Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

They’re Here! Obama Disinformation Agents Are Actively Posting Against Critics

page: 1
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+36 more 
posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Has anyone noticed the sudden presence of new members, generally lacking any profile information, posting blatantly false information, claiming myths as “FACT”, and even going so far as to make unfounded accusations against other members critical of the Barack Obama administration and its policies?


Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has apparently hired a cadre of left-wing, Democrat campaign bloggers to troll through the Internet looking for news stories and blog posts that denigrate the Obama agenda. After such websites are found it is the job of these secret lefty bloggers to leave comments that come to the support of Obamaism in the comments sections. It seems that Eric Holder has created his own little propaganda unit in a valiant effort to become the Bloggi Riefenstahl of the Obama era.

“The Obama Justice Department’s Secret Blogging Team… Is it Illegal?”
rightwingnews.com...



Is the Department of Justice engaging in fraud, or is it simply trying to hide its propaganda? Those of you wondering how DOJ uses your tax dollars to enforce our nation’s laws might be interested to learn that Eric Holder has apparently hired former Democratic campaign bloggers to work at the department in what appears to be a secret propaganda unit. According to a story at The Muffled Oar website, the bloggers are housed in the Office of Public Affairs (the press office). Their job is to place “anonymous comments, or comments under pseudonyms, at newspaper websites with stories critical of the Department of Justice, Holder and President Obama.” One of the bloggers is former DNC and John Edwards staffer Tracy Russo, whose name was featured prominently on the department’s introduction of its new website on October 1.

At the same time that DOJ was refusing to answer questions about its outrageous dismissal of the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and apparently paying government employees to post anonymous or pseudonymous comments or comments under false names attacking critics of the administration, the department declared that it was launching its new website “to increase openness and transparency in government.” In fact, Russo claims it is “just the first step towards creating the most open, accessible, and transparent Justice Department possible.” If that is true, how can DOJ justify these anonymous/pseudonymous postings? The misrepresentation is clearly material or DOJ wouldn’t go to such lengths to engage in it.

“The Most Transparent Administration Ever? Not at DOJ”
corner.nationalreview.com...


Often, the same claims or statements are made over and again in different threads, and never backed up when challenged. You will sometimes see the posters just drop out of a thread, only to reappear elsewhere, after taking a series of “pot shots” at the OP and the author.

A common trait among them is the refusal to respond to direct questions, refusal to provide authority or cites to authority, and ad hominem or straw man responses: “All the people who …” or “Everyone knows …” are typical bases for their positions.

Even when clearly, and often very easily, refuted by multiple members with long and open histories at ATS, these agents’ “FACTS” persist and repeat. Sometimes, the posters do little more than repeat themselves without actually responding to challenges for support and citation to authority.

“Anonymous DOJ Blogger Campaign Attacks Media and Critics”
Friday, October 2, 2009
muffledoar.blogspot.com...


Not only is the Department of Justice Blog Squad going to reach out to nontraditional media like TPM Muckraker or the Muffled Oar, but they are also tasked with fostering anonymous comments at conservative leaning blogs such as the Free Republic. They are also tasked with fostering anonymous comments, or comments under pseudonyms, at newspaper websites with stories critical of the Department of Justice, Holder and President Obama. … We’ve seen a change in the pattern of anonymous emails we receive and comments posted at our paper’s webpage.”

One shivers at the thought of a team of Department of Justice Bloggers anonymously trolling the web to spin the message of a President. It is particularly terrifying when those same anonymous government employees at the Department attack media outlets and newspapers anonymously. How much longer before the Blog Squad operates in the open to intimidate political opponents and critics?


As it happens, not only are they penetrating and influencing blogs, they’re actively policing and monitoring them:

“America's Internet police: FTC gets ready to investigate bloggers”
www.washingtontimes.com...

If a regular person says something online that an FTC official finds fishy, the agency can investigate. To do that, the rules say, feds will have to check out individuals' finances, examine what they've received in the mail and review what they've posted on the Internet for evidence of corporate taint.


