there is nothing whatsoever to distinguish RT from any western MSM.
To label RT a state propaganda outlet is a desperate competition trick (many of the largest TV companies in the world are state owned; in USA they are owned by "the business state"). "Propaganda" comes mainly from the fact that RT takes on issues that western MSM systematically censors. This censorship is to a large extent performed in the service of the "owners of the world", the capitalist class (which conveniently enough owns the media directly).
One of the very significant voices censored by US media for decades is Noam Chomsky ("arguably the most important intellectual in the world"). For one thing he analyzed convincingly (together with Edward Herman) already two decades ago why and how this withholding of crucial facts by commercial media worked (which of course is reason enough to censor him).
Propaganda as intentional deceit is all over the place (together with lots of decent reporting). In the "free world" we are peculiar in that we usually believe in the propaganda we encounter daily. That's a great achievement.
7
Russia is not the only State that has Russian Speakers and whose government is at odds with the Democratic Party in the US, and that would be Israel, with the large numbers of Russian and Ex-Soviet immigrants that have become Settlers and are Very Politically Active. Israel has proven, in many ways, that they are not always our friends, and they have disclosed that they use "Information Specialists" to influence news on various Social Sites. The have told the world that they troll the internet. And it is more believable than it would be for Russia to intercede here, and only Israel really feared a Clinton Presidency, along with the far-right here in the US.
2
HOW TRUE! Israel has 'flipped the bird' at the USA while being the highest recipient of our generosity in foreign assistance: we support their education program (not ours) their health system (better than our non existing one) and their military might. Not any wonder they are in fear of the extreme right. I'm not in favor of any neo-Nazis movement in this country, but I'd would deal with the devil if it would make this small country accountable for its crimes and arrogance of its leaders.
1
it sounds like Fox news! using unnamed sources or "people are saying" making things up from whole cloth, or sometimes w a tenuous connection to reality. why are we surprised by this?
1
First let me say I like RT and watch it every day. It has some good documentaries and I find its News broadcast better than most US MSM news. I particularly like the News With Ed(Schulz). It has good comedy show in Redacted Tonight with Lee Camp.
One of the things I really like about RT over US broadcasts is the fact that it does pay attention to events in countries other than America. If you watch MSNBC or Fox you hear nothing (right now) but Florida, Florida, Florida. Yes I know things are dreadful down there and all the networks flew correspondents in, but how many times do you want to see flooded houses and streets.
RT will give news from Syria, Iraq- all those mid-east wars which our papers and TV news have stopped covering. Also I don't get 5 minutes of commercial spots while only getting 3 minutes of news. It is the predominance of commercials which have driven me away from mainstream TV networks.
While many of their programs give a Russian "spin" to some stories (esp. Syria), it is not that this preference is any difference from the "Spin" MSM puts on their shows. If you watch France 24 which I do quite a bit, their news definitely is from the French point of view. I really see nothing wrong with this.If anything I found this article a little overblown and hysterical.
As for the Lisa Story, people wouldn't have believed it so easily had it not been preceded by the Cologne Train station grope fest by young male refugees.
6
It is a statement about the gullibility and willful ignorance of the American public that Russia is so effective with misinformation in our country.
3
Unfortunately, this piece offered more implications than facts. It was a disappointment for a person looking for revelations about the extent and significance of their efforts to influence the election.
2
With all the wisdom, scholarship, and financial resources we have regarding media, marketing, social psychology, social justice, legal theory, rhetoric, and entertainment, why can we not do something much more effective and constructive to deal with these issues? Rather than just complaining and warning people, let's take steps to use our strengths and talents (as western liberal democracies) for the greater good.
2
"an Informed citizenry" is considered the central safeguard of democracy.
We've never had to deal so dangerously with the questions,
informed by whom,
and to what end?
3
Walter Lippmann predicted the distorting effect of an Information Technology world in his study, Public Opinion (1921).
"The creation of consent is not a new art. It is a very old one which was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy. But it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in technic (sic) because it is now based on analysis rather than rule of thumb.
"And so, as a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power."
In retrospect, the reader of Public Opinion would have to say that the appearance of oligarchies alongside the subversion of democracy in growing, concomitant accord suggests that both Weber and Marx were on to something in their understanding of the means to manipulate the masses.
George Orwell tried to simplify the warning message in his fictional creations, but the "modern means of communication" has developed to the point where our species seems almost defenseless in its vulnerability.
3
@George Victor
It's an important and interesting aspect you bring up! Herman & Chomsky elaborated further on Lippmann's theses, demonstrating that corporate media in the so called free world effectively manufacture consent, and showed how they do it. We are made to think that a free press is a guarantee for truthful reporting, when in fact media have agendas which are skillfully enforced.
People who lived in countries with state monitored propaganda (like in the old Soviet Union) could usually see through the government's intentions. It doesn't take much input from other sources for people to become critical in such an environment. We, on the other hand, have been effectively lulled into the belief that we get a fairly comprehensive and complete perception of the world, when in fact our media paints a picture intended to serve very specific interests and ideologies.
This is where RT poses a real threat to the establishment. It's staff is mostly made up of clever reporters from the US and Europe, tired of working in that propaganda model our mainstream media offers. RT rippes of the veil from issues our corporate media deliberately have concealed or ignored. And that explains the frenzy in the attacks on RT, to an extent in which it almost becomes laughable.
1
Are quotations from Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion on your not wanted list ?
His federally commissioned study, published in 1921, concluded that the citizenry is vulnerable to the situation described in this story. Thanks to "psychological research coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power."
I was aghast throughout this campaign. Every time I typed certain words like Trump, Russia etc. my computer would seize up or the screen would race away. I didn't have to be paranoid to connect it with what I had been messaging on FB. Nearly everybody to whom I related this peculiarity seemed to think I was the peculiar one. I thought people much more prescient than I were in charge and were taking appropriate measures? Yoo Hoo, NSA, CIA, FBI and unmentioned others. Does anyone want to hire me? I'm available.
What's new here? The US has overtly and covertly overthrown governments for decades. We have interfered in elections we deem "rigged". In the name of human rights we attacked Putin and tried to influence Russian elections. We just aren't as good as the Russians in the old game of agit/prop, which has been around for decades. As in football, sometimes the best defense is a good offense. American propaganda efforts are mired in agency rivalries, and palace politics bickering. Russia doesn't have an independent press undermining everything the government does in the name of the first Amendment. Leaks would destroy any effort by the US to deal with Russia on a reciprocal basis. The best defense here is the common sense of the American people. We will never be able to match the Russians agitprop programs
8
Absolutely right, Smith. Witness the laughable US attempts at countering ISIS recruitment.
Please point out the differences between Fox and RT.
As far as I can see they both have a common goal: present the message dictated by their plutocrat owners.
1
We had insurmountable problems in WWII but we solved them.
No reason we can't solve them now. Or does this generation lack the will, drive and intelligence of their grandfathers?
1
We are now in the era of not only fake news, but of fake media. it's easy for people with extreme political viewpoints to find and limit themselves to news outlets that only reflect their point of view. True news sources, ones that have editorial checks and balances, are being denigrated as fake news, while Breitbart, RT, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk are celebrated as truth-tellers by their followers. It seems like real news sources are being overwhelmed by the fake ones due frankly to the ignorance of a large segment of the American people.
4
What to do about Russian influence over what US citizens think? First, how about restarting the House Un-American Activities Committee, and subpoenaing any US citizen featured on an RT program to face questioning, especially those critical of US policy or who highlight US problems like economic inequality, inadequate health care, corporate influence over legislators, bloated defense budgets etc. Obviously, these "critics" are Agents of Putin -- enemy infowar combatants -- and may need a visit to Guantanamo or some other carceral facility. Some might even be considered "information terrorists." A Congressional tribunal on "fake news" would certainly deter would-be critics of the US.
Ban RT and Sputnik from US cable networks, internet servers, and social media. China's Communist Party censors info that it finds offensive -- why can't we? In coming years, as US global influence begins to wane, and problems like climate change overwhelm homeland defenses, we shall need to apply wartime measures to the dissemination of information. Loose lips sink ships. Zip it if you don't have something nice to say.
Beef up US intelligence community presence in American news outlets and social media -- perhaps provide outright subsidies to CNN, Facebook, the Washington Post, etc. The US news media has been fiscally challenged since the rise of the internet; an infusion of CIA money, for instance, would go a long way toward improving morale, and the bottom line.
2
"Joint Russian and Belarusian military exercises will target fictional countries that look an awful lot like the Baltic States."
It sounds like the time has come to permanently station NATO troops, including Americans, in all of the EU states that border the USSR, I mean, Russia, if those states ask for it. The troops should then practice repelling an attack that from a country that resembles Russia.
1
Putin expresed his ambition in 2013 to “break the monopoly of the Anglo-Saxon global information streams.”
Obviously Putin is mainly keen on short-term gains. His information war with the West gives him the satisfaction when he succeeds in disrupting the current world order, by sowing fear, doubt and confusion.
Russia Today - the Kremlin's TV mouthpiece abroad - feeds a Western audience that has little regard for accuracy and impartiality. Often they are cynics or pseudo-intellectuals. Disgruntled, they offer little to humanity and believe that human rights are a sham and democracy a fix. RT's second mission is to spread conspiracy theories that help advance the Kremlin's interests abroad and provide sensational audience-grabbing stories.
RT offers a forum from anti-fracking greens (not for the sake of the environment, but to increase Russia's oil and gas exports) to far right groups, that admire how Putin has accumulated dictatorial power and wish to emulate him. Putin may be popular, but it remains to be seen how the world history will judge him.
6
Russians with a hyphen appended- Russian-Germans, Russian-Americans, others . . . escape the conditions they detested in Russia and then support the same virulent far-right xenophobia and nationalism that they fled from in the first place. They're hardly the only immigrant diaspora communities with this peculiar version of the Stockholm syndrome. They rail against the evils of communism but fail to acknowledge that Putin's Russia benefits a select few while the vast majority are worse off than before. Of course we don't have the statistics on the epidemics of alcoholism, suicides, and abject poverty because Putin controls the media as well as Stalin and the hard-core commies ever did.
14
It's all statecraft. We've been doing it forever. Just now the Russians have one upped us with better looking, more creative and entertaining presentation of their slant of the news. A more interesting story might be what happened to the US and VOA turning it into a dull, bureaucratic and predictable muzak of the news.
13
“RT may not convince, but it adds to the confusion between truth and falsehood and fosters that darkness of the mind in which dictatorships operate.”
That's not statecraft. I hope DCCC doesn't teach you such nonsense.
That's not statecraft. I hope DCCC doesn't teach you such nonsense.
RT is a blatant distraction foisted upon the people of the world by Putin as his (and Russia's) personal PR office, in order to portray Russia as some up-front, transparent player in the world.
I challenge anyone to watch RT. I guarantee discerning minds will not be able to get through an afternoon of it.
What initially might pass for some sort of unique, different, other perspective will in a few short hours turn into a bombardment of propaganda pieces that veer off course into irrelevance and unrelated nodes so quickly it will be impossible to take seriously.
RT is no Russian BBC. It is more like a Rush Limbaugh who actually graduated from college made up to be a little more sleazier than his profile suggests meets a fox-newz'ish imperative of faux urgency and slick production constantly find new ways to say 'Russia good, America BAD.'
I challenge anyone to watch RT. I guarantee discerning minds will not be able to get through an afternoon of it.
What initially might pass for some sort of unique, different, other perspective will in a few short hours turn into a bombardment of propaganda pieces that veer off course into irrelevance and unrelated nodes so quickly it will be impossible to take seriously.
RT is no Russian BBC. It is more like a Rush Limbaugh who actually graduated from college made up to be a little more sleazier than his profile suggests meets a fox-newz'ish imperative of faux urgency and slick production constantly find new ways to say 'Russia good, America BAD.'
24
Well, it should be refreshing on the background of 'America is good, Russia is bad'. You think RT is bad? Well, what is the problem in this case? It should pose no threat to America. Although according to article, there are a plenty of American people who disagree with you, because despite being bad, RT has a huge influence on American people. One of two, either you don't understand American psycho or the article exaggerates the influence of RT.
3
What is your take on Larry King's years of being on RT payroll, lending them his prestige of being the "golden standard" of (American/Western) TV interviewing?
1
I watch RT all the time. From your hysterical rant I gather that you if not watched it. The RT I watch is no way resembles what you are saying. Have you actually watched it?
1
RT is the only TV that covers USA news without fear of the American power elite to which all USA news lives in fear of. Witness the lack of criticism of our war on Iraq for which there was no basis. Yet USA news cheered yet another needless war.
RT has little need to invent negative stories -- they only need to cover that which American news does not cover.
Yes, RT always covers Russia in a very pro Putin light. Their stories are as obviously false as is the positive coverage of Trump by Fox. I simply ignore everything said about Russia.
That's a small price to pay to get balanced -- verses CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox -- coverage of what's going on in the USA!
RT has little need to invent negative stories -- they only need to cover that which American news does not cover.
Yes, RT always covers Russia in a very pro Putin light. Their stories are as obviously false as is the positive coverage of Trump by Fox. I simply ignore everything said about Russia.
That's a small price to pay to get balanced -- verses CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox -- coverage of what's going on in the USA!
34
@Sita: Many Americans did not cheer when we invaded Iraq. People with sense were horrified when someone of Colin Powell's stature supported that fiasco, which was ram-rodded by draft-dodging Republicans.
Interesting. If propaganda is your bag, view on!
1
The underlying problem is neither Russian efforts at disinformation nor those of Trump, Limbaugh, and their ilk. Rather, the problem is that in the internet age people can, with no effort, easily reinforce what they believe or fear. Living in an information silo is, sadly, what most folks choose.
Fifty years ago information came essentially from local radio, local and regional newspapers, and three TV networks. TV was middle-of-the-road, governed by the Federal Fairness Doctrine. Americans watched their evening newscasts, and even as we passionately disagreed about many things, our conversations and arguments were at least over similar bodies of information.
Then America was sold a bill of goods: promoted as supplying more diversity of culture and opinion, we signed off on 500 channel TV and abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Instead of promoting multi-cultural and multi-political interaction, it had the opposite effect. Suddenly, 24/7, you could have whatever world view you already had reinforced by a TV station catering to that view. The internet is 500 channel TV on steroids.
There is absolutely nothing new about disinformation as a political and military tactic. The only thing that changes are the tools by which such are accomplished. The way to fight it is extremely simple yet extremely difficult: whenever you hear, read, or see something about which you positively or negatively react to strongly, do your best to seek out opposing -- or at least different -- views.
Fifty years ago information came essentially from local radio, local and regional newspapers, and three TV networks. TV was middle-of-the-road, governed by the Federal Fairness Doctrine. Americans watched their evening newscasts, and even as we passionately disagreed about many things, our conversations and arguments were at least over similar bodies of information.
Then America was sold a bill of goods: promoted as supplying more diversity of culture and opinion, we signed off on 500 channel TV and abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Instead of promoting multi-cultural and multi-political interaction, it had the opposite effect. Suddenly, 24/7, you could have whatever world view you already had reinforced by a TV station catering to that view. The internet is 500 channel TV on steroids.
There is absolutely nothing new about disinformation as a political and military tactic. The only thing that changes are the tools by which such are accomplished. The way to fight it is extremely simple yet extremely difficult: whenever you hear, read, or see something about which you positively or negatively react to strongly, do your best to seek out opposing -- or at least different -- views.
28
Well said, Steve!
To work, the Russian disinformation campaign depends on Trump voters who are not only willing but eager to be disinformed to salve their fragile white egos. Its success is based on the willful ignorance of American voters.
14
Nothing new here. The problem is neither Russian efforts at disinformation nor those of Trump, Limbaugh, and their ilk. Rather, it is that in the internet age people can, with no effort, easily reinforce what they believe or fear. Living in an information bubble is, sadly, what most folks choose.
Fifty years ago information came essentially from local radio, local and regional newspapers, and three TV networks. TV was middle-of-the-road, governed by the Federal Fairness Doctrine. Americans watched their evening newscasts, and even as we passionately disagreed about many things, our conversations and arguments were at least over similar bodies of information.
Then America was sold a bill of goods: promoted as supplying more diversity of culture and opinion, we signed off on 500 channel TV and abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Instead of promoting multi-cultural and multi-political interaction, it had the opposite effect. Suddenly, 24/7, you could have whatever world view you already had reinforced by a TV station catering to that view. The internet is 500 channel TV on steroids.
