Meet The Real "Fake News"

by Tyler Durden
Nov 25, 2016

In its attempt to redirect the public's attention from its historic failure to deliver unbiased, objective, factual reporting in the context of the presidential election in which virtually every single mainstream media outlet was revealed (courtesy of the hacked Podesta emails) and acted as a Public Relations arm for the Clinton campaign, said media has opened a new can of worms by ushering in the topic of "fake news" - a purposefully vague, undefined term meant to deflect and scapegoat by "exposing" propaganda websites, which in the latest incarnation of the narrative, are now allegedly serving to further Russian propaganda in the US.

As we reported earlier, none other than the Washington Post - a company owned by Jeff Bezos, who for the past year has been involved in a famous media spat with president-elect Donald Trump - pounced on a list created by a website that was created (according to its whois profile) on August 21 using godaddy.com as registrar and had its first tweet on November 2, and which among others, lists Drudge Report and Zero Hedge as representatives of "Russian propaganda." This is how the "scientists" at the Goebbels-esque "PropOrNot" describe their qualifications in determining and recommending which websites are fit to be burned (starting with a plea for investigations by the Obama administration) in a post "fake news" world:

PropOrNot is an independent team of computer scientists, statisticians, national security professionals, journalists, and political activists dedicated to identifying propaganda - particularly Russian propaganda targeting a US audience. We collect public-record information connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find, act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts to oppose it.



We work to shine a light on propaganda in order to prevent it from distorting political and policy discussions, to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence, and to improve public discourse generally.



Many of our contributors wish to stay anonymous, in light of possible Russian retaliation, as has happened in Finland and elsewhere.

In other words, while attacking the anonymity of so-called "Russian propaganda" websites (websites which chose to remain anonymous knowing this kind of retaliation was inevitable), the public servants and experts devoted to rooting out Russian propaganda in the US opt, themselves, to remain anonymous.

To be sure, we have no interest in uncovering who may be behind this particular organization (which conveniently stepped in after a similar list was floated last week by a discredited liberal professor, who likewise defined Zero Hedge as "fake news"). We do, want, however to warn readers about who the real source of documented fake news in the US traditionally has been. The US government itself, through its vast espionage and counterespionage apparatus.

But please don't take our word for it.

Back in 1975, the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities found in 1975 that the CIA submitted stories to the American press, and that as part of the CIA's playbook was the usage of disinformation tactics against America's own population:

Question: "Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation — American journal?"
Answer: "We do have people who submit pieces to American journals."

Question: "Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?"
Answer: "This I think gets into the kind of uh, getting into the details Mr. Chairman that I'd like to get into in executive session."



(later)



Question: "Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services — AP and UPI?"
Answer: "Well again, I think we're getting into the kind of detail Mr. Chairman that I'd prefer to handle at executive session."

One can imagine what was said later during the "executive session." Then-CBS President Sig Mickelson goes on to say that the relationships at CBS with the CIA were long established before he ever became president, and that "entirely in order for correspondents to make use of CIA station chiefs and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information."

"I thought that it was a matter of real concern that planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad came home and were circulated here and believed here because this would mean that the CIA could manipulate the news in the United States by channeling it through some foreign country," Democratic Idaho Senator Frank Church said at a press conference surrounding the hearing. Church chaired the Church Committee, a precursor to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was responsible for investigating illegal intelligence gathering by the NSA, CIA and FBI.

This exact tactic — planting disinformation in foreign media outlets so the disinfo would knowingly surface in the United States as a way of circumventing the rules on domestic operations — was specifically argued for as being legal simply because it did not originate on U.S. soil by none other than CIA Director William Casey in 1981.

Former President Harry S. Truman, who oversaw the creation of the CIA in 1947 when he signed the National Security Act, later wrote that he never intended the CIA for more than intelligence gathering. "I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations," Truman penned in 1963 a year after the disastrous CIA Bay of Pigs operation.

Of course, there was also the whole "Operation Mockingbird" fiasco:

"After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the CIA. By this time, Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services. The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning off funds intended for the Marshall Plan [i.e. the rebuilding of Europe by the U.S. after WWII]. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers."

As contributor "George Washington" adds, In 2008, the New York Times wrote:

During the early years of the cold war, [prominent writers and artists, from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Jackson Pollock] were supported, sometimes lavishly, always secretly, by the C.I.A. as part of its propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was perhaps the most successful use of “soft power” in American history.

A CIA operative told then-Washington Post owner - yes, ironic - Philip Graham the following, in a conversation about the willingness of journalists to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories:

You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.

Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein wrote in 1977:

More than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty?five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.



***



In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.



***

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were [the heads of CBS, Time, the New York Times, the Louisville Courier?Journal, and Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include [ABC, NBC, AP, UPI, Reuters], Hearst Newspapers, Scripps?Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald?Tribune.



***



In November 1973, after [the CIA claimed to have ended the program], Colby told reporters and editors from the New York Times and the Washington Star that the Agency had “some three dozen” American newsmen “on the CIA payroll,” including five who worked for “general?circulation news organizations.” Yet even while the Senate Intelligence Committee was holding its hearings in 1976, according to high?level CIA sources, the CIA continued to maintain ties with seventy?five to ninety journalists of every description—executives, reporters, stringers, photographers, columnists, bureau clerks and members of broadcast technical crews. More than half of these had been moved off CIA contracts and payrolls but they were still bound by other secret agreements with the Agency. According to an unpublished report by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Representative Otis Pike, at least fifteen news organizations were still providing cover for CIA operatives as of 1976.



***



Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side …. “There were a lot of representations that if this stuff got out some of the biggest names in journalism would get smeared” ….

How ironic that in the end it was the Washington Post itself which would get smeared.

* * *

An expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA now employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations. Whether or not his estimate is accurate, it is clear that many prominent reporters still report to the CIA.

A 4-part BBC documentary called the “Century of the Self” shows that an American – Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays – created the modern field of manipulation of public perceptions, and the U.S. government has extensively used his techniques.

Former Newsweek and Associated Press reporter Robert Parry notes that Ronald Reagan and the CIA unleashed a propaganda campaign in the 1980’s to sell the American public on supporting the Contra rebels, utilizing private players such as Rupert Murdoch to spread disinformation. Parry notes that many of the same people that led Reagan’s domestic propaganda effort in the 1980’s are in power today:

While the older generation that pioneered these domestic propaganda techniques has passed from the scene, many of their protégés are still around along with some of the same organizations. The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond’s NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year.

* * *

Perhaps the most damning evidence, as highlighted by @pierpont_morgan, can be found inside the Final report of the abovementioned Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, published in Aptil, 1976, in which several sections stand out.

One admits explicitly how the press had been extensively captured by the CIA and how dozens of American journalists collaborated with the CIA to fabricate, create and distribute dake news:

The Committee has also found a small number of past relationships that fit this category. In some cases the cover arrangement consisted of reimbursing the U.S. newspaper for any articles by the CIA agent which the paper used. In at least one case the journalistic functions assumed by a CIA staff officer for cover purposes grew to a point where the officer concluded that he could not satisfactorily serve the requirements of both his (unwitting) U.S. media employers and the CIA, and therefore resigned from the CIA. He maintained contact, however, with the CIA and continued, very occasionally, to report to the CIA from the countries in which he worked.



(2) Of the less than ten relationships with writers for small, or limited circulation, U.S. publications, such as trade journals or newsletters, most are for cover purposes.



(3) The third, and largest, category of CIA relationships with the U.S. media includes free-lance journalists; "stringers" for newspapers, news magazines and news services; itinerant authors; propaganda writers; and agents working under cover as employees of U.S. publishing houses abroad. With the exception of the last group, the majority of the individuals in this category are bona fide writers or journalists or photographers. Most are paid by the CIA, and virtually all are witting; few, however, of the news organizations to which they contribute are aware of their CIA relationships.



(4) The fourth category of covert relationships resembles the kind of contact that journalists have with any other department of the U.S. Government in the routine performance of their journalistic duties. No money changes hands. The relationships are usually limited to occasional lunches, interviews, or telephone conversations during which information would be exchanged or verified. The difference, of course, is that the relationships are covert. The journalist either volunteers or is requested by the CIA to provide some sort of information about people with whom he is in contact. In several cases, the relationship began when the journalist approached a U.S. embassy officer to report that he was approached by a foreign intelligence officer ; in others, the CIA initiated the relationship.

Another section of the report focuses on how the CIA co-opted academics, reporting that "the Central Intelligence Agency is now using several hundred American academics who in addition to providing leads and, on occasion, making introductions for intelligence purposes, occasionally write books and other material to be used for propaganda purposes abroad. Beyond these, an additional few score are used in an unwitting manner for minor activities.

These academics are located in over 100 American colleges, universities, and related institutes. At the majority of institutions, no one other than the individual concerned is aware of the CIA link. At the others, at least one university official is aware of the operational use made of academics on his campus. In addition, there are several American academics abroad who serve operational purposes, primarily the collection of intelligence.