We’ve seen this coming on ATS for a while now, as well:
“Gov't Admits Spying on Blogs and Forums”
www.abovetopsecret.com...

“Government Proposes Massive Shift in Online Privacy Policy”
www.abovetopsecret.com...

One definite trait among them is the inability to selectively quote, or parse, an argument to which they are opposed. You’ll see a huge quote, followed by a repetition of previous assertions, or newly-minted others, non-responsive and frequently completely off-topic.

I know I’ve seen it. I’ve been called a “disinfo agent” myself despite the fact that I’ve made about as much known of myself without violating the “personal information” T & Cs. Of course, the accusers have no such info or make outlandish and inconsistent representations about themselves.

I know what I've seen. Anyone got a better explanation?

Jw



+1 more 
posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

I know I’ve seen it. I’ve been called a “disinfo agent” myself despite the fact that I’ve made about as much known of myself without violating the “personal information” T & Cs. Of course, the accusers have no such info or make outlandish and inconsistent representations about themselves.

I know what I've seen. Anyone got a better explanation?

Jw


You just made the list.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by jdub297

I know I’ve seen it. I’ve been called a “disinfo agent” myself despite the fact that I’ve made about as much known of myself without violating the “personal information” T & Cs. Of course, the accusers have no such info or make outlandish and inconsistent representations about themselves.

I know what I've seen. Anyone got a better explanation?

Jw


You just made the list.



lmao


EDIT:

Ok to actually contribute to the thread I've seen a lot of people accused of this, sometimes people who I would think last would actually be government agents. I think we're all a little paranoid about government intrusion but it does seem to be an accusation that comes up more lately. But not everyone accused could be or that would probably be a pretty large chunk of ATS subscribers if that were the case.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by mkross1983]

[edit on 9-10-2009 by mkross1983]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Well, if "they're" here, it should be easy enough for you to add some links to the posts and posters in question.

Otherwise, if you have no proof, then why would you make a thread that states so clearly that you believe them to be here?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 
Too late now, anyway. They've been at me for a while now.

All in all, I don't think they're very active here. Mainly lurkers. Rarely START threads, but heavily into derailment.

IMHO.

jw



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mkross1983
 


It's very easy to cast aspersions. I don't believe that many people come here with bad intent.

I've only used the "disinfo agent" reply 2X, ever. And I was sure of it.

Guess what. They left the threads. 2X.

Coincidence?

jw

[edit on 9-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Hmm maybe. Maybe not.

I know I have left some threads, even ones I've started b/c I've gotten too frustrated and couldn't trust myself to reply in a polite manner.

I know we all have different views but sometimes I have to bow myself out so I don't end up banned. Love this place too much despite all the crazy stuff I read in here sometimes, lol, and I include myself in the crazy stuff from time to time.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkross1983
reply to post by jdub297
 


Hmm maybe. Maybe not.

I know I have left some threads, even ones I've started b/c I've gotten too frustrated and couldn't trust myself to reply in a polite manner.

I know we all have different views but sometimes I have to bow myself out so I don't end up banned. Love this place too much despite all the crazy stuff I read in here sometimes, lol, and I include myself in the crazy stuff from time to time.


I agree. I have already gotten probably all the warnings I will get, so when I get too angry or upset, I have to just reluctantly click the little red x at the top right corner of the window, and forget about it. Maybe I can return later when I am less angry about whatever is going on inside. And I drop out of threads all the time never to return; there are lots of threads here, alot of topics interest me here, and once I feel like I have read all the pages of a thread and responded, I don't see the need to keep going back there. I hope if someone is mad at me and wants to talk about it they can PM me and cal my attention back to it. So far that has never happened.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Really I am not sure if they are disinfo agents, but I get a feeling this place is like 75% liberal and maybe 25% conservative/independent. Maybe it is all non-american posters who are already live in socialist or communist countries that want to pull us into the fray. I am not saying they are doing it out of evil intent, but they actually think that is a good way to live because they have never know what freedom is really like. I remember what it was like from 20 or so years ago, and I bet that wasn't half of the freedom my great granparents felt.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
actually, in my own surprise... i agree with the OP.