There is absolutely nothing new about disinformation as a political and military tactic. The only thing that changes are the tools by which such are accomplished. The way to fight it is extremely simple yet extremely difficult: whenever you hear, read, or see something about which you positively or negatively react to strongly, do your best to seek out opposing -- or at least different -- views.
Fifty years ago information came essentially from local radio, local and regional newspapers, and three TV networks. TV was middle-of-the-road, governed by the Federal Fairness Doctrine. Americans watched their evening newscasts, and even as we passionately disagreed about many things, our conversations and arguments were at least over similar bodies of information.
Then America was sold a bill of goods: promoted as supplying more diversity of culture and opinion, we signed off on 500 channel TV and abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Instead of promoting multi-cultural and multi-political interaction, it had the opposite effect. Suddenly, 24/7, you could have whatever world view you already had reinforced by a TV station catering to that view. The internet is 500 channel TV on steroids.
There is absolutely nothing new about disinformation as a political and military tactic. The only thing that changes are the tools by which such are accomplished. The way to fight it is extremely simple yet extremely difficult: whenever you hear, read, or see something about which you positively or negatively react to strongly, do your best to seek out opposing -- or at least different -- views.
7
Its a communist plot. It's a capitalist plot. We are merely pawns who control the destiny of kings. We are living in our favourite spy novels.
3
When people read these anti-Russian stories they should keep in mind a few facts: Russia is encircled by NATO (Russia has no military presence in our hemisphere); Russia's economy is on par with that of Italy; and Russia's military spending is 1/10th that of the US. As just reflected by those 3 facts, which country is the real warfare state?
14
As much as some may advocate the promotion of all speech as "free speech", it shouldn't include outright lies that can't be substantiated. people count on free speech to include different ideas and trust what they're hearing as the truth; "the news." but without some oversight of the quality, we're left with a food-fight of information--accurate or not. Hence, the situation we're in under the banner of free speech and caveat emptor. At least, a banner should be required to be attached to the "news" that's unsubstantiated as a warning. Thought police, a little. But yelling fire in a theater is not free speech either.
5
Last year we has two of the most hated presidential candidates in history, yet 99% of the media ignored alternative candidates from the Libertarian and Green parties. One of the few media outlets to give fair hearing to these candidates was RT. For doing so, RT was labeled subversive in the "intelligence" report cited by Mr. Rutenberg. It is obvious that the Republocrat duopoly establishment and its mouthpieces at the Times and elsewhere are threatened by the possibility that their control of the US electoral process is weakening.
22
Those alternative candidates were ignored for very good reason, even aside from the fact, that in our country, even wildly popular third party candidates like Teddy Roosevelt do not have a snowball's chance in hell to win the presidency.
I actually took a look at the two alternative party candidates, and even though I have long liked Weld, I was really put off by both Stein and Johnson -- who himself was a horrid candidate when he ran as a Republican.
If RT or other news outlets want to cover such races in detail, they should have at it. I am not going to waste my limited time reading extensively about them.
I agree completely with Ms. Simonyan and RT; all of us need to both question and consider more. The problem I have is there is such an excess of information sources--on the internet and television and in published books, journals, magazines, newspapers and reports by governments, non-governmental organizations, and so-called "think-tanks"--that knowing what to consider can seem like a crapshoot. This problem is compounded by the undisclosed agendas and hidden biases that most, if not all, of the foregoing sources likely have.
However, what I find thoroughly detestable and unacceptable is the use of the news and social media by any government to engage in information warfare intended to disrupt and/or undermine the governance of a foreign nation, particularly one that endeavors to govern democratically. If what US intelligence has reported--that Putin ordered "an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election...to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency”--and RT and/or Sputnik were knowingly complicit in that campaign, Ms. Simonyan ought to be embarrassed and ashamed to call herself a journalist.
Then again, I might seem to her just another hypocritical, myopic and sanctimonious American whose ignorance or willful blindness prevents him from seeing that in our never-ending cold war with Russia/Soviets, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
However, what I find thoroughly detestable and unacceptable is the use of the news and social media by any government to engage in information warfare intended to disrupt and/or undermine the governance of a foreign nation, particularly one that endeavors to govern democratically. If what US intelligence has reported--that Putin ordered "an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election...to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency”--and RT and/or Sputnik were knowingly complicit in that campaign, Ms. Simonyan ought to be embarrassed and ashamed to call herself a journalist.
Then again, I might seem to her just another hypocritical, myopic and sanctimonious American whose ignorance or willful blindness prevents him from seeing that in our never-ending cold war with Russia/Soviets, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
7
It seems like the truth itself is an interference in American politics. Remember, the leaked DNC emails were true, and yet the leak was labeled as an interference. It is difficult for me to see as fair the request to media to withhold the truth.
1
I really think it is impossible for RT or any news company to denigrate Hillary Clinton. The facts of her 30 years on the public scene does the job. Who can forget Hillary Care, Travel Scandal, Rose Law Firm, Benghazi, her remarks while watching Qaddafi be sodomized, her E-Mail server etc.
Our kids must be taught how to decipher real from fake news and learn that social media is not "real" news if we are to have a fact-based future.
4
I always liked the way Sputnik sounded and a lot of fun to say. Glad it's back in the news.
3
It is unsurprising that a country so steeped in totalitarianism should be so good at waging propaganda warfare. Unless the US is to become a totalitarian state itself, there is no defense but education and critical thinking. But I don't think this country is up to the task. We have entered a mind-boggling age where people believe in an global "mainstream media" conspiracy. Somehow, every outlet from Wall Street Journal to Al Jazeera is in cahoots with each other. Unsourced web sites you've never heard of, that Uncle Bob happened to share on Facebook, has become "independent news." And the most powerful form of persuasion is not evidence and logic, but putting whatever you have to say in the form of an internet meme. In this environment, you don't have to be Russian intelligence to successfully spread nonsense.
6
I keep reading "Well, we do it too," Well we are AMERICANS, so why would you not choose US over RUSSIA. Of course, the people saying it are Trump supporters, and we know EXACTLY why they are saying it: They are afraid their Trumpy will be taken from them. Get a grip-- be more afraid that democracy is being taken from you.
Several month ago I heard a Trump supporter interviewed about Russian meddling on NPR, and he said he'd like to thank Putin. If that is what we are dealing with, the rest of us will be the ones saving democracy. And we will.
6
So, Americans should not be objective, they should blindly approve the government actions? Is that your idea of Democracy?
I'm not sure how one would develop the class plan, but the only way I see citizens resisting the charlatans is to employ and emphasize critic thinking in student's so when they come of age, voting that is, they are better equipped. Perhaps emphasizing the -need- to vote wouldn't hurt either.
3
Oh, so *that's* why the GOP congress and administration are allocating zero resources to this - it's impossible to combat, so we might as well just surrender. It's definitely not because they were the beneficiaries of the attack.
3
I was thinking again about this article, and I realize I have no recollection of any friend or acquaintance ever mentioning any Russian news source. I would be quite surprised were there to have been such a mention. There is just no reason to look to Russia for news.
4
Good grief, I have no idea what RT or Sputnik are or do nor do I care. I do have and care about the New York Times and I also have PBS. Why would I want a Russian or German or Japanese ... source of news? I am not about to be tempted by slanted news and I think I can spot such news easily.
5
"Nancy" says, "I am not about to be tempted by slanted news and I think I can spot such news easily."
Oh, Nancy, how wrong you are. ..
Oh, Nancy, how wrong you are. ..
1
It's reprehensible, this deception, but as I've said before while debating friends: social media and internet-only news sources, are not as reliable as those that have previously provided print-only news. NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall St. Journal - they've been in the business a long time, have trained and educated journalists, and protocols for vetting articles before they are published. While it's true that every publication has a left-right leaning, I've found that, other than the editorial page, a typical news article from one of these publications provides a much broader, comprehensive perspective than a Facebook link to what is essentially a blog posting. I've seen old college classmates, smart ones, routinely share "news" stories or pile on invective in the comments section, even though it's obviously false or lacking necessary context. Unfortunately, in addition being increasingly tribal, many in our society are too lazy to read through an investigative report, preferring to click on the play icon on a YouTube video or tuning into Fox news.
8
In the Trump era I have gained an incredible respect for the New York Times And The Washington Post. I'm almost addicted to it because it is my only reliable source of what I would consider true investigative reporting. your comment was very well said.
Was Putin responsible for the ridiculous coverage of Melania's high heels during Harvey?
Russian hacking is the least of our media problems.
Russian hacking is the least of our media problems.
11
I'm not sure, Eric. I think you could really make a point for Russian election hacking actually being worse than the ridiculous coverage of Melania's high heels. Or would you say that the media calling Barack Obama elitist because he didn't want ketchup on his burger was also worse that Russian hacking an election?
5
To equate the cosmetic gloss of commenters nattering about Melania's shoes to the perversion of our sacred electoral process is beyond the pale, sir.
5
@Bill,
I suspect you are uninterested in fining out if illegal aliens voted in our sacred electoral process.
I suspect you are uninterested in fining out if illegal aliens voted in our sacred electoral process.
1
Wow, just wow. Aside from the usual American far-left love being expressed here for Russia which in the US goes back to the early 1920s, it's really strange to see the pro-Russia, anti-US comments being posted here, some written by obviously non-native English speakers with suspicious names from Red States. This is straight from Putin's KGB playbook to foment a low level civil war by pitting Red States against Blue States.
Does anyone else notice this? Is the NYTimes taking this seriously? I'm now convinced that Putin's trolls have been here all along. I remember comments during the election that just didn't seem right or even grammatically coherent and always bashing Hillary. And often they were one-time commenters I'd never seen before or ever again. This is serious, NYTimes. You need to take a hard look at comments and make sure we're not being hijacked by these trolls. It's not about fear but about making sure that those who are here commenting aren't paid to sow discord. Some kid in a former Soviet block country who doesn't have clue as to what's going on here beyond what he's paid for and doesn't even care to understand the issues, has no business injecting his "made in Russia" "opinion".
Wake up, New York Times editors, and begin addressing what's happening in your own walled garden!
Does anyone else notice this? Is the NYTimes taking this seriously? I'm now convinced that Putin's trolls have been here all along. I remember comments during the election that just didn't seem right or even grammatically coherent and always bashing Hillary. And often they were one-time commenters I'd never seen before or ever again. This is serious, NYTimes. You need to take a hard look at comments and make sure we're not being hijacked by these trolls. It's not about fear but about making sure that those who are here commenting aren't paid to sow discord. Some kid in a former Soviet block country who doesn't have clue as to what's going on here beyond what he's paid for and doesn't even care to understand the issues, has no business injecting his "made in Russia" "opinion".
Wake up, New York Times editors, and begin addressing what's happening in your own walled garden!
20
I completely agree with your assessment, and had noticed the appalling illiteracy of "Trump" supporters. My problem is that Trump's tweeting language is equally illiterate. Are his supporters sophisticated Russian hackers or true Red States HS rejects? Maybe a combination.
1
I always believed that we and our liberal democracy with free, independent media "watchdogs of democracy" are strong enough to withstand a) Stalin's and Brezhnev's Communist Russia tanks and now b) non-communist, non-Western standard always democratic Putin's Russia and its "weaponize" news.
So Stalin, who dismissed influence and power of Catholic Church with (supposedly) his: "And how many army divisions the Pope has?" was in the end wrong as "soft power" of post-Communist Russian media are equal (or even larger?) threat to Western democracy communist tanks (and rockets) ever were?
So Stalin, who dismissed influence and power of Catholic Church with (supposedly) his: "And how many army divisions the Pope has?" was in the end wrong as "soft power" of post-Communist Russian media are equal (or even larger?) threat to Western democracy communist tanks (and rockets) ever were?
I think you have a major bout of paranoia when everybody who has opinion that is different from yours is seemed to be a Kremlin troll to you. It betrays your fear that your beliefs are not powerful enough to convince anybody else. They (your beliefs) could be easily overpowered by Russian bots with bad English grammar.
1
It's simple enough. You just can't trust anything Russian state propaganda machine puts out. There is no grey zone. Or if there is, it's there only to confuse you.
Rules that apply to journalism - read all sides - do not apply to Russian news outlets, because it's NOT journalism. It's state propaganda disguised as journalism. Therefore just ignore it.
During the war the Russians set up Finnish-speaking radio channels that churned Soviet state propaganda and lies. Nobody listened to them. They were a joke. Who knows what would have happened if we had started listening to them?
Rules that apply to journalism - read all sides - do not apply to Russian news outlets, because it's NOT journalism. It's state propaganda disguised as journalism. Therefore just ignore it.
During the war the Russians set up Finnish-speaking radio channels that churned Soviet state propaganda and lies. Nobody listened to them. They were a joke. Who knows what would have happened if we had started listening to them?
7
I actually know quite a few former New Yorkers who work for RT America and I must say that no other large media outlet would have hired them because of their past, left political associations. I guess we should thank Putin for hiring those alternative media Americans who could not have found gainful employment elsewhere. On another topic, great reporting by Jim Rutenberg. As someone who knows a bit about pitching stories to RT America myself I really enjoyed reading this .FYI...RT America did have me on in their recent coverage of the KKK rally in Charlottesville and they allowed me to link the rise of the Hate Right to Trump's election so they can't be all bad.
6
Recently I purchased a condo directly behind the Russian Embassy in DC. Cable was not hooked up so I bought an antenna to bring in some broadcast stations unsure whether any would work. Three different RT stations were broadcasting very clear signals and that was my introduction to RT. The opinion and news shows were one in the same - all propaganda, all without much, if any, journalistic merit. And then Larry King came on. Larry King. I thought, "Boy he must be hard up for money." Also Ed Schultz has a program. I googled RT and found an NY Times article from 9/18/2016 saying King and Schultz " ... are playing equestrians to Russia's Trojan Horse ..."
Unfortunately Russia has found many equestrians willing to ride multiple Trojan Horses and some of them are affiliated with the current administration including people who think they are the smartest people in the room. I guess dollar signs and power cloud one's vision.
Unfortunately Russia has found many equestrians willing to ride multiple Trojan Horses and some of them are affiliated with the current administration including people who think they are the smartest people in the room. I guess dollar signs and power cloud one's vision.
5
Because the US never interferes in the politics of foreign countries right? Apart from invading, replacing with the Dictator of our choice, etc etc.
So the Russians have figured out a cheaper way to do it. Is this envy?
So the Russians have figured out a cheaper way to do it. Is this envy?
12
Propaganda. We do it; they do it. It is old school, regardless of the internet.
We simply need to make certain that when some voices get a bit too loud and the lies get too grotesque, they are quieted.
Old school.
We simply need to make certain that when some voices get a bit too loud and the lies get too grotesque, they are quieted.
Old school.
1
In the 20's, 30's and 40's the Soviets used communist and socialist organizations and media in their war with the west. They used fake news and rumor to build unrest and destabilize western governments. They funded organizations and newspapers and enlisted journalists and celebrities to promote Moscow's line. It was really effective. Nothing has changed. Today I blame our ignorance of Russian-Soviet history (recent and past). We have virtually no experts in Russian studies to guide us. We make the same mistakes over and over again. That's why we are loosing and will continue to do so. Didn't you see all this Facebook subversion when it was going on? I did. Everyone I know who are followers of Russian history knew what they were up to. Get Ukraine and Crimea resolved now. Make difficult choices. Make sure the Ukrainians now that we are not going to arm them and they have to take the lead to making peace. Merkel seems to be the only Western leader to understand the complexity of the situation and she speaks Russian and knows Russian history.
6
interesting concept.
1
What is Russia doing that FOX News and right-wing talk radio have been doing for years? Low-information audiences are not new either.
5
And why is this any more frightening than Fox news?
9
I see things a bit differently. Here in the DC area we have access to the for-the-U.S. broadcasts from a number of countries (mostly through MHz) and RT is really rinky-dink compared to them all. The commentators and most of the guests are caricatures of the silliest of Fox News and by their manner and gestures almost state outright "I am not credible and I know it." It makes me wonder whether this is deliberate. If it isn't, it certainly communicates that they are out of touch. If they are supposed to be so smooth propaganda-wise, where is this smoothness present? Are they doing something elsewhere that is better thought out than RT? Are they making fun of us? Who can possibly believe RT is credible? Even when they are trying to cover something we don't see in our own news programs, they always do something that clearly makes it "off key" and destroys what they appear to be attempting to convey. I just don't understand it.
1
The Russians have learned to play the same games the Americans have pioneered for over a half century. But really, can we stop being the pot that calls the kettle black? What about the Chinese, how long before they become as adept at info-warfare as the Russians? Are we going to deal with them differently because they are the second largest economy in the world who happen to back-role all of our debt?