There is also the admission that the CIA used books explicitly for propaganda purposes:

The Committee has found that the Central Intelligence Agency attaches a particular importance to book publishing activities as a form of covert propaganda. A former officer in the Clandestine Service stated that books are "the most important weapon of strategic (long-range) propaganda." Prior to 1967, the Central Intelligence Agency sponsored, subsidized, or produced over 1,000 books; approximately 25 percent of them in English.... The Committee found that an important number of the books actually produced by the Central Intelligence Agency were reviewed and marketed in the United States.

Oh, the CIA particularly enjoyed using the NYT and Washington Post for "repeat propaganda" (from page 200 of the report):

CIA records for the September-October 1970 propaganda effort in Chile indicate that "replay" of propaganda in the U.S. was not unexpected. A cable summary for September 25, 1970 reports:



Sao Paulo, Tegucigalpa, Buenos Aires, Lima, Montevideo, Bogota, Mexico City report continued replay of Chile theme materials. Items also carried in New York Times, Washington Post. Propaganda activities continue to generate good coverage of Chile developments along our theme guidance. . .

And so on, and on, for over 670 pages of details how it was the CIA - not Russia, not Putin - that has been the primary creator and distributor of misleading, propaganda material in the US, also known as "fake news."

* * *

Of course, all of the above remains largely under the radar; it will never be branded "fake" news in a polite setting. Meanwhile, anyone who dares to challenges the status quo - as we have seen in recent days - is immediately labeled a purveyor of “fake news", or worse - a servant of the Kremlin.

Contributor "George Washington" has some topical thoughts on this particular issue, noting that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of the press from censorship by government. Indeed, the entire reason that it’s unlawful for the government to stop stories from being printed is because that would punish those who criticize those in power.

Why? Because the Founding Father knew that governments (like the British monarchy) will always crack down on those who point out that the emperor has no clothes.

But the freedom of the press is under massive attack in America today. For example, the powers-that-be argue that only highly-paid corporate media shills who will act as stenographers for the fatcats should have the constitutional protections guaranteeing freedom of the press.

A Harvard law school professor argues that the First Amendment is outdated and should be abandoned. When financially-savvy bloggers challenged the Federal Reserve’s policy, a Fed official called all bloggers stupid and unqualified to comment. And the government is treating the real investigative reporters like criminals … or even terrorists:

Obama has gone after top reporters. His Department of Justice labeled chief Fox News Washington correspondent James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” in a leak case, and for many years threatened to prosecute Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times journalist James Risen

The Obama administration also spied on Risen, Rosen, the Associated Press, CBS reporter Cheryl Atkinson and other media

In fact, top NSA whistleblowers tell Washington’s Blog that the NSA has spied on reporters for well over a decade … to make sure they don’t reveal illegal government programs

The Pentagon smeared USA Today reporters because they investigated illegal Pentagon propaganda

Reporters covering the Occupy protests were targeted for arrest

The government admits that journalists could be targeted with counter-terrorism laws (and here). For example, after Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge

In an effort to protect Bank of America from the threatened Wikileaks expose of the bank’s wrongdoing, the Department of Justice told Bank of America to a hire a specific hardball-playing law firm to assemble a team to take down WikiLeaks (and see this)

The NSA and its British counterpart treated Wikileaks like a terrorist organization, going so far as to target its employees politically, and to spy on visitors to its website

* * *

With the (failing) mainstream media now desperate to focus the public's attention to the fake "fake media" to divert attention from the real "fake media", those Washington Posts and New York Times who have traditionally served as vessels for the government apparatus to brainwash the public, expect an even greater backlash as the American population realizes that none of this is actually new, and that it has always been the US government that was directly responsible for the blanket propaganda that has covered the US for decades: something which the government itself has confirmed on countless occasions in the past - one just needs to do the effort of stepping away from the information they are spoon-fed, and do their own research and analysis.

Which, incidentally, is what this latest round in the eternal war for information and influence, is all about.

LewRockwell.com

Truth is Stranger Than Fiction When It Comes to Pornography and Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs

By Bill Sardi

November 28, 2016

‘Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn’t.”—Mark Twain

With recent criticism of fake news sources influencing the recent Presidential election in the U.S., a news story suddenly breaks that CNN accidentally aired 30 minutes of pornography in the Boston area on Thanksgiving Day. But it turns out that CNN “accidentally admitted it aired pornography” in a trail of misinformation that was traced back to its source by Breitbart News. [Breitbart News Nov 25, 2016]

The problem of fake news is so prevalent that a report by commentator Peter Cohan at Forbes.com estimates 54.2% of the online actions (shares, reactions, comments) on Facebook were generated from fake news stories at the peak of the election campaign. Cohan estimates Google generates about $15 billion of income from so-called fake news annually! [Forbes.comNov 25, 2016]

When fake news is not new

Fake news is not new. The Washington Post published a report revealing Benjamin Franklin successfully spread a frightful report about native Indians, working in league with King George’s British forces, had scalped hundreds of children and soldiers by creating a fake edition of a real Boston newspaper, a report that was picked up by other newspapers at the time. [Washington Post Nov 25, 2016]

Who has time for fact checking?