Obama admin has already been accused of changing youtube videos, escpecially those which show the flip flop of obama on the public option, why wouldnt they try to derail large blogospheres?

makes sense to me.

just because i seem paranoid doesn't mean they aren't trying to get me!

in all seriousness though, the media control, the internet control, the overall... well... control, of the obama nation has got me seriously concerned. i have posted my views here before. i stand firm in my disgust of the current state of the nation.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Some people said the same thing about "them" being here on ATS back when Bush was in office.

Only at that time it was claimed that it was aimed at criticism about Bush's policies.

Maybe you think both parties do it?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wx4caster
 


Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I agree it is possible but maybe not in a large way. I don't agree with probably 90% of what my government does. Pretty sad.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla
 

Well, if "they're" here, it should be easy enough for you to add some links to the posts and posters in question.

Otherwise, if you have no proof, then why would you make a thread that states so clearly that you believe them to be here?


Posts and threads directed to or about an individual would be a violation of the T & Cs, in my opinion.

I've always believed that personal discussions were for U2U.

The fact that the DOJ and FTC admit it leads me to believe other agencies do it, too.

It is not my place to make blanket personal accusations.

I'm content just to relate the information the government makes known and let members make up their own minds.

Someone COULD make a thread of the outlandish posts we've seen, but that would be an unending commitment.

However, if someone does start one, I have a catalog of the threads and posts that I'd cut and paste in replies from time to time and let everyone evaluate.

The "junk science" thread? The "Complete Bull" thread?

It would be never ending.

And pointless, since that stuff gets repeated anyway.

jw



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
You americans make me laugh sometimes, lol

If McCain had one you would be saying all the same things against him



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


So I guess your job now is to "blog" on "forums" for the right wing, is it?

All your sources are blogs!
rightwingnews.com... who got their story here from this blog-muffledoar.blogspot.com...

Your second source on transparency was written by Hans von Spakovsky, one of George Bush's appointments to the FEC.

Hans A. von Spakovsky (born March 11, 1959) is an American attorney and a former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). He was nominated to the FEC by President George W. Bush on December 15, 2005 and was appointed by recess appointment on January 4, 2006.[1] When his recess appointment expired, he was renominated, but for two and a half years, the United States Senate declined to approve his nomination due to controversy over his activities at the U.S. Department of Justice. On May 15, 2008, he withdrew his nomination.[2]


von Spakovsky was rejected and now is complaining about Transparency, anyone hear an axe grinding.

When you quoted from this source, next in your BLOG campaign muffledoar.blogspot.com... you left this out.

Matthew Miller Denies Some of Blog Squad Allegations

Political hatchet man turned nonpartisan Department press spokesman Matt Miller denied the existence of the Blog Squad to the Washington Times. What Miller did NOT deny is that the Blog Squad aka Russo and others, "foster" netroots postings supporting the President and attacking media critics. They denied that the blog squad exist and that nameless postings are made. But they did not deny what everyone knows Axelrod is best at - astroturfing and farming out your dirty work. The failure to deny is a virtual admission.
Here we have denials and then a jump to a conclusion of guilt because there was apparently no denial? O.K. Sure.


I know I’ve seen it. I’ve been called a “disinfo agent” myself despite the fact that I’ve made about as much known of myself without violating the “personal information” T & Cs. Of course, the accusers have no such info or make outlandish and inconsistent representations about themselves.

Well, you are in fact spreading "others" information. You are editing content to suit an argument, you are not divulging the whole truth, but dis-informing others. You do not disclose the history, nature or relationship of your sources like good ol' boy Hans von Spakovsky. Again, leaving people ill informed. They are from blogs, they are politically motivated. How are you any different from those others. You are just as anonymous regardless of what you claim in this forum.