5
An educated person living in a free society should take advantage of our freedoms and watch an RT news report and other segments and make up his own mind about what RT is and isn't and determine how much this report reflects his own conclusions.
17
Isn't ironic that when the internet exploded in the 1990s many believed it dramatically inform our citizenry and thereby strengthen our democracy. Sadly the law of unintended consequences prevailed with disinformation and political propaganda so pervasive our very democracy is now at risk from both foreign and domestic sources.
5
Is it just me who found the suspicious deaths alarming?
"Lesin was found dead in a Washington hotel room in 2015. The city’s medical examiner attributed his death to blunt trauma to the head. While the incident remains the subject of much speculation, federal investigators have said they believe Lesin’s death followed a prolonged bout of heavy drinking."
This sounds like something that can occur in Russia, not the US. Surely Putin can't reach the US when it comes to random assassinations of people not in his good books?
"Lesin was found dead in a Washington hotel room in 2015. The city’s medical examiner attributed his death to blunt trauma to the head. While the incident remains the subject of much speculation, federal investigators have said they believe Lesin’s death followed a prolonged bout of heavy drinking."
This sounds like something that can occur in Russia, not the US. Surely Putin can't reach the US when it comes to random assassinations of people not in his good books?
There is a reason Putin makes it hard for Western social media platforms to thrive in Russia and why his allies took control of VK. He understood well before most US politicians (though not before Obama) the power of social networks harnessed by data and brains. A shame Facebook feels neither shame nor responsibility for its role in this collective debacle. It will cost them ultimately.
3
RT is a very small part of the problem. The much larger issue is that the business model for news reporting is broken. These days almost no one (NYT is an exception) can make a buck actually gathering and then selling news. Filling the void are outlets like RT, willing to provide news for free and without ads, as long as they get to promote their point of view. Yet their influence pales in comparison to the likes of Facebook, which can make billions by simply providing a filter that gives each individual whatever news they want to hear - typically news that reinforces their point of view - with little regard to its veracity. This would be bad enough by itself, but its ill effects are exacerbated by the fact that these newsfeeds can be massively manipulated by anyone with a sufficiently diabolical mind and an internet connection. I'll wager that, without RT, Trump would still be president, but without Facebook and Twitter, we'd now have Hillary.
4
There is no reason whatsoever for democracies to grant dictators like Putin or the Emir of Qatar access to our television channels. RT and al Jazeera can be gone with the stroke of a pen.
3
"RT and al Jazeera can be gone with the stroke of a pen."
Obviously you have a bias against hearing anything that isn't an outlet for pro USA news.
Equally obviously, you don't know RT comes via streaming not by "OUR channels."
Obviously you have a bias against hearing anything that isn't an outlet for pro USA news.
Equally obviously, you don't know RT comes via streaming not by "OUR channels."
4
"RT and al Jazeera can be gone with the stroke of a pen."
In other words, getting rid of the First Amendment? I am sure you have convinced yourself that you are very "pro-USA," Sir.
In other words, getting rid of the First Amendment? I am sure you have convinced yourself that you are very "pro-USA," Sir.
1
A few days ago, I clicked on an article here in NYT about French dairy farmers committing suicide primarily due to declining economic circumstances affecting their viability to continue their livelihood. Then, I heard from a friend that a former US citizen who married a French vet was back in the states over holiday to visit. What was not mentioned in that article was that she said citizens were increasingly disgruntled with Macron, whom did not reveal during his pre-election campaign the free-market policies he planned to implement if elected. Her French vet spouse cares for the livestock of about a dozen dairy farmers and belongs to their collective co-operative in his region of France. He is planning to take early retirement, move to another region, live off savings and perhaps become a pet vet for the rest of his working-until-official-retirement life. Globalization is giving former Communists turned capitalists an opportunity to prosper and point out that neo-liberalism is ruining the former European socialist paradise as it tries to become more like our laissez-faire US economy where winner-take-all-oligarchs are no different than former Soviet, Chinese, or N. Korean oligarch rulers. Same with Al-Jazeera....giving westerners a Middle-Easterners' perspective on all of the meddling that has been done by the western elite in the guise of bringing freedom and democracy to their region.
7
Kim Kardashian and Vladimir Putin, according to Mr. Peskov, are the same and, hence, Ms. Kardashian could tell all of her "followers" to do something and they would do it.
I would inform Mr. Peskov that not everybody is employed by his boss, the butcher Putin, and, hence, wouldn't jump to somebody's command just because they "like them" on Twitter.
In Russia today, for people like Mr. Peskov, that is the reality until Mr. Putin is shown the door by the "next" strongman coming to power in that country. The rest of the "progressive" world sees Ms. Kardashian as she is, an "entertainer", nothing more. Oligarchy is not democracy and Mr. Putin's reign will end sooner or later as there is only so much money he can steal and hoard before even HE becomes, well, unnecessary.
I would inform Mr. Peskov that not everybody is employed by his boss, the butcher Putin, and, hence, wouldn't jump to somebody's command just because they "like them" on Twitter.
In Russia today, for people like Mr. Peskov, that is the reality until Mr. Putin is shown the door by the "next" strongman coming to power in that country. The rest of the "progressive" world sees Ms. Kardashian as she is, an "entertainer", nothing more. Oligarchy is not democracy and Mr. Putin's reign will end sooner or later as there is only so much money he can steal and hoard before even HE becomes, well, unnecessary.
3
Don't forget identity politics and constant media/social media noise and endless useless narcissism and agitprop purveyors of passive-aggressive resentment.
Not to worry, though. Things will somehow work out. Somehow. Maybe.
Not to worry, though. Things will somehow work out. Somehow. Maybe.
5
Great article. Technological development has enabled almost instantaneous dissemination of "news", an explosion of supply and a significant reduction in cost-to-screen while scrambling the traditional revenue structures on which many news operations used to depend. Quality has declined precipitately while availability has burgeoned. The same factors that have fertilised the ground in which crass "fake news" has been able to gain speedy and widespread parity with fact checked, responsibly contextualised journalism, has also provided the playing field in to which RT and Sputnik have been planted.
The sources of reliable, verifiable, thoughtful news have been sidelined and the revenue squeeze has reduced even stalwarts' abilities to fund and distribute quality journalism. it is the same factors that have allowed the Trumpian "fake news" play to obfuscate policy inadequacies that also provide the opportunity for the Russian media play.
In this environment, honest, fact-checked, contextualised news is increasingly rare, but increasingly valuable. The NYT and the BBC provide some of the only reliable sources in our fragmented world. When Jon Sopel had to rebuke P45 with the BBC's "Impartial, Free and Fair" motto things have come to a surreal point.
But we must not restrict supply or increase thresholds to market in reaction to the - we must just support and value the few honest purveyors left.
SO, keep up the good work NYT and BBC. I hope others will match your devotion.
The sources of reliable, verifiable, thoughtful news have been sidelined and the revenue squeeze has reduced even stalwarts' abilities to fund and distribute quality journalism. it is the same factors that have allowed the Trumpian "fake news" play to obfuscate policy inadequacies that also provide the opportunity for the Russian media play.
In this environment, honest, fact-checked, contextualised news is increasingly rare, but increasingly valuable. The NYT and the BBC provide some of the only reliable sources in our fragmented world. When Jon Sopel had to rebuke P45 with the BBC's "Impartial, Free and Fair" motto things have come to a surreal point.
But we must not restrict supply or increase thresholds to market in reaction to the - we must just support and value the few honest purveyors left.
SO, keep up the good work NYT and BBC. I hope others will match your devotion.
3
Russia's ongoing cyberattack on the west is indeed terrifying and needs to be widely recognized. However, this article's emphasis on one hoax about a nonexistent rape in Germany seems similarly designed to cast doubt on Europe's very real problem with crime by recent immigrants, especially against women. Two very well documented examples were the mass attacks during the Cologne New Year's festival last year, and the decades-long organized rape of hundreds of young women in the English town of Rotherham and elsewhere by scores of Pakistani immigrants. These were were covered up and ignored by the local police for decades for fear of being accused of racism.
These crimes are not an invention of the Russian propaganda machine and there seems to be wide agreement that they are seriously underreported by the authorities and in the European press. Young women should not be sacrificed in the name of political correctness.
These crimes are not an invention of the Russian propaganda machine and there seems to be wide agreement that they are seriously underreported by the authorities and in the European press. Young women should not be sacrificed in the name of political correctness.
7
When you stand back Russia is acting rational self interest in response to Cold-war redux coming from Hillary's threat mongering over Russia. They should not have to. NOT a rant. This happened, almost every speech she gave ratcheted up the tension. For what? Because the US needs a super-sized enemy for a super-sized $700B military budget. I think our budget is 8 times bigger than Russia's. I vote for good relations.
13
C'mon. Ronnie and Maggie almost brought us to the brink of WWIII and you're blaming Hillary?
5
What I'll keep from this article is:
"The transformation and acceleration of information technology, Peskov said, had unmoored the global economy from real value."
The economy unmoored from reality. A dangerous man who knows something.
The remark applies to contemporary culture, too. Actual experience fogged in fantasy.
Lights in boxes, as Edward R. Murrow foresaw, little ones now, proliferating and becoming mindlessly a genetic code of human relations. Umoored from reality.
"The transformation and acceleration of information technology, Peskov said, had unmoored the global economy from real value."
The economy unmoored from reality. A dangerous man who knows something.
The remark applies to contemporary culture, too. Actual experience fogged in fantasy.
Lights in boxes, as Edward R. Murrow foresaw, little ones now, proliferating and becoming mindlessly a genetic code of human relations. Umoored from reality.
5
There's nothing "new" about this theory. This is the way Russia has always worked; it's called 'divide and conquer', and it's one of the main tenets in the KGB Handbook.
I lived in Berlin when a Wall still surrounded and divided the city, so I know.
Just like I know the Cold War never ended.
During the Soviet era, like now, Russia has always depended on its state-run, and state-censored communications network; the only difference is now its has a 24/7 format, and an extended international outreach.
But the message hasn't changed -- neither has its starkly nationalistic overtones.
The story mentioned here about the alleged rape of a Russian-German girl by "Auslander" (foreign) types, was covered extensively by the German Press, as it touched a deep nerve in the country after so many recent attacks by Islamic fundamentalists, and Germany's problem with integrating so many migrants after Chancellor Merkel opened the floodgates in 2015, a decision that continues to polarize Germany to this day.
And this is exactly how Russia works to undermine free societies, by capitalizing on societal fears -- be it immigration, unequal distribution of wealth, or any other topic that is bound to splinter public opinion.
In this regard, it's no surprise that they would back a presidential candidate like Donald Trump, a master in sowing dissent himself.
But this does nothing to answer the question; now that we know about this, what will we do?
We're already living with the outcome.
I lived in Berlin when a Wall still surrounded and divided the city, so I know.
Just like I know the Cold War never ended.
During the Soviet era, like now, Russia has always depended on its state-run, and state-censored communications network; the only difference is now its has a 24/7 format, and an extended international outreach.
But the message hasn't changed -- neither has its starkly nationalistic overtones.
The story mentioned here about the alleged rape of a Russian-German girl by "Auslander" (foreign) types, was covered extensively by the German Press, as it touched a deep nerve in the country after so many recent attacks by Islamic fundamentalists, and Germany's problem with integrating so many migrants after Chancellor Merkel opened the floodgates in 2015, a decision that continues to polarize Germany to this day.
And this is exactly how Russia works to undermine free societies, by capitalizing on societal fears -- be it immigration, unequal distribution of wealth, or any other topic that is bound to splinter public opinion.
In this regard, it's no surprise that they would back a presidential candidate like Donald Trump, a master in sowing dissent himself.
But this does nothing to answer the question; now that we know about this, what will we do?
We're already living with the outcome.
8
The NSA-CIA report on Russian interference spent many of its pages condemning RT which, according to the intelligence report, covered such issues as fracking and the occupy movement as well as reporting on third party presidential candidates when everyone knows there are only two political parties in the United States and to cover other party and candidates is a brash attempt to undermine our democracy which is limited to the Republican and Democratic parties which, incidentally, are not arms of government but private corporations like McDonald's only they sell influence connections and power not hamburgers, milkshakes and fries.
8
It's a terrible thing when one nation interferes in the affairs of another, as it undermines democracy. It was terrible when we did it in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. It was terrible when we did it to all those countries in South and Latin America. It was terrible when we did it to the Native American nations who were here before us.
Watching the US Empire of propaganda implode in upon itself as a result of it's own hypocrisy and contradictions (aka the Times criticizing the comparatively puny RT and Sputnik for propaganda)?: Priceless.
Watching the US Empire of propaganda implode in upon itself as a result of it's own hypocrisy and contradictions (aka the Times criticizing the comparatively puny RT and Sputnik for propaganda)?: Priceless.
10
"Thor of Portland, OR" doth slander and protest too much, methinks, to be counted among the "we" and the US.
4
Enjoy your illegal foreign wars of aggression. I'm too patriotic to quietly sit by and acquiesce to the war machine and their apologists in the US media and political circles, and hate to see my friends in the military fighting wars for Monsanto and Halliburton disguised under a fake banner of freedom. And slander? The only slander that's consequences-free in the USA is all the fact-free warmongering and racist hyperbole being directed at the Russian people and their President, just so Raytheon and NATO careerism can be held harmless. And unfortunately for you, there are other Americans like me who still seek truth and care about what the world thinks of us. Peace.
1
Proposal: Why don't the intelligence services just gather a bunch of easily digestible information about corruption in Russia and slap it on the front pages of Russia's most popular websites and social media portals? Hack Russia's mobile networks and send texts full of salacious info about Putin and his cronies directly to millions of Russians.
If these propaganda tussles are following the trends of marketing--now we target individuals with tailored messages instead of putting posters on walls and hoping someone sees them--then let's get right in people's faces in Russia. Flood them with information about Russian embezzlement and let them overthrow their government.
It's not exactly fair play, but Putin doesn't act in good faith. Imagine how much better off the world would be if Russia had gone the route of the Baltic countries and become a real democracy instead of a mafia state.
If these propaganda tussles are following the trends of marketing--now we target individuals with tailored messages instead of putting posters on walls and hoping someone sees them--then let's get right in people's faces in Russia. Flood them with information about Russian embezzlement and let them overthrow their government.
It's not exactly fair play, but Putin doesn't act in good faith. Imagine how much better off the world would be if Russia had gone the route of the Baltic countries and become a real democracy instead of a mafia state.
6
Agreed! In fact, employ disadvantaged youth in economically struggling parts of the US to overwhelm Russian social media. Many of these areas are in Red States where "make America great again" can easily be stretched to include "in global the information war". What's good for the goose...
1
What a great idea. The only problem is in undemocratic Russia everybody knows that the Government is corrupt. Russian newspapers scream about that every day and I don't want even to mention Internet, so the effect could be much less than you would hope. The problem in Russia is not an absence of knowledge about corruption, it is absence of trust that somebody could fight and win over the corruption. If Americans could publish ideas on this subject, it could get traction
2
SIR:
Your proposals might be sign of desperation.
I always thought that democracy is strong enough, especially when facing just online "propaganda" or not exactly objective description of news and - while enjoying well deserved support of the masses - doesn't need to dirty itself with measures you are advocating here.
Your proposals might be sign of desperation.
I always thought that democracy is strong enough, especially when facing just online "propaganda" or not exactly objective description of news and - while enjoying well deserved support of the masses - doesn't need to dirty itself with measures you are advocating here.
1
Superb piece of reporting. This should have gotten the lead position on the Times today, not "news" about an actress and her family dynamics. The Times should stick with what it can do best, and this piece surely represents that, and stop trying to compete with People magazine. Focus on substance.
8
Please, please, American government, stop allowing this!!! The Kremlin is far cannier than you and will outsmart you every time. Wise up!!
2
Why the "New Theory of War" headline for this article, other than the NYT's obsession that Russia is, and has always been, an enemy of the USA? There's nothing "NEW" about RT--Radio Free Europe and VOA were specifically created as soft power instrumentalities, designed to promote the values of the USA and its Western allies. RT is designed to promote the values of Russia and its non-Western allies.
If this is "war" it's certainly arguable we started it.
If this is "war" it's certainly preferable to the nuclear chicken being played by Trump and Kim Jong Un.
If this is "war" it's certainly arguable we started it.
If this is "war" it's certainly preferable to the nuclear chicken being played by Trump and Kim Jong Un.