With so many online news sources where news can be generated from a single Twitter release that encircles the globe in seconds, who has time to fact check?

Imagine if you received a Twitter: “the White House is in flames and has been hit by a missile.” Your adrenaline would be racing through your circulatory system so fast it would cloud your judgment. It would be so incredulous it would be difficult to imagine it wasn’t true and would likely be forwarded by millions before it could be retracted.

Did the movie “White House Down” presage a future false flag event at Washington DC? [YouTube.com] Why is what appears to be an underground super bunker been built underneath the White House recently? [WesternJournalism.com] Knowing that Americans are not as naïve as they were in the past, instead of issuing a news report that an attack on a US warship overseas as they did with the USS Cole, would government covertly burn down the White House to make it appear a missile took it out so as to provoke Americans to send their kids off to war?

Oh, you say you wouldn’t fall for such a ruse? Let’s not forget that Orson Welles’ War Of The Worlds 1938 radio broadcast on Halloween night that said Martians had landed on earth had many Americans cowering in fear in their homes.

The modern Ben Franklin and the fake news list

The modern Ben Franklin is Ben Horner, described as a “38-year old impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire, who claims he swung the election for Donald Trump. “My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything,” said Horner. [Washington Post Nov 17, 2016]

Just when established news sources are pointing fingers at alternative online sources of news for the dissemination of misleading stories, a college professor issued a list of fake news sources that even included spoof sites like The Onion. I won’t provide a link to that list. I’ll just say the list included LewRockwell.com, the site that posted this article you are now reading.

Not only untruths but collusion

It is imperative we don’t just consider false news reports planted in the news media but also frank collusion between the news press and the political campaign of one candidate. Here is a link to a list of reporters who openly colluded with one Presidential candidate. [RonPaulLiberty.com]

What happened to the Fourth Estate?

The fourth estate, the news media, is supposed to be the watchdog of government. The lack of impartiality by the news media in the recent Presidential election undermines American democracy. It was radio talk show host Laura Ingraham who pointed a finger at the press box during the Republican National Convention and demanded US news reporters to “do your job.” [YouTube.com]

Parroted news

The replay of parroted sound bites by TV news anchors has become a modern source of entertainment. [YouTube] How many news anchors did you hear to say: “Donald Trump is unelectable?”

Declaring war: fact-checking impossible at sea

The news media has become so used to airing government propaganda that one begins to wonder where truth leaves off and falsehoods begin.

The government knows how difficult it is to fact check any military action at sea. So it is no accident that events at sea, the sinking of USS Maine that provoked the US to declare war against Spain; the sinking of the passenger ship Lusitania by German U-boats in the Atlantic Ocean that propelled the US to enter WWI; the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor in 1941 by the Japanese that thrust the US into war in the Pacific; and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 that alleged torpedoes had been launched against US Navy ships off the coast of Vietnam, were all contrived events. [LewRockwell.com; LewRockwell.com]

Hollywood joins in

Hollywood has helped the US war propaganda machine by producing films that create actor war heroes. In recent years Hollywood has produced movies about terrorist attacks in the US.

Karl Rove, President Bush’s special advisor, met with Hollywood executives in 2001 to enlist their help in the war against terrorism.

CNN aired its infamous “Beneath The Vail” documentary of women being tortured in Afghanistan, a month prior to 9-11. Hollywood’s most prominent films have been almost indistinguishable from government-funded propaganda. [LewRockwell.com; LewRockwell.com]

Prior to his election, Donald Trump, who wants to eliminate sequestration of federal funds from the military budget, said his favorite movie was “Air Force One” and praised actor Harrison Ford for his role in the movie because he “stood for America.”

Ford reminded Mr. Trump: “It’s a movie, Donald. It was a movie. It’s not like this is in real life.” [TheWrap.com] The blur between movie hero and the real hero was depicted in their encounter.

