Fake News Just For Right-Wingers: A Huge Industry

a reply to: imwilliam

This is from the NYT. Are they biased? Is this story fake?

You see how this goes?

A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories

STOCKHOLM — With a vigorous national debate underway on whether Sweden should enter a military partnership with NATO, officials in Stockholm suddenly encountered an unsettling problem: a flood of distorted and outright false information on social media, confusing public perceptions of the issue.

The claims were alarming: If Sweden, a non-NATO member, signed the deal, the alliance would stockpile secret nuclear weapons on Swedish soil; NATO could attack Russia from Sweden without government approval; NATO soldiers, immune from prosecution, could rape Swedish women without fear of criminal charges.

They were all false, but the disinformation had begun spilling into the traditional news media, and as the defense minister, Peter Hultqvist, traveled the country to promote the pact in speeches and town hall meetings, he was repeatedly grilled about the bogus stories.

“People were not used to it, and they got scared, asking what can be believed, what should be believed?” said Marinette Nyh Radebo, Mr. Hultqvist’s spokeswoman.

A Russian state TV channel has been accused of inciting racial hatred after it broadcast an allegedly fake report claiming a 13-year-old girl was raped by Arab immigrants in Berlin.

Berlin police said in a statement that there is no evidence that the kidnapping and rape described in the report took place and urged "sensitive handling of the subject on social media", after rumours of the alleged attack spread online.

Writing on Bloomberg View, commentator Leonid Bershidsky said that the case exposed the workings of Russian president Vladimir Putin's propaganda machine, which is "actively using the continent's refugee crisis and the Russian-speaking diaspora's wariness about it to destabilize governments that are hostile to him, including Chancellor Angela Merkel's in Germany." Deutsche Welle reported that approximately six million Russian speakers in Germany have access to Channel One.

The Channel was criticised in 2013, after broadcasting a fake report claiming that Ukrainian soldiers had crucified a three year old boy. In August 2015, the EU set up a special task force charged with countering Russian anti-EU propaganda.

If you can make people afraid and or angry - you can influence policy and law

a reply to: imwilliam

You should ask the op why they chose to use the source they use. Not me. It wasn't me making the choice.

As for intelligence being apparent and obvious for anyone to see and understand on their own, that is true some of the time. However, more than once I've seen people who are too ignorant to know they're ignorant of some things. It does in fact happen and it's a difficult thing to deal with.

It would be like you trying to argue with a chimp. You're argument may be sound, correct and your delivery may be solid and clearly stated. However, that chimp will still be unable to understand the complexity of what you're saying regardless of how well and correct your argument may be.

I'm not saying anyone is a chimp but I think you get what I'm saying. Some people are in fact too dumb to know they are wrong and without the intelligence to correct it sometimes.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

If you can make people afraid and or angry - you can influence policy and law

What's interesting about that is I read once why in fact that does work. Apparently when the brain is reacting to a shock of some kind emotionally it becomes more suggestible. So for example, frightening someone or making them angry, etc. puts them into a more suggestible state of mind where it will accept information more easily than if it is relaxed and stable.

Now, to what degree this works I don't know. But it seems to me that by putting people in a state of constant fear, through, oh let's say always having terror threats and stories about enemies everywhere, etc. Basically doom porn 24/7. That after a while of that being hammered into the minds of people you'd basically put them into a hyper suggestible state almost constantly where you could almost convince them of a completely different reality without them being able to stop it.

The media is a powerful weapon against people or a power tool for them. We aren't defenseless against it when it's a weapon but we can be made more easily hurt by it. When it's a tool we also may not use it wisely so it does nothing for us. So we do have some control over it being a weapon or a tool as well. It depends on what we really want. Do we want to hurt others or help them and ourselves along with them???

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Yeah, here you're going well beyond the click bait that was the subject of the op. I'm not sure that the solutions for this type of state sponsored propaganda and the click bait problem are the same.

Like I said, I think Google might have the tools and motivation to clamp down on some of the worst of the click bait stuff, but beyond that I don't know.

You know though, maybe if the MSM cleaned up its act, became trustworthy and reliable, that might make people less susceptible to the other.