7
TYPO: Ipsos also found RT was it is watched by 70 million per week globally; the BBC, using a different polling firm, says its own audience is 372 million per week
The limits are only the stupidity of racist American voters, which is to say, there are no limits to what the Russians can achieve.
7
Kruschev during the Cold War claimed American capitalists would sell Russian socialists the rope they would use to hang us. Perhaps we have sold them the computer technology for a profit only to have it employed in a high tech lynching of our democracy today.
36
It was not surely Khrushchev who said that and Wikipedia even claims that Lenin (to whom is the quote "We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sell us".) never made such statement.
According to the book, "They Never Said It", p. 64, there is no evidence Lenin ever said this. Lenin was supposed to have made his observation to one of his close associates, Grigori Zinoviev, not long after a meeting of the Politburo in the early 1920s, but there is no evidence that he ever did. Experts on the Soviet Union reject the rope quote as spurious.
To close: Concerning the (not invalid, actually relevant) fact that Communist countries use Western technologies against us I believe that the history supports the fact that while the USSR collapsed and didn't "hang us up"
Chinese communist regime, with its march toward being #1 economy and gaining in global power and influence might be more fitting villain and opportunist in this context.
According to the book, "They Never Said It", p. 64, there is no evidence Lenin ever said this. Lenin was supposed to have made his observation to one of his close associates, Grigori Zinoviev, not long after a meeting of the Politburo in the early 1920s, but there is no evidence that he ever did. Experts on the Soviet Union reject the rope quote as spurious.
To close: Concerning the (not invalid, actually relevant) fact that Communist countries use Western technologies against us I believe that the history supports the fact that while the USSR collapsed and didn't "hang us up"
Chinese communist regime, with its march toward being #1 economy and gaining in global power and influence might be more fitting villain and opportunist in this context.
Regarding both the source & the quote, see WSaffire's "On Language" (4-12-87): "Here is what Mr. Annenkov claims he copied from notes in Lenin's handwriting, italics in the original: 'To speak the truth is a petit-bourgeois habit. To lie, on the contrary, is often justified by the lie's aim. The whole world's capitalists and their governments, as they pant to win the Soviet market, will close their eyes to the above-mentioned reality and will thus transform themselves into men who are deaf, dumb and blind. They will give us credits . . . they will toil to prepare their own suicide.''' In the end, the USSR disallowed markets and had to lie to make their system work. On the other hand, both Markets & Democracy have advanced since 1989, even in Russia & China ... I say, continue the long-game, adding Rule of Law (against corruption) and Civil Society (people's voice): these strike the MOST fear in any state-controlled government.
1
Basically, it's Russians entering into the free market, free press political game. True, scoundrels win that one sometimes, but it's free and open. The truth always wins out in the end. We have nothing to fear.
2
Stop being sheep America and do some fact checking and don't let Russia, FOX, CNN, Ny Times spoon feed you information. You have a brain use it, do some research and make up your own mind.
8
Many of us who grew up in the 1950s and early 60s who had a technological bent soon built or acquired shortwave radios. Across the shortwave spectrum the loudest voices were Radio Moscow, Radio Havana, Voice of America, and Radio free Europe. Next loudest were the various client-state radio stations of the U.S. & Moscow. We listened, received printed periodicals from many, enjoyed the photos of exotics lands, and survived the propaganda barrage.
Granted today's propaganda reach is far greater and much more sophisticated but most of us will survive with our core values, whatever they may be, intact.
I recently bought a shortwave receiver and was completely surprised at the changes: China Radio International, formerly Radio Beijing dominates the air waves as do American conservative religious broadcasters and a fair number of alt-right American stations. Radio Havana is still there and far more interesting than 50 years ago and Romanian Radio is always worth a listen. And the music from all these various radio voices is still a great pleasure.
Granted today's propaganda reach is far greater and much more sophisticated but most of us will survive with our core values, whatever they may be, intact.
I recently bought a shortwave receiver and was completely surprised at the changes: China Radio International, formerly Radio Beijing dominates the air waves as do American conservative religious broadcasters and a fair number of alt-right American stations. Radio Havana is still there and far more interesting than 50 years ago and Romanian Radio is always worth a listen. And the music from all these various radio voices is still a great pleasure.
3
The good old days. I lived to receive QSL cards and even heard my name broadcast over Radio Prague!
1
In 1987, I was living in Zagreb. I remember coming across one broadcast in English which I couldn't place, thinking it might be a Yugoslav radio broadcast based on terminology about worker self-management, criticism of the slowness of improvement, etc. Finally the announcement that it was Radio Moscow. Having listened in the old days when self criticism was never broadcast, it was a pleasant surprise.
On the other hand, VOA broadcasts (those days of Reagan) seemed a throwback to the 60s. Definitely out of touch with events and changes in Eastern and Central Europe. If I, as an American, and Yugoslav and Czech friends wanted decent news about the region, you listened to JRT (Yugoslav Radio and Television), BBC, Deutsche Welle, etc. VOA sounded like, and was, tacky propaganda. If it was supposed to convince Eastern Europe of the superiority of the US system, it was so full of obvious propaganda and shallow "analyses" that it was doomed to fail.
A shame, since it could have changed to play a positive role like some State Dept folks were doing.
On the other hand, VOA broadcasts (those days of Reagan) seemed a throwback to the 60s. Definitely out of touch with events and changes in Eastern and Central Europe. If I, as an American, and Yugoslav and Czech friends wanted decent news about the region, you listened to JRT (Yugoslav Radio and Television), BBC, Deutsche Welle, etc. VOA sounded like, and was, tacky propaganda. If it was supposed to convince Eastern Europe of the superiority of the US system, it was so full of obvious propaganda and shallow "analyses" that it was doomed to fail.
A shame, since it could have changed to play a positive role like some State Dept folks were doing.
1
It would be interesting to trace the comments on this story and find out how many of THEM originate from Russian-backed content mills and Kremlin shills -- but it wouldn't matter. World War III is over, Russia won, the West lost, and there's nothing we can do about it. Our ruling party's politicos are happy to let Putin pull the strings as long as they get what they want: lower taxes on the rich, profitization of government services and properties, control of media, and an authoritarian police state to keep the lower classes in line.
3
I see this article has activated the trolls whose paymasters are in Moscow.
13
Mr. Rutenberg's difficulty in conveying the essence of this story ("Russia is still using agitprop, in modern garb, to sew discord and doubt in Western nations") shows how tangled are the thickets of modern communication. It also underscores what the past five years, especially, have revealed about human credulity within those thickets. When trusted sources of "truth" are undermined (?overwhelmed?) by intentionally placed untruths, and when "news" is purveyed by every tiny website, Facebook poster, and Tweeter, it becomes very hard in the short term to find truthful news accounts. And the percentage of people and organizations with the time, persistence, and skill to ferret out the truth is not high--raising the danger that attitudes will be formed, and actions taken, under the influence of agitprop. All of this presents a real-world Joker, Dr. No, or similar "world villain" dilemma: It is easier to destabilize and disorient than it is to restabilize and reorient, and that gives a massive head start to the fomenters. The most humbling, and troubling, element in all of this to me? That our educational system, despite routinely teaching the young about facts, their potential distortion, the uses of rhetorical devices to skew and becloud, and appropriate analytic "countermeasures," has not succeeded in equipping citizens with sufficient commitment to the truth, nor the means to approach it.
32
We shouldn't worry.
We have feminism.
We have feminism.
1
The New York Times is going to lecture Russia about propaganda?
17
Not lecture, dear "Visitor" ... just reporting what the leaders of these Russian sources have to say for themselves. That's the difference between fact and opinion / propaganda. Welcome to freedom of the press, not found in Putin's Russia.
Russia has always perfected the role of spoiler, never participant. It can't play by decent rules, so it resorts to underhanded ones. Our newspapers are filled with duplicitous commenters from the Leningrad Troll Factory using pseudonyms like "nascarmom4evr" and "naval cruiser," always writing with righteous indignation, feigned histrionics, moral equivalence, basic confusion and zero nuance. RT is only the above-ground portion of that same Boris Badenov phenomenon. How else could a Russian 'model' of kleptocracy, paranoia, insecurity and vuctimhood ever be made attractive? When was the last time you ever wanted to buy anything made in Russia other than vodka?
67
Look at the 2 comments above yours Raven, typical trolls, prob Russian, but trolls none the less
8
It seems like America doesn't want Russia to participate. Every time when a Russian voices his or her opinion that is different than Americans, he or she is labeled as a Kremlin troll. What kind of dialog can you have in such environment? seems like America could not stomach variety of opinions. What's the matter? Is the US afraid that its ways of life are less attractive than Russian way despite the all riches and freedom?
11
It is not safe to always assume that the commentators are coming from a Troll factory of some sort that is guided by Kremlin. The most credible threat always comes from self organized groups. See Russians in general are not as latent as the West has tried to collectively portray them over the many years of its own propaganda. There is a reason why tsarist Russia and USSR had to maintain a strong security apparatus. Russians can be very independent in their actions and their activities. They form groups easily and naturally. There is no need for some central authority to guide them. How else do you think Russia got to span 11 time zones in Eurasia? Cossacks that pushed the borders east in Siberia did not check for orders from Moscow for every action item they planned. The process was actually highly decentralized and depended on decision making of small group of actors who may or may not have been aided by the Kremlin. Sometimes Kremlin has to play catch up to its own citizen "activists." That is the reality that goes well beyond the scope of KGB or USSR or any "active measures."
1
sad and very ugly when PC tactics are turned back around on the PC purveyors
4
War of the masses
The outcome disastrous
Many of the victim's family burn their ashes...
The outcome disastrous
Many of the victim's family burn their ashes...
1
Let's not forget Fox News is foreign owned too.
10
RT consistently displays a remarkable inferiority complex preoccupied with all the warts of America and making clever use of its especially American dupes in the name of shameless distortion. I think most people pay no attention to RT. A far cry from BBC and Al-Jazeera, it's ulterior motives are too obvious.
4
Is there a difference between Fox and RT?
Putin and Murdoch are pretty much the same.
They are Merchants of Doubt using strategic lies.
They are the new McCarthyites, and better at it.
Putin and Murdoch are pretty much the same.
They are Merchants of Doubt using strategic lies.
They are the new McCarthyites, and better at it.
10
Keep digging. How deep are the ties between Russia and far-right-wing US media such as Alex Jones and Breitbart? Perhaps even Fox. Is it more than love? Is it money, too?
9
NYT are not the only MSM who have rather selected capability to "dig deeper".
And their "embedded" coverage in Iraq invasion, chasing those imaginary Saddam;s weapons of mass destruction were not - by far - the only instance where "watchdogs of democracy" and basic standards of objective media were not present.
And their "embedded" coverage in Iraq invasion, chasing those imaginary Saddam;s weapons of mass destruction were not - by far - the only instance where "watchdogs of democracy" and basic standards of objective media were not present.
1
I would like to know why RT is still available on Spectrum Cable in Manhattan. It should be banished from all American cable systems. Very soon after Spectrum took over Time Warner Cable, it removed the English language news channel belonging to the Chinese state broadcaster; CCTV. The fact that it removed a Chinese propaganda channel but not a Russian propaganda channel strikes me as suspicious.
8
Why should it be ban? Just because they present alternative views? I thought Democracy is all about variety of views, but I guess American Democracy is different
1
What a story. I watched a couple times of RT accidently when travelled in Europe & Middle East. Their news appeared reasonable, had good coverage, and was straight forward in news reporting. Now back to Houston, I was totally disappointed by BBC America in Public Broadcasting Channel. BBC is totally biased, with narrowly focused events and pro-Democratic party comments by lots of (hired?) consultants either ex-military or ex-government officials. But on the other hand, ABC, CBS and NBC just have too many commercial interruptions, forcing me to read NY Times and watch YouTube news. Blame the fake news on too much commercial propaganda.
7
This comment is very suspicious suggesting a paid pro-Russian troll. First, look at the grammar and syntax:
"I watched a couple times of RT accidently when travelled in Europe & Middle East."
Next, note the praise for RT as "reasonable...and was straight forward":
"Their news appeared reasonable, had good coverage, and was straight forward in news reporting."
Next, the commenter not only goes on to bash news entities in the US, he's badly misinformed as to who they even are. BBC America isn't even a news channel! It's a strictly entertainment channel that is a for-profit arm of the BBC to showcase its British-made shows like Doctor Who. Furthermore, he says that BBCA is "in Public Broadcasting Channel". The public broadcasting entity is Public Broadcasting SERVICE not channel, PBS for short. And the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Any regular American news consumer would know these things.
Finally, the name "Usok" in "Houston" could very well be a Slavic or East European twist, given that names ending in "k" are known to be diminutive forms of names in Slavic. And picking Houston in Texas, a red state where these trolls claim to be from to foment conservative reaction really pings my radar.
(Continued in part 2)
"I watched a couple times of RT accidently when travelled in Europe & Middle East."
Next, note the praise for RT as "reasonable...and was straight forward":
"Their news appeared reasonable, had good coverage, and was straight forward in news reporting."
Next, the commenter not only goes on to bash news entities in the US, he's badly misinformed as to who they even are. BBC America isn't even a news channel! It's a strictly entertainment channel that is a for-profit arm of the BBC to showcase its British-made shows like Doctor Who. Furthermore, he says that BBCA is "in Public Broadcasting Channel". The public broadcasting entity is Public Broadcasting SERVICE not channel, PBS for short. And the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Any regular American news consumer would know these things.
Finally, the name "Usok" in "Houston" could very well be a Slavic or East European twist, given that names ending in "k" are known to be diminutive forms of names in Slavic. And picking Houston in Texas, a red state where these trolls claim to be from to foment conservative reaction really pings my radar.
(Continued in part 2)
6
part 2:
We ALL need to start being far more critical in accepting what's being said and who is claiming to say it, even in the NYTimes comment section. We need to respond forcefully, calling these trolls out every single time. And it's time that the NYT moderators extend their role to include suspicious comments like this. Refuse to post them when they so blatantly get facts wrong plus praise Russian interests plus are clearly written by a non-English speaker. if they're legit, they'll clean up fheir act and repost as I've done in the past. I'm sure Russia is a regular commenter here, thanks to Putin's army of trolls.
We ALL need to start being far more critical in accepting what's being said and who is claiming to say it, even in the NYTimes comment section. We need to respond forcefully, calling these trolls out every single time. And it's time that the NYT moderators extend their role to include suspicious comments like this. Refuse to post them when they so blatantly get facts wrong plus praise Russian interests plus are clearly written by a non-English speaker. if they're legit, they'll clean up fheir act and repost as I've done in the past. I'm sure Russia is a regular commenter here, thanks to Putin's army of trolls.
8
In the end, one way or another you seem to propose restriction (deny the ability to comment) on anyone who you label a "non-English speaker" or likely non-native (American) English speaker, etc.
Democracy and independent media are - I believe - strong enough to handle that as are fellow Americans.
We escaped communism to live in a country where we can benefit from and participate in (especially fact-based) flow and exchange of information, freedom of speech.
Democracy and independent media are - I believe - strong enough to handle that as are fellow Americans.
We escaped communism to live in a country where we can benefit from and participate in (especially fact-based) flow and exchange of information, freedom of speech.
1
I recall presidential candidate Mitt Romney's claim that Russia was our single greatest international threat and President Obama's retort was, "The Cold War is over" said with a know it all smirk. Could our sitting President in 2012 not have knowledge of the Russian influence on European democracies ? Fast forward to the 2016 presidential campaign when a huge fuss was made over Clinton's legal yet careless email practice while no revelation about Russia's interference was raised in the debates or by FBI director James Comey until after the election.
5
Obama to Romney during the 2012 presidential campaign about the rising threats of Russia: 'The 1980s are calling and they want their foreign policy back.'
Romney was right. Obama was dismissive in his arrogance.
Romney was right. Obama was dismissive in his arrogance.
7
Regardless of their alleged "harm," all media outlets should be able to advocate their views in a society based on free speech and a free press. Anything less is censorship. Radio Free Europe and other American outlets took (and still take) similar approaches in eastern Europe, only with far more pro-capitalist dogma and less intellectual and psychological sophistication. This article is clearly meant as an attack against RT, a media outlet independent from corporate and commercial values and is harmless at worst and vital at best. While it is mostly based on anti-Russian innuendo, this is an interesting hit piece from an ideological perspective. The New York Times and the "experts" they interviewed are clearly concerned about the rise of non-commercial media, the "anti-globalisation far left," and WikiLeaks, citing military-corporate front groups like the Alliance for Securing Democracy. It is also intriguing that they see the so-called "fringe," including Jill Stein, "conservatives," and people who are "pro-Russia," as a threat to the Establishment consensus that existed prior to the rise of socialist Bernie Sanders and the fall of the House of Bush. Who knew that "corporate clients" were tracking "Fake News Consumers?"