On the regulation of Bloogers and such, I believe this is the MSM trying to protect its lot, the commercial aspect is used to keep the bloggers small, as soon as they resemble the larger commercial online content, I will guess we will see the FTC "try" and use its muscle on behalf of the MSM. What a can of worms that will be, as even your source admits that this is insane.
www.washingtontimes.com...

ndeed, it is exactly on this gray area that the FTC says it will focus. The more commercial, popular, long-standing and successful a blogger or tweeter is, the more likely he will fall under the new rules. In other words, the more like the mainstream media an online person is, the more likely the FTC will want to regulate him. That makes perfect sense.

If the four FTC commissioners who voted for this fiasco had any sense, they would skip the inevitable lawsuits and go back to their real jobs.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Obama is the best thing ever, his forward thinking and excellent leadership make him the greatest person alive right now! Can you imagine a world without Obama in it? what a terrible place that would be. Haven't you heard? Obama's gonna save us all..........



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by StinkyFeet
 

Really I am not sure if they are disinfo agents, but I get a feeling this place is like 75% liberal and maybe 25% conservative/independent. Maybe it is all non-american posters who are already live in socialist or communist countries that want to pull us into the fray. I am not saying they are doing it out of evil intent, but they actually think that is a good way to live because they have never know what freedom is really like. I remember what it was like from 20 or so years ago, and I bet that wasn't half of the freedom my great granparents felt.


I agree with your assessment of the distribution. But even the truest of the left post with thought and can debate on the merits.

The ones I suspect are the ones who re-post things that are unsupportable on their face (e.g. "only 300 people die annually from flu") in different threads AFTER they've been proven wrong, or refuse to support the claim.

As for the foreign contingent, I'd agree that they have a slanted POV. But, for many years, my parents hosted refugees fleeing repressive states, and helped them relocate in the U.S. All of these brave souls knew the difference and took their lives in their hands to come here.

They are liberal by reason of their nurture/upbringing, but they love the freedom the U.S., and capitalism provides.

I don't know a single one that wants their choices limited or "handouts."

By the way, 8 out of every 10 of these refugees have become self-employed and small-business owners, instead of working for others. They had guaranteed work where they lived, but came here to make their own way.

jw



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Dude I totally get your point about refugess and other immigrants wanting the freedom that America presents. I have been blessed to know people from different countries who have came here to find freedom and success. I respect them more than any American who grew up here, even myself. This might sound strange but I am actually jealous of their risks that they took to get here and the fact that they have succeeded so well. Jealous in a good way that is, maybe admiration is a better word.

So maybe it is just a bunch of paid for bloggers or just lazy ass, uneducated Americans who want their needs handed to them by the government.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by jdub297
 


Really I am not sure if they are disinfo agents, but I get a feeling this place is like 75% liberal and maybe 25% conservative/independent.
[edit on 9-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]


Yep. That's how I read this site, too. I don't see why Obama disinfo agents would need to post here against critics. But, I have seen them on other nameless sites where the percentage is flipped the other way. So, I guess they could be here, too.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Your sharp criticism is exactly what I expect since I post my sources and provide links. People can evaluate links and sources if they are given access to them. I'm not afraid to.

The ones I've described, provide no sources.

They provide no links.

When we can debate the credibility of the source, we can debate intelligently. Sources are what they are. Some are credible, some are not.

Many bloggers break stories the MSM won't touch. Many blogs aren't worth the paper they're (not) written on.

The posts we should all be more suspicious of are those that provide NO sources.

I've said this many times here, often without a reply:
"you show me your source, I'll show you mine."

We may disagree on the proposition that "the Administration is blogging against critics."

I believe they are, and that the totality of the credible evidence makes it more likely than not that the Obama administration is using bloggers to attack its critics.
(This is the standard of proof in an American civil trial.)

You may not.

You be the jury.

jw

[edit on 9-10-2009 by jdub297]





new topics

top topics



 
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def