Phony flu pandemics

What about the phony flu pandemics of 2009 of 2012 that were completely fabricated and hyped by the news media? [LewRockwell.com] Government health authorities have up to 250 million doses of flu vaccine to unload each year and enlist the news media to scare the public into rolling up their sleeves and getting a needle jab. [LewRockwell.com]

Sports too

The news media devotes a considerable amount of airtime and print space to sports. But surely TV sports “reporters” must know that sporting events are rigged. In baseball, teams with new stadiums or new teams that expand into new markets somehow make it into the World Series. [LewRockwell.com]

Sports teams are now classified as entertainment, not competitive sporting events by the Internal Revenue Service. Professional sports are no more credible than roller derby.

The preposterous idea that Americans lost self-control in unison

What about the government’s first set of dietary guidelines that were announced in the halls of Congress in 1980, a diet that emphasized carbohydrates and sugary foods over satiating fats and cholesterol, a diet recommendation that has now been abandoned?

Why weren’t those famous health journalists at The New York Times like Gina Kolata, Denise Grady, Elizabeth Rosenthal, Lawrence Altman, Jane Brody, investigating why a “politically correct” diet resulted in a massive diabesity epidemic that is still underway in America? [Washington Post Feb 10. 2015]

Why aren’t Americans hearing from the medical practitioner in Great Britain who calls the politically correct sugar/ carbohydrate-rich diet “mass murder?” [British Medical Journal Dec 15, 2014]

Were Americans supposed to buy into the preposterous idea that the entire population lost control and began overeating in unison? An obscure journalist who was working in South America eventually blew the whistle on the whole food charade. [The Big Fat Surprise]

Putting a stop to statins

Statin drugs represent the anti-cholesterol paradigm that has prevailed in modern medicine since the 1970s. Only recently do we learn that it would be better to eat an apple a day than consume a statin drug. And that report was issued from overseas medical and news sources, not onshore news sources. [Telegraph UK Jan 23, 2016]

Why is little said in the news media of the potentially mortal side effects posed by statin drugs among millions of individuals with kidney disease? [Annals Translational Medicine Oct 2016]

Decades of misinformation about cholesterol and the alleged benefits of statin drugs have only been recently challenged in the news press, and again, almost exclusively from overseas news sources. [Telegraph UK Nov 25, 2016]

Fake news you say?

Fake news you say? Which news sources dutifully issued reports about “Weapons Of Mass Destruction” that never materialized in the Iraq war?

Which news sources released the litany of falsehoods that were used as a cover for America to declare war over the past seven decades?

Which news media blindly accepted misleading government issued reports about the alleged mortal threat posed by influenza viruses and extolled the benefits of ineffective vaccines without adequately informing the public of potential side effects?

Which news outlets kept publishing the government’s Food Pyramid that never reduced the mortality rate in the US?

Whichever news outlets proffered all the bogus news stories over the past seven decades it wasn’t any of the alternative news sources that were recently included in a list of fake news agencies.

Fantastic articles CSC..

Word coming out on Jill Stein's recount is that it was eliminating more votes on the Hillary side than on the Trump side, enough that it is throwing the popular election square into the Trump camp and the trend would likely continue in the other re-counts, so Jill Stein is stopping the re-counts...

You can guess the mainstream is not making a big deal of it.

The Media Is Consolidating Power After A Disastrous Election

Christopher Bedford
Senior Editor, The Daily Caller
11/16/2016

The modern American media may have just had their worst year yet, and for their efforts, they have announced they’d like to reward themselves more power than they have held in decades.

The past year has seen a declining trust in the media that is fully deserved. Debate moderators have been exposed as shills; network employees have been busted tipping the scales for their candidates (something this “senior media reporter” is sympathetic toward); political reporters have been caught running stories by their sources; “fact-checkers” have bent over backwards for Hillary Clinton; and major newspapers have openly cast objectivity aside — all in the name of a political candidate the media were so eager to elect, one legacy magazine shipped covers celebrating her victory before the votes were even counted. (RELATED: Here’s A Photo Of Hillary Signing Copies Of Newsweek’s ‘Madam President’ Issue)

After Donald Trump won the election, “renegade Facebook employees” reportedly formed a “task force” to crack down on the “fake news” they blame for Clinton’s sizable electoral defeat, aiming to purge social media of what someone, somewhere deems inaccurate. In a landscape where the “fact-checkers” at “PolitiFact” said Clinton wasn’t laughing at a rape victim, just laughing at getting the rapist off the hook, this should concern Americans. (RELATED: Rolling Stone Defeated In UVA Jackie Lawsuit, Liable For $7.5 Million)