11
I am not a fan of Putin. However, looking pragmatically at Russian History all the way back to the Tartar invasions, I see an embattled nation and its peoples. We have many folks of old Russia descent here in the US as well as recent immigrants of that large land mass. I have known folks from both camps. They seem like very decent folks What a shame we are not better friends.
Lol, you ask any New Yorker how nice the decent old folks from Russia are. Are you joking!
2
i don't believe "consider more news sources" is the answer to anything substantive.
after all, "consider more religious sources" might be the answer to religious disputes, omitting that the disputes are religious and all the sources are equally, to be blunt, superstitions.
the problem with news is in the pretext that news brings you information that is beyond your personal experience. no one actually in a hurricane watches a news report about the hurricane. they experience it for themselves.
but if the news is actually beyond your experience, then how do you know it is true? how do you decide among different news sources, all of them reporting things beyond your experience?
we know the answers: believe what you already believe, believe what others you know believe, believe what "reason" tells you is true -- reason, the great chimera of the enlightenment.
but those are all different forms of "drink the koolaid," and don't get you any closer to a factual truth that even the laws of nature will affirm.
the hard and simple fact is that you live in a tiny ecosystem of places, persons and relationships, and the only experiential ground you have to claim "knowing the truth" is limited to those places, people and things.
once illusion is created and commodified, then every state power will attempt to exploit it.
think of your head as filled with the oil of credulity: every media power will try to drill a pipe to extract it.
after all, "consider more religious sources" might be the answer to religious disputes, omitting that the disputes are religious and all the sources are equally, to be blunt, superstitions.
the problem with news is in the pretext that news brings you information that is beyond your personal experience. no one actually in a hurricane watches a news report about the hurricane. they experience it for themselves.
but if the news is actually beyond your experience, then how do you know it is true? how do you decide among different news sources, all of them reporting things beyond your experience?
we know the answers: believe what you already believe, believe what others you know believe, believe what "reason" tells you is true -- reason, the great chimera of the enlightenment.
but those are all different forms of "drink the koolaid," and don't get you any closer to a factual truth that even the laws of nature will affirm.
the hard and simple fact is that you live in a tiny ecosystem of places, persons and relationships, and the only experiential ground you have to claim "knowing the truth" is limited to those places, people and things.
once illusion is created and commodified, then every state power will attempt to exploit it.
think of your head as filled with the oil of credulity: every media power will try to drill a pipe to extract it.
A fascinating documentation of the complex use and misuse of information,focusing primarily on Russia as a major "actor," as it attempts to achieve,according to the analysis, a range of national and international temporary and more permanent goals.More "information" is necessary if we are to be adequately helped to understand implications, consequences and the range of options to choose from in our various daily roles within our living, work, leisure environments and networks.Deluged from unassessed sources with "raw data." Transmitted NOW.Translated into accurate to misleading information. Which enables levels and qualities of knowing.The latter doesn't guarantee understanding.Necessary for daily, pro-social, menschlich, coping,adapting, functioning.Within the family. Neighborhood.Community.Region,country and world.Just "knowing" doesn't automatically transmute into helpful insights in our violating WE-THEY realities of ever present uncertainties, unpredictabilities, no matter what,and how much, is done, randomness and diversities.As we are challenged to be sufficiently aware.Paying attention. Perceiving. Thinking.Healthy feeling,or not.Judging-accurately and good enough.Deciding to do or not. Learn from, or not.As facts,fictions and fantasies meld.Partaking, or not, in willful blindness,deafness and ignorance colors both who we are and what we do.Or choose not to do with our daily-doses of information.What are our viable options for menschlich living/caring during this war?
1
Here's the hypocrisy in the RT slogan "Question More", the lack of national reciprocity: [from the article[: "]So over the past decade, even as the Putin government clamped down on its own free press — and as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, the U.S.-government-run broadcasting services, were largely squeezed off the Russian radio dial — RT easily acquired positions on the basic cable rosters of Comcast, Cox, Charter, DirecTV and Fios, among others. The U.S. response should be to require actual reciprocity, or we should squeeze out the RT and Sputnik presence. Putin goes to great lengths to deprive Russian citizens of equal access to worldwide media, much as China does. Proper response to Russia and China: Trade and commerce in exchange for the end of censorship, and free access by all Russians Chinese to worldwide media, including social media and the electronics needed to make it real.
4
This is nothing new. It's as old as Soviet Russia. It all goes back to agitprop which was a far less effective form of it in the 1950s and 1960s. I myself, as a high school and college student was exposed to it when, after requesting some help from the Soviet Union's UN embassy to represent their country in a Model UN project, I began receiving, monthly, copies of official government publications, press releases, Soviet Life magazine, etc. It continued non-stop all the way through college. Much of it was boring but some of it was very skillfully done. Today two things have changed: 1) the Russian effort has gone high tech; and 2) The American viewing audience is a lot less sophisticated when it comes to understanding Russian propaganda. But what can you expect after years of watching the NFL and WWF?
5
Why was it so easy to set up a propaganda operation that could influence Americans? Much of the preparation had already been done. For 40 years, broadcast news media has learned that by focusing more on emotional appeals they get better ratings. That's why so many stories on local news are about "yellow tape" stories (crime/disaster scenes) instead of city hall or the state legislature. As Paddy Chayefsky's "Network" predicted, it's about profit, not news.
So, when Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes set up Fox News, they didn't have to import tabloid reporters from the UK. They already had a base of news professionals schooled in the way to do "journalism" the kind that makes profits. (Oh, and it is a perfect base for propaganda)
This should be the next area for a Times investigation.
So, when Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes set up Fox News, they didn't have to import tabloid reporters from the UK. They already had a base of news professionals schooled in the way to do "journalism" the kind that makes profits. (Oh, and it is a perfect base for propaganda)
This should be the next area for a Times investigation.
6
This is a great story. It certainly would make for great American TV drama. Unfortunately a lot of it is simply not true. You see what happened was the West allowed Russian speaking immigration in the early 80s and 90s. What many do not realize is that Russian population comes with its own baggage so to speak. Most of the Russian speakers that emigrated are highly conservative and also are highly protective of wherever area they happen to reside in to outside influence or encroachment by "foreigners" or "outsiders. The US and Europe or Germany in particular now have sizable Russian speaking population that are becoming very active politically. To the point where their activities are no longer guided by the Kremlin. The one thing you have to understand about the Russian mentality. It is always a siege. You get enough Russians in one country and you will have political activists and hackers who will oppose immigration. It is standard Russian population SOP. Gain ground, regroup, protect the geolocation from invaders. It is how it has worked for more than a thousand years. So to blame it all on Kremlin is not always correct. Sometimes Kremlin is a bystander that attempts to harness these processes but seldom it is the actual originator. Think about it. Russians and Russian speakers of the Russky Mir bring certain centuries old reflexes to certain events that are the real guidng force for many... It is not always KGB and GRU or whatever fancy acronym
3
“The protest potential of the population” that Gerasimov discovered is the basis for effectiveness of fake news.
“What was more interesting was who followed RT. It drew substantially from all quadrants of Kelly’s fake-news universe — Trump supporters and Bernie Sanders supporters, Occupy Wall Streeters and libertarians.”
In other words, alienation leads to disintegration, not only passively but actively through intentional destruction (aka “deconstruction”).
The challenge, then, is nation-building, or re-building: how to convince people with critical faculties of the importance of working together through institutions.
“What was more interesting was who followed RT. It drew substantially from all quadrants of Kelly’s fake-news universe — Trump supporters and Bernie Sanders supporters, Occupy Wall Streeters and libertarians.”
In other words, alienation leads to disintegration, not only passively but actively through intentional destruction (aka “deconstruction”).
The challenge, then, is nation-building, or re-building: how to convince people with critical faculties of the importance of working together through institutions.
20
Fake news is a real problem, especially so in an era when many get their news from unvetted social media. But, at the same time, it's hard to draw clear distinctions between what the Russians are doing today, and what the US and our intelligence agencies have done for decades.
Is RT truly very different from Voice of America?
Is the "Lisa" case different from the hysteria over alleged ritual abuse at childcare centers, such as Fells Acres, that dominated American news for years, was often fed by main stream media anxious to boost circulation, and resulted in many convictions of the innocent?
More recently, the left-leaning bias of many liberal publications, including the Times, seems to be approaching “fake” news. Biases which may be acceptable on opinion pages, bleed into news coverage, on a routine basis. Headlines frequently stretch, and often break, the facts.
The public needs reliable news. But, in addition to pointing out the problems with the Russians, the Times and much of the liberal media needs to get their own houses in order.
Is RT truly very different from Voice of America?
Is the "Lisa" case different from the hysteria over alleged ritual abuse at childcare centers, such as Fells Acres, that dominated American news for years, was often fed by main stream media anxious to boost circulation, and resulted in many convictions of the innocent?
More recently, the left-leaning bias of many liberal publications, including the Times, seems to be approaching “fake” news. Biases which may be acceptable on opinion pages, bleed into news coverage, on a routine basis. Headlines frequently stretch, and often break, the facts.
The public needs reliable news. But, in addition to pointing out the problems with the Russians, the Times and much of the liberal media needs to get their own houses in order.
43
Please go and learn Russian and live for some time in Russia before you try to draw moral equivalences between the Kremlin and the Times.
1
Can you give some examples? Right-wingers routinely dismiss normal newspapers as left-wing propaganda, but give few examples. When has the Times "approached fake news?"
Generally, such complaints come down to the media's failure to deliver information that is emotionally gratifying to right-wingers. If a report about police killing black people doesn't defend the police, it's "liberal" propaganda. If a report mentions climate change, it's "liberal" propaganda. If a report reckons with any sort of complexity, it's "liberal."
If you want emotional succor, go to church. The news isn't here to make you feel safe and reassured.
Generally, such complaints come down to the media's failure to deliver information that is emotionally gratifying to right-wingers. If a report about police killing black people doesn't defend the police, it's "liberal" propaganda. If a report mentions climate change, it's "liberal" propaganda. If a report reckons with any sort of complexity, it's "liberal."
If you want emotional succor, go to church. The news isn't here to make you feel safe and reassured.
5
RT is much fresher and more clever than the old fashioned, bureaucratic VOA. Even entertaining. VOA needs a bigger budget and to be liberated.
1
An amazing, well-written story. It's truly "Alice in Wonderland" out there. I'm not sure the Russian efforts in influencing public opinion here is morally distinguishable from Voice of America broadcasts to the USSR and eastern Europe in the 1950s, except perhaps with regard to the amount of deliberately false and misleading content.
I'm particularly drawn to this one sentence in the article: "It’s hard to imagine Russia’s state-backed media getting any traction in the United States if there wasn’t already an audience for it." There is only one solution to the problem of fake news. And that is the development of critical reasoning skills among an educated population that is grounded in individual rights, freedom, tolerance, and that can recognize authoritarian movements based on bigotry and prejudice.
If we can all identify and understand fake news, where it is coming from, and the motivation for its existence, it will lose its effectiveness, and audience for Alex Jones, Fox News, Breitbart, RT, etc., will wither away.
One can only hope.
I'm particularly drawn to this one sentence in the article: "It’s hard to imagine Russia’s state-backed media getting any traction in the United States if there wasn’t already an audience for it." There is only one solution to the problem of fake news. And that is the development of critical reasoning skills among an educated population that is grounded in individual rights, freedom, tolerance, and that can recognize authoritarian movements based on bigotry and prejudice.
If we can all identify and understand fake news, where it is coming from, and the motivation for its existence, it will lose its effectiveness, and audience for Alex Jones, Fox News, Breitbart, RT, etc., will wither away.
One can only hope.
200
dvepaul--They are morally distinguishable by their goals, and OUR national interests.
2
And that is the development of critical reasoning skills among an educated population that is grounded in individual rights, freedom, tolerance, and that can recognize authoritarian movements based on bigotry and prejudice.
I think that I may have pulled a muscle laughing at this statement. The majority of conservatives think that education is not useful. And a signigicant minority of progressives don't know how to use it.
I think that I may have pulled a muscle laughing at this statement. The majority of conservatives think that education is not useful. And a signigicant minority of progressives don't know how to use it.
1
You are not sure?
VoA broadcasts never interfered, underhandedly, in any election of the USSR.
The USSR never told it "like it was" and everyone in the USSR knew it. The VoA and Radio Free Europe did, in a sanitized way, tell the truth about what was going on in America, throughout Europe, and in the rest of the world. I say sanitized because yes, content was censored, and the propagandists of "the opposition" considered it "American propaganda," but despite that both services were never promoting "deliberately false and misleading content.
VoA broadcasts never interfered, underhandedly, in any election of the USSR.
The USSR never told it "like it was" and everyone in the USSR knew it. The VoA and Radio Free Europe did, in a sanitized way, tell the truth about what was going on in America, throughout Europe, and in the rest of the world. I say sanitized because yes, content was censored, and the propagandists of "the opposition" considered it "American propaganda," but despite that both services were never promoting "deliberately false and misleading content.
2
What a surprise that the Russians would boost Nigel Farage, Trump's pal.
A tactic exposed is a tactic nullified. We can ony hope to stay a step ahead.
A tactic exposed is a tactic nullified. We can ony hope to stay a step ahead.
4
Many small-Americans - let's call them what they are: 'isolationists' - posting here today in defense of Russian totalitarianism, intolerance, and tyranny. A perfect storm wrought by false notions of American exceptionalism, a failed education system, and good old-fashioned fascism.
11
Why is the Times covering RT and not Fox? RT is minuscule! Fox brings in tens of millions of viewers and has a lock on fully one quarter of the American electorate. *Russia is irrelevant.* Americans are doing this to themselves!!
55
I disagree, although I do agree covering Fox News is also important.
At this point the NYTs has been reporting extensively on how Russia influenced our elections, and this article was a part of that reporting, which I appreciate.
At this point the NYTs has been reporting extensively on how Russia influenced our elections, and this article was a part of that reporting, which I appreciate.
The "genius" of Russian-backed information influencing derives from one simple, easy-to-grasp fact: Americans are poorly educated and gullible -- emotional children too lazy to fact-check, too desirous of believing what they want to believe. They tried this stuff on the French, whose reaction was "Get outta here with that nonsense!"
84
As George Orwell put it in 1984, Who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future. The power of propaganda
12
I would like to believe that we are better at this than they are.
However, if that were true, you would think that these activities would become publicized sooner.
Lets build another aircraft carrier.
However, if that were true, you would think that these activities would become publicized sooner.
Lets build another aircraft carrier.
3
I watched a fair amount of RT while staying in Berlin last month. It is very intelligent propaganda, I have to say. They don't lie per se, but the focus is always on a problem in the US or the UK, or one of our allies, whether the story is a small political disagreement or just an anecdote, it runs it as if it is a widespread phenomenon.
Fox News has done the same thing for 21 years.
Fox News has done the same thing for 21 years.
99
One thing that never seems to be mentioned in these "Russian influence" reports is the Kremlin's financial and propaganda support for anti-fracking and and-GMO groups in the US and Europe. RT covers both positively.
The Russians aim is to undermine support for anything they see as our technological advantage, now especially in both those areas. In this, they have been even more successful.
The Russians aim is to undermine support for anything they see as our technological advantage, now especially in both those areas. In this, they have been even more successful.
13
Good try, Jim…keeping the meme going of "The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming". They are doing nothing less than what we are up to with our global spying capabilities & a complicit media who parrots everything that the Pentagon/Military/Spy Agencies hand them as hard copy to report on. USAID, the Soros Foundation & numerous others work for the foreign policy agenda of this country. We have given the green light to Saudi Arabia & Israel to funnel weapons into Syria, & according to two recent reports - the Organized Crime & Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) & the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) they have conclusive evidence that not only is the Pentagon currently involved in shipping up to $2.2 billion worth of weapons from a shady network of private dealers to allied partners in Syria - mostly old Soviet weaponry - but is actually manipulating paperwork such as end-user certificates, presumably in order to hide US involvement. The OCCRP & BIRN published internal US defense procurement files which found that the Pentagon is running a massive weapons trafficking pipeline which originates in the Balkans and Caucuses, & ends in Syria and Iraq. The program is ostensibly part of the US train, equip, & assist campaign for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF, a coalition of YPG/J and Arab FSA groups operating primarily in Syria's east). The goal? Overthrow Assad by any and all means possible. Zerohedge has the details. And we are worried about RT?