What a mess.

a reply to: mOjOm

The Red Scare, Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Aids, the Apocalypse...too much to list right now. Propaganda and selling fear can make people bat crap crazy

Your post deserves a longer reply - but I'm out of here for the night :-)

ATTENTION

THIS IS NOT THE MUDPIT.
NORMAL T&C'S APPLY.

THE TROLLING AND PERSONAL ATTACKS STOP NOW!!!!

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST.
CARRY ON.

Its all make believe animal chatter it is what it is until some lame brain thinks it real and not fiction.

These words being comprehended? Where do they lay in your mind... poof they exist no where else.

It makes sense that this helped Trump win the election. There is legit corruption in government and with the Clintons, but most everything else is made up sensationalism that started the day Obama took power.

All the re-posts and re-tweets I see some of my less educated family members post who read only the headline and nothing else are fueling this get money quick scam.

originally posted by: Darkchao45
It makes sense that this helped Trump win the election. There is legit corruption in government and with the Clintons, but most everything else is made up sensationalism that started the day Obama took power.

All the re-posts and re-tweets I see some of my less educated family members post who read only the headline and nothing else are fueling this get money quick scam.

But I thought the general opine was only conservatives were the non critical thinkers. According to the above that means the "fake news" influenced liberals as well? How about the real blame to her loss here, not only being corrupt(as at least you acknowledge) but how she and co. shafted Bernie. Then very well those Bernie voters may have went to the Trump side.

originally posted by: Winstonian
You are ensuring that Trump gets a second term, . .

He has to get through the first one first.

On the topic of fake news, really reminds me of the Smith-mundt act being repealed. It was repealed in 2012..making propaganda or "fake news" legal for the state department to disburse. Who was secretary of state at the time? Clinton.. Who resigned to run for president.. Fake news started popping up around then.

There are three key restrictions on the U.S. State Department in the Smith–Mundt Act.

The first and most well-known restriction was originally a prohibition on domestic dissemination of materials intended for foreign audiences by the State Department. The original intent was the Congress, the media and academia would be the filter to bring inside what the State Department said overseas. In 1967, the Advisory Commission on Information (later renamed the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy) recommended the de facto prohibition on domestic distribution be removed noting that there is "nothing in the statutes specifically forbidding making USIA materials available to American audiences. 

Below seemed to happen through out the election... We all witnessed a monopoly on media coverage.. Trump vs wiki leaks/dncleaks.

The amendment said the information activities should only be conducted if needed to supplement international information dissemination of private agencies; that the State Department was not to acquire a monopoly of broadcasting or any other information medium; and that private sector leaders should be invited to review and advise the State Department in this work.

en.m.wikipedia.org...–Mundt_Act

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Right wingers? Why so selective?

There are fake news sites that capitalize on confirmation bias. Its not just right wingers that get suckered. Abortion articles, right/left wing articles, stories about old ladies being picked on, sensationalism about The Rock being hauled out in cuffs....fake news is everywhere. If it takes me 10 minutes to bang out an "article", post it to my blog, then share to FB, its a good chance it'll happen. The clicks, man.....the clicks.

No, its not just right wingers. Don't make this partisan. Doing so just turns this into fake news, too.

The OP seems sorta bias.

If this information was presented in a neutral way it could have went a lot further.

When you insult and deride your target audience it's a lot harder to make a point.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Logarock

You didn't read the article. Libs don't fall for the fake news sites.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thanks, this one really made me laugh. I needed that.

Every one falls for fake news sometimes, left / right, everyone has their favorite "news" places that just present stories in ways that corroborate what you already believe if not completely making something up. The Huffington post, MSNBC, CNN, and more are just as full of fake news as anything else and by you believing its not, your entire OP is one big contradiction.

How many "journalist" that the left respect as truthful were proven to be shilling for Hillary during the campaign? Getting permission to post a story, asking what quotes they could use, were considered friendly by Clinton and could be USED to place a narrative. It's laughable that you think liberals don't fall for fake news. Maybe they don't fall for the rights fake news, no they fall for fake news coming from the left or the "mainstream".

It takes a conscious effort on everyone's behalf to really question any news story no matter where it comes from.