A 2016 study from Pew Research found that the most popular social media service is Facebook, which reaches 67 percent of adults, two thirds of whom get news on Facebook. So, Pew reports, “the two-thirds of Facebook users who get news there, then, amount to 44 percent of the general population.” No doubt, that incredible reach comes with great responsibility. (RELATED: Facebook COO In Leaked Email: I Still Want Hillary To Win Badly)

Proponents of the “fake news” ban say that social media has allowed for the spread of disinformation on a scale never before seen, and they’re right. Made-up stories from fake-news sites happily bounce around the web, just as fake stories have been aired on television, broadcast on radio and printed on presses— themselves technologies that, in their time, allowed for the spread of disinformation on a scale never previously seen. Totalitarians across the planet may have been happy to seize these means of communication to stop news both fake and real, and even in the United States, some prominent leaders dared — including Bill Clinton’s regulatory czar.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg remembers well the backlash when members of his staff were caught “routinely” suppressing conservative news, and the episode causes us to wonder, what is “real news” to Facebook? (RELATED: Zuckerberg Berates Facebook Employees Who Think ‘All Lives Matter’)

Were contested stories on the cause and players of the Benghazi attacks fake? Two days after the attack, The Week magazine seemed to blame a video, and as the bodies were flown home, The New York Times showed no curiosity for why two were former Navy SEALS. We later learned a coordinated attack had been launched on not just the mission, but a CIA annex. When did that story become “real news”? (RELATED: Rolling Stone Defeated In UVA Jackie Lawsuit, Liable For $7.5 Million)

How about contested stories on Clinton’s health? Reporters at Vox called them “bonkers” on Aug. 23. After publicly questioning her health, Dr. Drew’s HLN show was cancelled on Aug. 26. A senator called the stories “sexist” and Andrea Mitchell called them “conspiracy theories” on Sept. 1. On Sept. 6, The Washington Post ran the headline, “Can we just stop talking about Hillary Clinton’s health now?” and Politico called it “bananas.” Five days later, Clinton collapsed in public. Is that when the story became “real news”? (RELATED: Hillary’s Health Was Fair Game For The Washington Post Before She Ran Against Trump)

Even old Internet site Snopes got in on the coming-unglued-for-Clinton game.

These reporters, in alliance with like-minded people at Facebook, think it’s a great — and necessary — idea to crack down on media reporting outside their chosen narratives. An assistant professor at Massachusetts’ Merrimack College agrees, helpfully circulating a list of outlets deemed unacceptable, including Red State, The Blaze and IJR, adding that Fox News and Huffington Post are “not yet included in this list” but are in the danger zone. (RELATED: Facebook Made ‘Black Lives Matter’ Trend By Inserting It Into News Feed)

Admittedly, fake news stories can be fun in an election year. Like that Politico bombshell that the Ku Klux Klan is distributing booze and weed to stop the vote. That one — a story lacking basic reporting diligence — fit nicely into the reporter’s worldview and was picked up unquestioningly by outlets across the country, prompting national and local officials to act. (CONFIRMED: Politico Ran Laughably Fake Story On Alt-Right Voter Suppression)

Or the Slate story that Trump had a secret Russian server, which Sen. Harry Reid clung to and Clinton’s campaign touted. The FBI moved quickly, calling the story false the very same day. (RELATED: CNN Pushes Narrative Of Trump-Inspired Anti-Muslim Crimewave)

Or the aforementioned dozen stories that Clinton was in fine health and we should stop talking about it. Or The New York Times’ Election Day story that Clinton was 85 percent assured of the presidency. Or that Newsweek cover touting… Madame President.

But do these outlets have the modicum of self-awareness necessary to right the ship? Let’s let them answer. On Sunday, The New York Times wrote that they thought they reported the election “fairly,” and the same day reported that, “A newly vibrant Washington fears that Trump will drain its culture.”

On Tuesday, after an executive spoke highly of Trump, major outlets reported a fringe Nazi claim that New Balance are the sneakers of white supremacists, prompting a public statement from the company. Reporter comparisons of Trump and Mike Pence to Adolf Hitler and the mafia continue to abound. And people both inside the media and inside Facebook called for an increase in progressive control of the news. If they succeed, you can bet your last dollar news stories on their power grab over speech will be deemed as false as stories on their grabs for guns.

Having lost the public’s trust, it seems, the media plans to seize the forum.

Media Matters declares war on new targets
Left-wing group tied to Hillary plans crackdown on 'fake news'

Bob Unruh

Media Matters, the far-left organization that monitors media, was caught a few years ago promoting as fact the disputed claim that the White House talking points on the Benghazi attack were edited to preserve a criminal investigation.