7
Your citation of Zerohedge, a rank propagandist who has links to Russian intelligence, demonstrates the problems with your arguments. This is classic "whatabout-ism", a common Russian technique that attempts to deflect criticism of Russia by saying "but but but the US/EU/NATO/Israel..." It is not a serious argument.
16
I know nothing of what you speak @johndrake07 but "both sides do it" is not an acceptable answer to the somewhat successful Russian attempts to subvert our democracy.
4
Thank you for your trolling commentary. Foreign Policy magazine - a pro-interventionist publication that has supported regime change in Syria (aka topple Assad at any cost) & elsewhere, & is "the foremost establishment national security publication in the world," admits that the Pentagon's Syria weapons procurement program is tied to East European organized crime.
Perhaps you ought to read the report before dissing the messenger, Graham.
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/the-pentagon-s-2-2-billion-sovie...
Zerohedge as a tool of the Ruskies is pure balderdash. Readers of this august paper couldn't find a more balanced & fair reportage of things political anywhere. The real issue folks like you have with ZH is that they reveal the very underbelly of government actions around the globe - & not just US actions.
BTW, they were pro-Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election.
With a DOD budget of $584 million specifically for this Syrian operation for 2017 & 2018, & another $900 million to purchase Soviet-style munitions between now & 2022, this total of $2.2 billion, underscores the reality of our ongoing commitment to overthrow Assad for years to come. Why "soviet-style" munitions, you may ask? Simple: yet another way we can blame Putin for Russia's malfeasance in the ME. See? The weapons are Russian…
The result of this shady arms ratline, is that there is complete deniability, & no idea where the arms may be used nor end up.
Perhaps you ought to read the report before dissing the messenger, Graham.
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/the-pentagon-s-2-2-billion-sovie...
Zerohedge as a tool of the Ruskies is pure balderdash. Readers of this august paper couldn't find a more balanced & fair reportage of things political anywhere. The real issue folks like you have with ZH is that they reveal the very underbelly of government actions around the globe - & not just US actions.
BTW, they were pro-Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election.
With a DOD budget of $584 million specifically for this Syrian operation for 2017 & 2018, & another $900 million to purchase Soviet-style munitions between now & 2022, this total of $2.2 billion, underscores the reality of our ongoing commitment to overthrow Assad for years to come. Why "soviet-style" munitions, you may ask? Simple: yet another way we can blame Putin for Russia's malfeasance in the ME. See? The weapons are Russian…
The result of this shady arms ratline, is that there is complete deniability, & no idea where the arms may be used nor end up.
2
I've appeared on Peter Lavelle's "Cross Talk" and given a lengthy Skype interview about NATO to RT Espanol. Serious scholars like Steve Cohen regularly appear on RT. It is less biased than FOX and no more biased than MSNBC.
7
"The Kremlin started RT — shortened from the original Russia Today — a dozen years ago to improve Russia’s image abroad."
it sounds like it is not achieving that objective.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
--Abraham Lincoln
it sounds like it is not achieving that objective.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
--Abraham Lincoln
11
I watch RT New occasionally. It is a refreshing source after you get tired about the MSM pack mentality and often biassed reporting.
2
Even Dmitri Peskov, Putin's press secretary, admits with a shrug, to Russia waging the 'war' against the West. (hybrid war of politics, information, economics, etc of Gerasimov doctrine) Trump should have declared his "Fire and Fury" response against Russian operatives who undermine our Democracy.
12
RT is no different than the World Peace Council or any one of a number of front organizations set up by the Soviets during the Cold War to manipulate foreign opinion.
Wake up Americans! Do not be fooled by the filth and trash that RT propagates.
Wake up Americans! Do not be fooled by the filth and trash that RT propagates.
27
The task of the 5th Estate is to inform, educate, tell truth about society, expose shortcomings and corruption of the rulers. Our Anglo-Saxon MSM for the last 70 years failed miserably in its job.
Why did the nation and the world had to endure Korea, Viet-Nam, 9/11, Iraq, Af-Pak debacles had the MSM exposed in time the reasons and causes that led to it all.
Trump, for all his faults, is dead on in calling MSM "fake news". If the stated aims of RT and Sputnik are to “break the monopoly of the Anglo-Saxon global information streams,” then all power to them. It is about time.
At the same time we must also hold RT to account too. If it uses foul means to achieve its aims, it will end up being a caricature of the MSM it targets. Truth always prevails.
Why did the nation and the world had to endure Korea, Viet-Nam, 9/11, Iraq, Af-Pak debacles had the MSM exposed in time the reasons and causes that led to it all.
Trump, for all his faults, is dead on in calling MSM "fake news". If the stated aims of RT and Sputnik are to “break the monopoly of the Anglo-Saxon global information streams,” then all power to them. It is about time.
At the same time we must also hold RT to account too. If it uses foul means to achieve its aims, it will end up being a caricature of the MSM it targets. Truth always prevails.
1
If you're referring to the print media particularly, or news media in general, they are the Fourth Estate.
9
Yes, in France, the three estates and national stakeholders were the clergy, the aristocracy and the peasantry. The news media consider themselves the "fourth" estate -- a stakeholder in the future of the nation set apart from the other three.
2
Another key issue raised by this piece is the fact that RT and other non US news outlets will cover news the US media outlets ignore. This is doubly important in the case of the ongoing discussion of Russian meddling in the US election. The extent of the Russian meddling is being covered exhaustively by US media but some very important context is being left out. Yet this important context is being offered almost gleefully by non US media. What is the context that an "outraged" America should absorb? The fact the US leads all other nations in meddling in foreign elections - covertly and overtly. Dov Levin of Carnegie Melon researched US covert and overt attempts to influence elections between 1946-2000. He found the US was the most frequent meddler in foreign elections - far ahead of the Soviet Union/Russia. According to Levin 2/3rds of the US attempts in this period have been covert involving things like money to opposition, political warfare training and useful "info" to attack the oppostion. Note Levin's study doesn't include the endless US military interventions or the backing of coups or other attempts at "regime change" occurring in this period. Sadly, Chomsky and others demonstrated these constant US "regime change" efforts to date had very little to do democracy promotion and much more to do with replacing regimes that were seen as not cooperating with US goals with regimes more favorable to US interests. We need this information even if it comes from foreign sources.
8
And the US government, among many other American individuals and institutions, uses Kaspersky Lab technology and software, straight from the KGB and Kremlin. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
9
And not only the venerable "golden standard" of TV interviewing, Larry King, has been now on RT payroll for years lending RT all remaining prestige he has.
I should notice that American media has its own favorite conspiracy theory. For example, S how Putin start the war by ordering bombing of apartment buildings in Moscow. I heard this story on NPR. Somehow the radio forgot to mention that 2 weeks before the bombing the Chechen militia occupied parts of Russian Dagestan and the notorious Chechen commander gave interview to the western press (the piece was aired on PBS) saying that their goal was to throw Russians from Caucasus. The radio also forgot to mention that initially one of Chechen leaders claimed the responsibility for attack and then retracted. It is a small detail but it showed that at that time Chechens saw the bombing as beneficial to their cause, contrary to NPR claim that Chechens were not interested in starting the war. I do respect NPR, but that particular coverage showed that biases exist in the American media and that affects the perception of reality. Maybe, American media should more concentrate on objectivity of their own coverage then there will be no need for people to look for information outside of big media players?
13
The Western media has its spin and so do the Russians, the Chinese, etc. So, what is the problem? We know we are bombarded with propaganda from left and right and we simply read from all sides, wading through the ridiculous and the nonsense, to reach our conclusions.
The New York Times is not more credible than Russia Today, in my view.
The New York Times is not more credible than Russia Today, in my view.
13
Macron and France seemed to hold off Putin's FSB interference by learning from the example set by the U.S. and "no longer so Great" post-Brexit Britain. Germany knows Russia's tricks too. What's amazing is how stupid and gullible Americans became - largely the same group that was rabidly anti-socialist- so handily manipulated into being Trump's and Putins toadies. It would be funny if the results were not so dangerous and potentially tragic.
10
And here we have Fox news. The same thing.
1
All media is biased. RT has its biases and goals spoken and unspoken, conscious and subconscious. We are all products of our own indoctrination and where our interests lie.
Russians years ago had a favorite joke that went, "Both Russians and Americans have propaganda. The only difference is you Americans believe yours."
Russians years ago had a favorite joke that went, "Both Russians and Americans have propaganda. The only difference is you Americans believe yours."
20
The printing press, motion picture, radio, television and the Internet are all Western European and American invention and yet the Russians are ahead of us in information warfare.
How? The word "propaganda" even comes form the Latin!
Actually the Russians have been masters of propaganda for a very long time beginning with the Potemkin village to the Moscow Show Trials to Pravda. Even the word "bolshevik" was a lie as Lenin never held a majority.
What we are seeing is nothing new.
Instead of wagging a finger at Putin it's time to protect all our electronic vulnerabilities.
How? The word "propaganda" even comes form the Latin!
Actually the Russians have been masters of propaganda for a very long time beginning with the Potemkin village to the Moscow Show Trials to Pravda. Even the word "bolshevik" was a lie as Lenin never held a majority.
What we are seeing is nothing new.
Instead of wagging a finger at Putin it's time to protect all our electronic vulnerabilities.
9
Anglo Saxons? Is this how the rest of the non-westernised world perceives us? The differences highlighted by Brexit indicate a less cohesive oneness than the ancient pairing of Angle and Saxon. However, the Western Hemisphere, despite divisive national tendencies, may well be a unified, culturally cemented, empire to all intents and purposes that seeks supremacy in a haughty, paternalistic stance that bears the white man's burden like a burning cross. In a flawed, self reflective state, it views itself as a paragon of democratic virtues and liberties gained through liberal thought processes and hard experience, but how many are imagined? Putin, a tyrant by our estimation, a benevolent and comfortable dictator to his people, wages a thoroughly modern cyber war against the arcane Anglo Saxon because of perceived differences that are as much genetic than political, and he exploits our obvious cultural weaknesses that we actually condone by exploiting them ourselves. Trump and the Brexiteers is the obvious example of how vulnerable democracy can be and how it can be exploited by a machiavellian streak that debauches any western claims to a moral ascendancy. If we owe Trump, Brexit, and Putin anything, it is their demonstrative expositions of our fractured ego and self delusion.
That is simply terrifying. Can we not look beyond divisions rooted in a darker age to the commonalities of a shared humanity?
That is simply terrifying. Can we not look beyond divisions rooted in a darker age to the commonalities of a shared humanity?
The least expensive wars are made with words and they carry more significance in the era of faked words. Discrediting the news media is a fake words amplifier. But then, where would we all be without a fake words president or international fake word opponents?
The typical western mainstream media piece on Russia has a tone like everything is bad, bad, bad and getting worse. It has been this way for years and under the circumstances it is no wonder the Russians try to balance the books. Of course RT is biased and selective in what it reports but this article drifts into the hysterical in attempting to cast RT as a fake news and giant psychological manipulation machine. I watch some of their pieces on Youtube from time to time and generally they are balanced but also reflect the Russian point-of-view and they are somewhat thin-skinned. But what is this article, and a lot of other NYT reporting on Russia, if not the same? U.S. mainstream media is rarely, if ever, critical of U.S. foreign policy and I include the NYT in that and they love to show the negative side of Russia. An intelligent reader has to treat everything they consume from the media with critical thinking about what is true. This article is a case in point. Oh, and I'm *not* a Russian bot.
7
"U.S. mainstream media is rarely, if ever, critical of U.S. foreign policy "
Waat? All I read in the NYT, Foreign Affairs and elsewhere is how badly the Trump administration is bungling foreign policy, is that not criticism?
Waat? All I read in the NYT, Foreign Affairs and elsewhere is how badly the Trump administration is bungling foreign policy, is that not criticism?
1
No, that is criticism of Trump. Just who determines U.S. foreign policy is a bit of a mystery and it sure isn't the President. In fact, I would suggest that a lot of the criticism of Trump with respect to foreign policy is driven by his suggestion that it might be possible to normalize relations with Russia. Not likely and the NYT joins right in with that.
2
New? This is as old as warfare itself, and described in The Art of War, taught at the military war colleges as part of the elements of state power (DIME - diplomacy, information, military, and economic).
We are continuously affecting the leadership decisions and elections of both allies and opponents through spying, blackmail, bribes, and assassination. We propagandize our citizens and those of other nations.
The difference between the Russian and American execution of information warfare is that we're better at it than they are. While they're getting caught red handed, we are succeeding in secret. Amateurs.
We are continuously affecting the leadership decisions and elections of both allies and opponents through spying, blackmail, bribes, and assassination. We propagandize our citizens and those of other nations.
The difference between the Russian and American execution of information warfare is that we're better at it than they are. While they're getting caught red handed, we are succeeding in secret. Amateurs.
1
So the Russian reach in America is much smaller than CNN, and yet they were able to hack American election. American politicians and media moguls should take lessons from Russians how to read their own people, and how to deliver message that resonates with their own population.
1
I just spent a half hour (reading), mostly reinforcing what I already believed.
“Cominform” aside, though not completely.
“’Simonyan …, ‘We adored the fact that we are now going to be like America and taught like America and to be even patronized by America and be America’s little brother’". Even though such feelings might have been widely accepted among Russians, without any sense of subjugation, that wasn’t how big brother saw things. He saw a country in flux, possibly malleable. Yet, a country that had things he needed, for him to continue unimpeded as the world’s big brother (And why he now has more oil & gas than anybody else?). If he could not physically posses those things, he wanted to control their influence. And that, is how he still sees things, and why, “All world problems are Putin’s fault.” Though the demonization of Putin has now grown to include most Russians, as they have not reverted to the innocent longing for ‘little brotherhood’. Which is why the world should always, “Question More”.
“Cominform” aside, though not completely.
“’Simonyan …, ‘We adored the fact that we are now going to be like America and taught like America and to be even patronized by America and be America’s little brother’". Even though such feelings might have been widely accepted among Russians, without any sense of subjugation, that wasn’t how big brother saw things. He saw a country in flux, possibly malleable. Yet, a country that had things he needed, for him to continue unimpeded as the world’s big brother (And why he now has more oil & gas than anybody else?). If he could not physically posses those things, he wanted to control their influence. And that, is how he still sees things, and why, “All world problems are Putin’s fault.” Though the demonization of Putin has now grown to include most Russians, as they have not reverted to the innocent longing for ‘little brotherhood’. Which is why the world should always, “Question More”.
Russia's RT, Iran's Press TV, and, to a much lesser extent, Qatar's Al Jazeerah indeed not so vaguely remind me of our own dear Fox TV. But that's probably not so bad: The world needs to hear all kinds of points of views so that the monopoly on 'truth', long a privilege for the American-led media, gets loosened.
The US while always careful to avoid the term propaganda engages enormous resources in its attempts to shape relevant opinion around the world and US media and entertainment companies played and play a huge role in putting out the messages that Washington wants the world to see. These efforts and their impacts were and remain hugely important. I remember clearly news some years back of some surprising results when pollsters in Canada questioned their citizens on who they thought the greatest risk to world peace was. In the English speaking parts of Canada where US media basically dominated the market with a very weak sprinkling of Canadian produced foreign news not surprisingly Russia topped the list. Results from Quebec, h Canada's French speaking province were however quite different. In Quebec the United States won the laurels for greatest risk to world peace. Why the discrepancy? Well, it pretty much came down to news sources. Canada's French speaking population relied for international news on sources from Europe including France and Belgium not US media sources. These European outlets often were much more cynical regarding US attempts to pursue its interests and "do good" around the world than the US media was with predictable results upon news consumers. This battle for "hearts and minds" is serious stuff and all the major players are into it up to their necks.
83
Belsco's contribution here sounds very RT to me.
Question more = Ask the wrong questions fed to you
Question less = Do not critically evaluate the answers
The new cold war using the wide reaching media into the minds of the gullible population. The winning formula must, and will include critical thinking, honest reporting, level communications.
Question less = Do not critically evaluate the answers
The new cold war using the wide reaching media into the minds of the gullible population. The winning formula must, and will include critical thinking, honest reporting, level communications.
1
I am not at all skeptical of the Russian propaganda campaign but the Russians i.e. the Soviets practiced global propaganda, espionage and worse from 1917 until the end in 1992. The current Russian 21st century information warfare is a continuation of a Russian tradition which I assume can be traced to the origins of mass media in the 19th century.
Who blew up the Maine by the way? That vast empire of naval bases and American influence from the Western Pacific and the Caribbean now composing some nine hundred military bases covering 80 percent of the earth's surface, that all started with the help of "Yellow journalism" in the United States in the 1890s.