Then it was caught fabricating quotes to smear a Hillary Clinton critic, and later founder David Brock admitted his nonprofit organization defended Clinton from political attack, apparently in defiance of federal requirements that nonprofits avoid taking sides.

So when it announced it will “pivot” from its focus on Fox News and now attack “fake news,” no one expected it to begin scrutinizing the work of David Muir, Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos of ABC; John Berman and Mark Preston of CNN; Amy Chozik, Gail Collins and Jonathan Martin of the New York Times; and the like.

But they were, after all, on a “fake news” compilation released on the Ron Paul Liberty Report.

Media Matters’ idea of “fake news,” however, is more along the lines of the Drudge Report; WND, the online news pioneer that is approaching its 20th anniversary; Breitbart; and other Internet media outlets that compete successfully with America’s establishment media.

It was in Politico that Hadas Gold reported the “liberal media-watchdog organization Media Matters” not only was naming a new president, longtime executive vice president Angelo Carusone, but will take on “what they argue is misinformation in conservative media, particularly on Fox News,” and will focus on “the likes of Breitbart, the ‘alt-right,’ conspiracy theories and fake news.”

“There was a period of time when we were, rightfully so, described as the ‘Fox antagonists,” Carusone told Politico. “Now, our mission is to be principally focused on the value of journalism.”

Carusone recently was deputy CEO of the Democratic National Convention.

Carusone said Fox News was the leader of the pack for a long time.

“But now there are so many potential bad actors. Now there are places like Facebook who aren’t bad actors but can be enablers of misinformation.”

The report said Media Matters is adding staff and focusing on technology to “track conspiracy theories and misinformation.”

“We have to think about how we’re getting bigger and louder, not just misinformation but all out propaganda. That’s a role that’s very different than in the past. We’ve not tried to mobilize massive amounts of people or develop a larger following. But it’s going to have to be a part of what we’re doing,” he told Politico.

In a statement, Brock said the group’s objectives will include “ensuring the media doesn’t normalize Trump’s bigotry or neutralizing the spread of fake news and other propaganda.”

The concept of “fake news” arose in the latter part of the 2016 presidential race, and the term became common in daily usage after Clinton lost the election.

Sites that had actively supported her and campaigned for her suddenly claimed those who reported on a wide range of other issues concerning the election from an opposing viewpoint were “fake news” sites.

Chris Rossini at the Ron Paul Liberty Report came up with a list of “fake news” sources.

“These are the news sources that told us ‘if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’ They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98 percent (chance) of winning the election.”

“They tell us in a never-ending loop that ‘the economy is in great shape.'”

The list includes ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the New York Times, the London Guardian.

WND columnist Pamela Geller said the “fake news” attacks from the leftists are just a “fictional publicity campaign.”

“The New York Times reported shortly after the election that Google and Facebook ‘have faced mounting criticism over how fake news on their sites may have influenced the presidential election’s outcome,'” she wrote.

“That was fake news in itself: ‘Fake news’ didn’t influence the presidential election’s outcome; all too real news about the wrong direction in which our nation was headed under Barack Obama did. Nevertheless, the Times said that ‘those companies responded by making it clear that they would not tolerate such misinformation by taking pointed aim at fake news sites’ revenue sources.'”

She continued: “The ‘fake news’ controversy has become a huge international story, with the Los Angeles Times among those leading the charge with headlines such as ‘Want to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates list of sites to avoid‘; ‘Fake news writers: ‘Hillary Clinton, here are your deplorables”; and ‘Fake news writers abuse the 1st Amendment and endanger democracy for personal profit.’

“There is conspiracy theory and there is conspiracy fact, and what we have on our hands is one mother of a left-wing conspiracy parading as a right wing conspiracy. You can’t make this stuff up. It’s diabolical. In the run-up to the election, I reported on a number of fake conservative new sites created by left-wing operatives in order to discredit the conservatives’ news sites. If you have a bogus conservative site, it makes a conservative site look questionable. ‘News sites’ like the Baltimore Gazette and the National Report were dropping hoaxes for months to discredit conservatives who might pick up the story,” she explained.

“If a blogger or news writer gets a story wrong, does that designate him or her, or his or her site, as ‘fake news’? If that’s the case, they’ll have to shut down the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, etc. They get things wrong all the time.”

One such site blasted by the Washington Post as “fake news” has responded with a demand for a retraction, which was accompanied by the suggestion a defamation lawsuit may follow.

“You did not provide even a single example of ‘fake news’ allegedly distributed or promoted by Naked Capitalism or indeed any of the 200 sites on the PropOrNot blacklist,” the site told the Post.