As far as RT goes, I did watch a documentary from RT on life in North Korea. The production was Spanish but the financing was RT and the depiction of the country was totalitarian. It isn't a bad source for international news. I much prefer it to Fox. Fox, it should be noted, did everything it could including spewing lies to elect Donald Trump.
Who blew up the Maine by the way? That vast empire of naval bases and American influence from the Western Pacific and the Caribbean now composing some nine hundred military bases covering 80 percent of the earth's surface, that all started with the help of "Yellow journalism" in the United States in the 1890s.
As far as RT goes, I did watch a documentary from RT on life in North Korea. The production was Spanish but the financing was RT and the depiction of the country was totalitarian. It isn't a bad source for international news. I much prefer it to Fox. Fox, it should be noted, did everything it could including spewing lies to elect Donald Trump.
2
RT doesn't bother me so much. It's pretty much the equivalent of voice of America or radio free Europe from years ago.
The larger problem is evident in Russian interference with the American election, where bots and fake accounts and covertly funded ad campaigns on social media resulted in trumps election. Then there are what one commentor referred to as hashtag attacks, where malicious news is circulated quickly to a specific community with the sole intention of destabilizing that community and generating counter protesters and a police response.
Its effect in the US is compounded by the willingness of right – leaning news organizations, websites, and pundits to tacitly or explicitly endorse whatever disruptive message is being generated.
For a fictional take on this and the potential for even greater damage, read Flashmob by Christopher Farnsworth.
The larger problem is evident in Russian interference with the American election, where bots and fake accounts and covertly funded ad campaigns on social media resulted in trumps election. Then there are what one commentor referred to as hashtag attacks, where malicious news is circulated quickly to a specific community with the sole intention of destabilizing that community and generating counter protesters and a police response.
Its effect in the US is compounded by the willingness of right – leaning news organizations, websites, and pundits to tacitly or explicitly endorse whatever disruptive message is being generated.
For a fictional take on this and the potential for even greater damage, read Flashmob by Christopher Farnsworth.
5
A very impressive, very well researched piece of journalism. Hopefully contributing to more selfreflection in the West and more understanding of the East.
4
This was a fantastically written article and very informative. I thank you for your depth of reporting and research. It's amazing to see the transformation of warfare and influence changing to more of a digital landscape. Less lives are lost, but more people are effected.
4
The 2016 Russian election hack started several years earlier when Putin's intelligence services discovered that the right wing media in the US had become much like a classic Russian propaganda operation. Started over 20 years ago by media companies like Fox News and talk radio to boost ratings as consumers stay glued to their favorites, it was favored by the GOP to bypass mainstream media criticism of its policies to party supporters. With the addition of more extreme voices (websites, social media), the system became the "Echoplex", where central services such as RT take supporting ideas and amplify them giving them more power and "legitimacy".
How do we know Russians have been influencing the system? A YouGov survey of American voter attitudes to Putin published in the Times last year shows support for the Russian leader increasing, but ONLY among Republican voters, going from single digits to 37% in two years. In the same period, independent and Democratic support had not changed much.
Although the original Russian objective was an attack on the credibility of democracy, Putin's goal changed when he realized how easy it would be to add one propaganda idea that the American Echoplex variant never strongly supported, the need for a strongman to answer the anger, fear, and blame, the system constantly generates, to Make America Great again.
How do we know Russians have been influencing the system? A YouGov survey of American voter attitudes to Putin published in the Times last year shows support for the Russian leader increasing, but ONLY among Republican voters, going from single digits to 37% in two years. In the same period, independent and Democratic support had not changed much.
Although the original Russian objective was an attack on the credibility of democracy, Putin's goal changed when he realized how easy it would be to add one propaganda idea that the American Echoplex variant never strongly supported, the need for a strongman to answer the anger, fear, and blame, the system constantly generates, to Make America Great again.
150
I do not believe that citizens of the USA should worry about what Russia publishes as news. The USA citizens should worry about USA news and all the lies the USA Government are telling, plus the media are supporting and when confronted they attack anyone who points out the lies and call them conspiracy nuts.
Read David Ray Griffin's latest book 'BUSH AND CHENEY HOW THEY RUINED AMERICA AND THE WORLD. It is an excellent book and will enlighten you. The USA is demonizing Putin to cover up for the Neo Cons and Deep State which rules the country. Trump is forced to do what he is told to do ( by Deep State) or he will be impeached ( or worse).
Read David Ray Griffin's latest book 'BUSH AND CHENEY HOW THEY RUINED AMERICA AND THE WORLD. It is an excellent book and will enlighten you. The USA is demonizing Putin to cover up for the Neo Cons and Deep State which rules the country. Trump is forced to do what he is told to do ( by Deep State) or he will be impeached ( or worse).
1
When did the narrative become the news? When did the facts become the quasi-particles of media truthiness? Public discourse has become a dialog in a fever dream, full of sound and fury - signifying nothing.
3
viz. statues of Confederate generals
Excellent article. All's fair in propaganda wars. US may have pushed too far when expanding NATO to Russian border (did we agree not to as part of peristroyka?) and Russia may have pushed too far in hacking US voting infrastructure to help install unqualified president. Hopfully this new version of war doesn't lead to the old version of war.
A takeaway from the article is the need to teach critical thinking skills. The fact this is not part of devose ed plan makes one question more, her objectives and backing.
A takeaway from the article is the need to teach critical thinking skills. The fact this is not part of devose ed plan makes one question more, her objectives and backing.
48
If the American people become critical thinkers what will Fox and the GOP do, what will the Democrats do, what will the corporatists, bankers and media grifters do?
John Lennon knew what it meant to be a working class hero while Patrick McGoohan's prisoner knew what it meant to be a white collar agent, both under the control of Oligarchs.
John Lennon knew what it meant to be a working class hero while Patrick McGoohan's prisoner knew what it meant to be a white collar agent, both under the control of Oligarchs.
1
artinfl - if critical thinking skills were really taught, there'd be no GOP. They count on the dumbest among us.
Nato is not a living creature that could 'expand' anywhere. Rather, sovereign states may decide to apply for membership - nobody forces them to - which needs to be accepted by all the previous member states.
Seems that is forgotten history nowadays, but in the old writings by Vaclav Havel, Alexander Kwasniewski and other heads of state one can sense the urgency of those countries in escaping 'the prison of the nations' and joining the west when there was a chance. It boils down to the question whether non-nuclear nations are allowed to choose their economical and defence-related alliances based on their own conceived preferences, or whether the big powers should have the right to decide about the alliances over their heads.
Where I live we still have bad memories about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, in which Hitler and Stalin divided the Europe. The former soviet-block states probably despise the Jalta agreement for similar reasons.
Seems that is forgotten history nowadays, but in the old writings by Vaclav Havel, Alexander Kwasniewski and other heads of state one can sense the urgency of those countries in escaping 'the prison of the nations' and joining the west when there was a chance. It boils down to the question whether non-nuclear nations are allowed to choose their economical and defence-related alliances based on their own conceived preferences, or whether the big powers should have the right to decide about the alliances over their heads.
Where I live we still have bad memories about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, in which Hitler and Stalin divided the Europe. The former soviet-block states probably despise the Jalta agreement for similar reasons.
Trump and the Mercers should have had their files subpoenaed and their records impounded in March of 2016.
The failure to recognize the threat presented by weaponized social media and the threat that corrupt, billionaires open to colluding with Putin, a despot who has hijacked Russia, killing or neutralizing all opposition is clear.
Some of us who are attuned to the firmament of the world-wide-web and how social media is engineered have been sounding the alarm for years. Certainly since the uncontrolled rise of Facebook and its extortionate effect upon our workplace and identity. But, the abandonment of an effective FCC (which is now cynically used as an adjunct by the Trump Administration) and the principles of equal time and the importance of protecting scientific fact from propaganda and assertion, lie at the root of our collective problem.
Russia has been allowed to take advantage of our democratic institutions. But, to a certain degree their attempts to subvert have been a presence since the First World War. The difference now is that they have a compromised and owned puppet in the White House.
The failure to recognize the threat presented by weaponized social media and the threat that corrupt, billionaires open to colluding with Putin, a despot who has hijacked Russia, killing or neutralizing all opposition is clear.
Some of us who are attuned to the firmament of the world-wide-web and how social media is engineered have been sounding the alarm for years. Certainly since the uncontrolled rise of Facebook and its extortionate effect upon our workplace and identity. But, the abandonment of an effective FCC (which is now cynically used as an adjunct by the Trump Administration) and the principles of equal time and the importance of protecting scientific fact from propaganda and assertion, lie at the root of our collective problem.
Russia has been allowed to take advantage of our democratic institutions. But, to a certain degree their attempts to subvert have been a presence since the First World War. The difference now is that they have a compromised and owned puppet in the White House.
114
So the Russians have learned to play the game American have played so well. A long time ago the Chinese also learned that capitalism is a game they can play too. Read Propaganda by Edward Bernays. It is nothing new.
Russian version is defective though. They don't have the capitalist-industrialist components that peddle consumerism, brand recognition and commercial advertisement. They are working on it, though.
Russian version is defective though. They don't have the capitalist-industrialist components that peddle consumerism, brand recognition and commercial advertisement. They are working on it, though.
5
Russia is clearly creating chaos through propaganda and misinformation.It's also getting results, like the election of Trump and Brexit. The question is, what to do? How you stop them?
15
You forgot about the hurricanes. It is also Russia's Interference :)
1
The Russian fossil fuel oligarchs control the Russian government, and by extension have stopped rapid substitution for oil. Current Republican control of our government slowed or stopped the most effective actions. Slowing substitution for oil products has kept the price of oil from falling below $30 per barrel, which is the average cost of producing global oil. Rapid substitution would collapse oil prices, and hurt Russian oligarchs.
Excerpts from comments I submitted to the DOE in 2014:
A program of rapid substitution for oil products would save customers several hundred billion dollars annually. Half of the cost savings would fund enough incentives to reduce carbon emissions in the US by 80%. And a effective substitution program would end the misallocation of about $400B of capital investments annually into crude oil exploration, production, and refining.
Industry corporate executives have opposed and stymied change by attempting to block government actions and policies intended to drive substitution, reduce crude oil demand, and reduce customer long-term costs. These policies would increase substitution causing lower oil prices, and reduce the incentives to invest in , and instead shift huge capital investment flows to vehicle manufacturing, biofuel, ... Some of the energy industry sabotaging actions includes funding political disinformation campaigns to mislead customers and the American public.
Big money interests have a lot at stake.
Excerpts from comments I submitted to the DOE in 2014:
A program of rapid substitution for oil products would save customers several hundred billion dollars annually. Half of the cost savings would fund enough incentives to reduce carbon emissions in the US by 80%. And a effective substitution program would end the misallocation of about $400B of capital investments annually into crude oil exploration, production, and refining.
Industry corporate executives have opposed and stymied change by attempting to block government actions and policies intended to drive substitution, reduce crude oil demand, and reduce customer long-term costs. These policies would increase substitution causing lower oil prices, and reduce the incentives to invest in , and instead shift huge capital investment flows to vehicle manufacturing, biofuel, ... Some of the energy industry sabotaging actions includes funding political disinformation campaigns to mislead customers and the American public.
Big money interests have a lot at stake.
4
You don't stop them. You listen to what they have to say, change your ways and see how the world becomes a better and safer place. Than you thank them later.
1
How is this a new theory? Blood libel against Jews in Europe goes way back into Middle Ages. The later edition, known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was manufactured by Czarist Russia and disseminated throughout the world. Henry Ford funded its dissemination in the US. Nazis used it to educate teachers and schoolchildren. It is still widely popular in much of the Muslim World and among the neo-Nazis.
The fact is that truth is never easy. Now that creation and dissemination of fake news has increased by an order of magnitude, it is imperative that politicians and professional journalists distinguish themselves by committing to truth and nothing else. Political correctness, whether right or left, can be a significant obstacle to objectivity. The fake story about abduction and rape of a Russian-German girl would have less impact if there wasn't initial cover-up of harassment and rape of women in Cologne on New Years Eve.
The fact is that truth is never easy. Now that creation and dissemination of fake news has increased by an order of magnitude, it is imperative that politicians and professional journalists distinguish themselves by committing to truth and nothing else. Political correctness, whether right or left, can be a significant obstacle to objectivity. The fake story about abduction and rape of a Russian-German girl would have less impact if there wasn't initial cover-up of harassment and rape of women in Cologne on New Years Eve.
11
True. But, there used to be a quaint concept of equal time, and an FCC that would never have allowed Rupert Murdoch in the front door. Since that evil man's arrival on our shores we've been in steady decline.
4
The "new" part is that social media provides a ready medium for outside influences to game Facebook into promulgating a false reality weaponized to catalyze opinion in the swing vote and manipulate the outcome of our elections. Russia was able to send spies in the past and get secrets like the Atomic Bomb. They were able to secretly fund radical groups and supply weapons to Che, or C-4 explosives to West Coast radicals in the 60s. But, they weren't able to manipulate the outcome of our presidential election or influence opinion directly on a mass scale, by, say, taking out ads on the 3-networks in the 70s, which would be the equivalent of how they used Facebook and other social media to help get Trump elected.
24
Russia did not get Trump elected, Hillary Clinton is the real reason Trump got elected. Hillary was given the questions in the debates so when she accepted them she became a cheat. Plus Hillary went along with the dirty trick played on Sanders by the DNC which prevented Sanders from winning, and becoming the Democratic Candidate. Sanders had a better chance than Hillary of beating Trump at the polls. Hillary has too much baggage.
If there is justice in the USA Hillary will be investigated for her Clinton Foundation, her lost and found emails, bengazi. etc. etc. etc..
If there is justice in the USA Hillary will be investigated for her Clinton Foundation, her lost and found emails, bengazi. etc. etc. etc..
1
If there ever was a Pandora's Box, the Internet is it. I remember when it was ARPANET - shared among industry and university labs. Handy tool! Then the likes of Gates, Jobs et al got rich and the general populace deemed them heros. Dazzled by the feeling of "empowerment;" out of control. So the world has become a free-for-all and it cannot be reigned in. This is it. People, nations are terrified as well they should be. Dangerous, short sighted, decisions were made. A few got rich. So it goes.
4
Not only is the internet a Pandora's box, it will be humanity's undoing: in the end, virtual warfare is as virtually destructive as any physical warfare.
2
Yes. In fact, Hitler's primary weapon was propaganda. The main subject of his Mein Kampf, written while serving time for "civic upheaval." Alan Bullock wrote an excellent bio back in '64 that we studied in school. History not so popular these days, I'm afraid - so we repeat the same old mistakes. Technology - Internet - just speeds up the process. Sad story, down the slippery slope.
1
It sounds like RT and the Russians are continuing the legacy first established by Limbaugh/Fox 20-25 years ago and continued by Alex Jones/Breitbart. A domestic fifth column attacking their fellow American citizens through disinformation, lies, innuendo, character assassination, etc. We have a manufactured political schism and RT and the Russians are attempting the death blow started by Limbaugh/Fox.
165
More to the point - Trump and Mercer colluded. Cambridge Analytica teamed with the FSB.
5
Yep - Apparently that's the next phase after Alex Jones/Breitbart. The icing on the cake or the glue that held it all together.
You have to ask: Why aren't these people in jail? We have no one to blame but ourselves. Sad state of affairs.
1
The Russian strategy is likely to be successful. With the dwindling influence of newspapers – especially hard-copy newspapers – Americans are more inclined to get their news the quickest, easiest way. Social media and cable television fit that need. Too few people are skeptical enough to question what they hear and read. Fox News and RT thrive in this environment. On the other hand, the White House, the Pentagon, and other U.S. government agencies have not been models of accuracy and truthfulness. No one in this country has less credibility than the president and his spokespersons. As the article shows, RT is as important to Russia as their armed forces. The Russians refer to misinformation as a weapon and they are probably right. Putin has shown his intention to wield this weapon and we have not yet found a good defence.
32
People believe their iPhones and other mobile devices, just like the "as seen on TV" label on cheap Slicky publications… As if they were the Word of God or something with even more authority.
1
This is an interesting article. I am at something of a loss to find the problem being described. Imitation is the sincerist form of flattery, and the Russians have become Americanised in their approach to news media. Be glad.
I look back on the coverage of candidates during the primary and final campaigns of the 2016 election in the US, and it seems rather more old-style Soviet coverage. Hillary was essentially sane, offering serious solutions to serious problems, anyone attacking her ethics, policy switches, finances . . . was basically misinformed at best, or evil at worst. Her victory was inevitable.
Sanders had ridiculous ideas that would never work, pandered to interest groups (e.g, the sick, the poor, the wannabe college students) without regard to cost . . ., and Trump was almost indescribably bad, though columnists did their best to find descriptions that were dark enough.
It was so overdone that to me at least it lost all credibility.
I have no suggestions to make things better: I assume that the coverage was dictated by conviction, as well as financial considerations. Trump appears to have spent comparatively little on his media campaign, and Bernie was also swamped.
However, the NYT survived, and I hope remembers its old slogan: all the news that's fit to print- publish would now be a better word. Just do it!
The Washington Post is now a mouthpiece for Mr Bezos, the WSJ for Murdoch's interests. You are the last man standing, as it were. Stand fast.
I look back on the coverage of candidates during the primary and final campaigns of the 2016 election in the US, and it seems rather more old-style Soviet coverage. Hillary was essentially sane, offering serious solutions to serious problems, anyone attacking her ethics, policy switches, finances . . . was basically misinformed at best, or evil at worst. Her victory was inevitable.
Sanders had ridiculous ideas that would never work, pandered to interest groups (e.g, the sick, the poor, the wannabe college students) without regard to cost . . ., and Trump was almost indescribably bad, though columnists did their best to find descriptions that were dark enough.
It was so overdone that to me at least it lost all credibility.
I have no suggestions to make things better: I assume that the coverage was dictated by conviction, as well as financial considerations. Trump appears to have spent comparatively little on his media campaign, and Bernie was also swamped.
However, the NYT survived, and I hope remembers its old slogan: all the news that's fit to print- publish would now be a better word. Just do it!
The Washington Post is now a mouthpiece for Mr Bezos, the WSJ for Murdoch's interests. You are the last man standing, as it were. Stand fast.
82
Imitation is not flattery. It is derivative,. It is the absence of original ideas.
2
I think that you highly overestimate Mr. Bezos' influence on WaPo.
I read both papers every day; they're almost the same in every way. Often, I can't tell which I'm reading. In fact, I once complimented the NYT for one of its articles, but I was reading WaPo. Cringeworthy, indeed.
I read both papers every day; they're almost the same in every way. Often, I can't tell which I'm reading. In fact, I once complimented the NYT for one of its articles, but I was reading WaPo. Cringeworthy, indeed.
You are right about the NYT but it too has a slanted view of the News. It is very much a paper which subtly promotes the views of the Left Wing and the Democratic party. Although I must say that it run a great comments section - the WP comments are over run with garbage. Financial Times has a pretty decent comments section which has some slight monitoring, but much of their stories are about International Finance and they are very pro-EU
RT is more substantive than for instance CNN or certainly Faux Noise. More intelligent, more informational, less biased less over-dramatic. Hopefully this article will increase it's viewership.
11
I agree, CK. Sometimes when I'm reading the progressive press, for example, I find its manipulation of the news on a par with the old Pravda. It's disconcerting that there seems to be a campaign to discredit "alternative sources" such as RT. What's even more disconcerting is the attempt to identify anyone who disagrees with the "party line" as a dupe of the Russians, i.e., an enemy of the state.
2
I wonder what stops cable operators all over Europe from dropping RT. I am tired of seeing their poisonous "reporting" in every hotel I stay on vacations.
2
It saddens me that many people on Twitter and Facebook were retweeting/contacting news outlets with evidence of fake accounts spreading disinformation all year to news outlets, but no research was done. All through the campaign many of us did this. If you were reading long ago, you are aware of the trolls who were arguing for Russia being in Ukraine. If the press had watched more closely and written more about trolls than HRC's emails, this could have come to light much sooner.
We kept telling you.
We kept telling you.
23
I watch R.T news all the time. It is one of the only sources that gives alternative thinkers a voice in this country.Chris Hedges Norm Chomsky etc.There are 100's of think tanks 1000 lobbyist all giving their version of reality to influence the U.S government for their own purposes.Fox news and most of the other mainstream media are just spokesmen for corporate interest .Truth has to be discovered in today's world. No source can be completely trusted.R.T news is just another player in the mix.
35
RT is not the only alternative source. Democracy Now has been doing a great job for years.
1
That's exactly how they work. 9/10 stories are good, it's that 1/10 that's pure propaganda. You've been bamboozled!
2
I stumbled upon Thom Hartmann and his broadcasts are very good -- even in the terms of American journalism of giving both sides, left and right.
In particular, Hartmann reports many of the perspectives that the NYT and other American news media should cover -- but don't. (OK, call it censored.)
For example, Hartmann and RT regularly cover Noam Chomsky. I wish the NYT would cover Chomsky more.
Chomsky described to Ralph Nader how he was censored by NPR's "All Things Considered":
https://ralphnaderradiohour.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Ralph-Nader-R...
So I tuned in, and at 5:25 there was five minutes of music. Around 5:31 I started getting phone calls from around the country asking what happened to the piece that was supposed to be on there. I said I didn’t know. And I then got a call from the station manager in Washington, who told me that she’d been getting calls, and she didn’t understand it, because it was listed. So she didn’t understand what happened. Later, she called back saying-kind of embarrassed-saying that some top bigwig in the system had heard of the announcement at five o clock and had ordered it canceled. And she was pretty upset, because it was over her head.
In particular, Hartmann reports many of the perspectives that the NYT and other American news media should cover -- but don't. (OK, call it censored.)
For example, Hartmann and RT regularly cover Noam Chomsky. I wish the NYT would cover Chomsky more.
Chomsky described to Ralph Nader how he was censored by NPR's "All Things Considered":
https://ralphnaderradiohour.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Ralph-Nader-R...
So I tuned in, and at 5:25 there was five minutes of music. Around 5:31 I started getting phone calls from around the country asking what happened to the piece that was supposed to be on there. I said I didn’t know. And I then got a call from the station manager in Washington, who told me that she’d been getting calls, and she didn’t understand it, because it was listed. So she didn’t understand what happened. Later, she called back saying-kind of embarrassed-saying that some top bigwig in the system had heard of the announcement at five o clock and had ordered it canceled. And she was pretty upset, because it was over her head.
3
For months, Democrats and NYtimes have tried to connect President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign to Russia’s alleged interference in last year’s election.
7
Whether the Trump campaign participated or was just the beneficiary, is not the point.
3
Well, this was a massive read ( to say the least ).
What I came away with was there was a lot of background information ( some of it very subjective with the adjectives ) and many, many equivalencies. ( whether they were false is left up to the reader )
'' enough so that the police felt compelled to put out a statement debunking it. '' ~ this statement encapsulates pretty much the entire take away.
If you are getting the majority of your information or news from social media then more than likely, you are going to be easily swayed by a sudden and massive hashtag offensive.
If however, you are researching ( even just a little bit below the surface ) from multiple sources, then chances are you are going to eventually come across a version of the truth that is plausible and stands up to scrutiny.
The major problem ( that has come about in the last decade as large established news rooms get smaller and smaller ) is that the MSM is chasing the ''story'' from other ''news '' sources. They feel they don't have the time, nor the resources to dig down into a story. No longer is there corroborating sources ( on the record especially ) that are going to verify facts.
dolor cave ( consumer beware )
What I came away with was there was a lot of background information ( some of it very subjective with the adjectives ) and many, many equivalencies. ( whether they were false is left up to the reader )
'' enough so that the police felt compelled to put out a statement debunking it. '' ~ this statement encapsulates pretty much the entire take away.
If you are getting the majority of your information or news from social media then more than likely, you are going to be easily swayed by a sudden and massive hashtag offensive.
If however, you are researching ( even just a little bit below the surface ) from multiple sources, then chances are you are going to eventually come across a version of the truth that is plausible and stands up to scrutiny.
The major problem ( that has come about in the last decade as large established news rooms get smaller and smaller ) is that the MSM is chasing the ''story'' from other ''news '' sources. They feel they don't have the time, nor the resources to dig down into a story. No longer is there corroborating sources ( on the record especially ) that are going to verify facts.
dolor cave ( consumer beware )
18
An excellently crafted article, however you failed to mention the nepotism in RT, sons and daughters, fathers and daughters, husbands and wife's that work in RT. An instance is the completely vacuous grand-daughter of the foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze having her own programme and Vitaly Churkin (former ambassador to the UN) daughter works as a reporter in London, et al.
Corruption still exists in a tightly run organization. Also disturbing is the number of fascists that are routinely interviewed on RT.
Corruption still exists in a tightly run organization. Also disturbing is the number of fascists that are routinely interviewed on RT.
13
And where did Clinton's and Bush's daughters work?
2
Right. That would never happen in the US. Billy Bush and Chelsea Clinton were just namesakes.
2
The question I ask is just who are these Americans that follow Breitbart and RT and all the debunked conspiracies?
Are these people the millions exploited by the elite and entrenched? Are they the uneducated and uninformed? Are they jealous of the rest of the world selling their labor at less than middle class wages?
It is totally ironic that the people eating up this misinformation are likely to only hurt their own agenda of patriotism and economic stability. Clearly RT and the alt-right are against the common patriot and belief in the US. Their misinformation is fomenting economic instability and a general loss of power for the US. This will continue to hurt those that are all ready suffering here in the US.
A weak government and weak social fabric will never provide affordable healthcare or new infrastructure investment or a return of a strong and growing middle class.
It is not time for self aggrandizement, personal greed and isolationism. All of us need to recognize what is going on and Push Back!
Are these people the millions exploited by the elite and entrenched? Are they the uneducated and uninformed? Are they jealous of the rest of the world selling their labor at less than middle class wages?
It is totally ironic that the people eating up this misinformation are likely to only hurt their own agenda of patriotism and economic stability. Clearly RT and the alt-right are against the common patriot and belief in the US. Their misinformation is fomenting economic instability and a general loss of power for the US. This will continue to hurt those that are all ready suffering here in the US.
A weak government and weak social fabric will never provide affordable healthcare or new infrastructure investment or a return of a strong and growing middle class.
It is not time for self aggrandizement, personal greed and isolationism. All of us need to recognize what is going on and Push Back!
1
It's not entirely *new,* however. Russia's strategists have been writing and advocating in this direction--militarily and non-militarily--for years now, and we've seen their emphasis on information warfare in Georgia and Ukraine. And yes, it may be unstoppable (so long as we allow it--and we should)...so we win with ideas, critical & factual knowledge of issues, while consistently challenging them if they play loose with the facts. If they can do so legitimately, more power to them. If they slander, stretch the truth, incite or whatever else...well, we the viewers have to make a lot of those judgment calls--banning/blocking won't do the trick.
It's important to understand though, that this clearly IS a Russian imperative to undermine the West: it is unambiguous; there should be no mistaking their intentions. So far, we've made the braver move--allowed them to come into our domain of free speech, and because of that freedom, exploit the advantages it gives them in furthering their goals.
So...we must show them why our system is better (it is--this was decided,
starkly, 28 years ago) and relentlessly continue to point out their hypocrisy in not allowing the same within Russia. We should be wary, but not afraid. Vigilant and discerning but not censorious. Because ultimately, viewers have to use their own minds and choose for themselves. Be smart, Westerner...
It's important to understand though, that this clearly IS a Russian imperative to undermine the West: it is unambiguous; there should be no mistaking their intentions. So far, we've made the braver move--allowed them to come into our domain of free speech, and because of that freedom, exploit the advantages it gives them in furthering their goals.
So...we must show them why our system is better (it is--this was decided,
starkly, 28 years ago) and relentlessly continue to point out their hypocrisy in not allowing the same within Russia. We should be wary, but not afraid. Vigilant and discerning but not censorious. Because ultimately, viewers have to use their own minds and choose for themselves. Be smart, Westerner...
3
With the rise of the Libertarian movement in the US, and the growing takeover of our government by the “Kill the Beast” believers for the past 30 years, it’s no wonder that the Russian propaganda machine has become so successful in the US recently. This is becoming glaring obvious with the Russian money that is just being identified to defeat Hilleary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump. Unless the American Libertarians and Conservative thinkers who want to abolish the administrative state wake up to the importance of defending America from a hostile foreign power, Putin may very well become the Godfather to Donald Trump.
3
Lying started when we could speak.
The number of lies and inaccuracies reported by the media is ridiculous. And then, the blatant dishonesty of the practice of ”quietly” issuing ”major retractions.” "inclde NYT, WP, CNN"
9
The top 3 in ”Fake News”
1. CNN
2. Washington Post
3. New York Times
These top 3 produce 90% of the ”Fake News” from anonymous sources.
1. CNN
2. Washington Post
3. New York Times
These top 3 produce 90% of the ”Fake News” from anonymous sources.
13
Yep, it must be true, even RT says so...
3
Are you that ignorant of how news gathering operations function?
Do you not understand the principle of corroborating sources?
Do you not understand the principle of freedom of the press and freedom of speech?
Do you not understand the principle of allowing people to speak up without endangering their well-being, family, or career.
All, I repeat, all news gathering operations use anonymous sources. It is up to the reader to educate him/herself as to which news sources produce credible, accurate, objective stories most of the time (no one's perfect). Otherwise how do you judge what is real and what is not? Perhaps by only believing what fits your subjective view of the world, even if it has no basis in fact or reality.
Do you not understand the principle of corroborating sources?
Do you not understand the principle of freedom of the press and freedom of speech?
Do you not understand the principle of allowing people to speak up without endangering their well-being, family, or career.
All, I repeat, all news gathering operations use anonymous sources. It is up to the reader to educate him/herself as to which news sources produce credible, accurate, objective stories most of the time (no one's perfect). Otherwise how do you judge what is real and what is not? Perhaps by only believing what fits your subjective view of the world, even if it has no basis in fact or reality.
5
This story frightened me more than all the "duck and cover" drills of my childhood.
109
The intent of the story was to frighten you, So it worked as intended.
3
Still gnawing the Benghazi bone?
Really? It was water off a duck's back for me.
"Oh, the difference of man and man!"
-- King Lear: 4.2
"Oh, the difference of man and man!"
-- King Lear: 4.2
so the difference between RT and Rupert Murdoch is......?
86
or for that matter the NYT and WP.....
2
one is a nation state and the other a rich guy. good grief.
f you want to stay uninformed and live in the dark, rely on the NYT and Fox and CNN or any other US news source. I read the World press first including RT, FAZ.NET, several British papers and The People's Daily and several Asian sources and Latin American papers. Then and only then, do I look at the US press, It is a revelation to see the bias, and the stories not told, to put it mildly.
36
Phil:
To all readers, not just Phil Greene:
Would you please list out the urls of the news sources you read? Which Asian and Latin American sources are you using? Are they in English? What about the mid-East? What pubs are you reading? And how about Austrialia, central Asia, China, Viet Nam, etc.? Got any good sources?
I note that NYTimes lets us use their resources (their comments section) to discuss "where to get info in addition to what I read @NYT.").
Thanks to all, incl. NYT.
To all readers, not just Phil Greene:
Would you please list out the urls of the news sources you read? Which Asian and Latin American sources are you using? Are they in English? What about the mid-East? What pubs are you reading? And how about Austrialia, central Asia, China, Viet Nam, etc.? Got any good sources?
I note that NYTimes lets us use their resources (their comments section) to discuss "where to get info in addition to what I read @NYT.").
Thanks to all, incl. NYT.
Are you arguing that each and every one of the world press sources you read are unbiased and cover all stories?
If not, then what is your point?
I agree if you read 100 papers a day, and I congratulate you on your reading speed and your economic status giving you the sufficient time to do this, you will come across stories not covered in the NYTs and maybe other American papers as well, and you will observe different biases that if you just read the NYT. Of course, if you compared Fox News and NYTs, the same thing would be true. But the WashPo and LATimes and WSJ also cover stories not covered in the NYT and I am sure vice versa. Despite the hubris in the motto "All the news that fit to print" any newspaper will face limits.
And maybe if you looked at the US Press first, you might have another revelation seeing the bias and the stories not told in the world press.
If not, then what is your point?
I agree if you read 100 papers a day, and I congratulate you on your reading speed and your economic status giving you the sufficient time to do this, you will come across stories not covered in the NYTs and maybe other American papers as well, and you will observe different biases that if you just read the NYT. Of course, if you compared Fox News and NYTs, the same thing would be true. But the WashPo and LATimes and WSJ also cover stories not covered in the NYT and I am sure vice versa. Despite the hubris in the motto "All the news that fit to print" any newspaper will face limits.
And maybe if you looked at the US Press first, you might have another revelation seeing the bias and the stories not told in the world press.