Naked Capitalism is a finance and economics blog started in December 2006 with a stated goal of “shedding light on the dark and seamy corners of finance.”

Barack Obama even complained about “fake news” in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine, which famously was found liable in a $7.5 million libel case filed after its report on a University of Virginia “rape case” was discredited.

Naked Capitalism Threatens Lawsuit Against Washington Post Over “Fake News” Story; Obama Starts Russia Witch Hunt

Posted by mishgea | December 9, 2016

Earlier today, president Obama started a witch hunt based on Russia hacking claims.

In the second Russia-related story of the day, Yves Smith, author of Naked Capitalism, considers a lawsuit against the Washington Post for an extremely sloppy article on “Fake News”, primarily about Russia that mentioned her website.

The article listed Naked Capitalism, Zero Hedge, and 200 other sites for “spreading fake news”. Included in the list were Counterpunch, the Drudge Report, Truthdig, and Truth-out.

I failed to make the grade and almost feel slighted.

Please consider Washington Post on the ‘Fake News’ Hot Seat.

The Washington Post—whose coverage of Watergate four decades ago angered the powers that be, toppled a president, and defined courageous journalism—has unleashed a hornet’s nest of a different sort, one unlikely to earn a Pulitzer Prize.

The story, by Post technology reporter Craig Timberg and published Nov. 24, purported to reveal how “sophisticated” Russian propagandists had spread fake news through hundreds of web sites to destabilize American democracy, thwart Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump to the White House.

So far the story—which has attracted millions of page views and more than 14,000 comments—has provoked lawsuit threats from at least two of the web sites, notably the widely respected financial blog Naked Capitalism, which fired off a legal letter demanding a retraction and apology even though the Post story does not specifically mention Naked Capitalism or any of the other allegedly Russian-influenced websites.

There has also been a fusillade of disparaging commentary in publications ranging from The Intercept to The New Yorker.

“I thought it was completely ridiculous that the Post would put this sorry piece of trash on the front page,” Andrew Cockburn, the Washington editor of Harper’s magazine, told The Daily Beast in a typically vehement slam.

“The ‘Washington Post’ ‘Blacklist’ Story Is Shameful and Disgusting,” was the headline on Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi’s takedown.

The critics panned the Post story’s heavy reliance on the judgments of unnamed “researchers” for PropOrNot.com, a shadowy website launched three months ago ostensibly to expose “Russian influence operations targeted at US audiences, distinguish between propaganda and commercial ‘clickbait’, and help identify propaganda and push back.”

Naked Capitalism’s editor “Yves Smith,” the pen name of investment advisor Susan Webber who launched the blog in 2006, has so far not threatened to sue PropOrNot, whose so-called “blacklist” went online a few days after the group launched its Twitter feed on Nov. 5.

“I really don’t want to discuss our possible litigation strategy,” Webber told The Daily Beast, when asked why she was focusing her legal firepower on the Post and not PropOrNot. “The real damage here was done by the Washington Post’s amplification of a group that had no background…that was non-existent before it announced itself on Twitter.”

She added: “That does not mean that we were not significantly harmed by PropOrNot, the originator of this false tale, but I had chosen not to respond to them when I first saw their site, which was several days before the Post story ran, because they had no traffic. There’s no point in calling attention to a site that has no traffic.”

Amid the storm of condemnation and an open letter from Naked Capitalism’s attorney demanding a retraction and apology, the paper appended a highly unusual editor’s note to the online version, attempting to distance the Post from PropOrNot.

Astonishingly, considering the Post’s respectful treatment of PropOrNot and the story’s front-page play, the editor’s note argued that the paper “does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so.”

That surprising assertion seemed to conflict with a statement the paper issued the previous week, as the criticisms were gaining traction, that “The Post reviewed [PropOrNot’s] findings, and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews…We granted PropOrNot anonymity in this case because of a credible fear of reprisal.”

Paul Craig Roberts, meanwhile, told The Daily Beast that he’s ready to join a potential lawsuit against the newspaper.

“Why don’t we just get all 200 of us to sue,” Roberts said, “so we can get all of Bezos’s billions?”

Mish Blast of Washington Post

For those wanting background to this article, please see my report Washington Post Thoroughly Discredits Itself With McCarthy-Style Smear Campaign Against ZeroHedge, Naked Capitalism, Truth-Out 200+ Others

The Washington Post stepped well over the line of questionable reporting today, venturing deep into a McCarthy-style smear campaign against hundreds of allegedly “fake news” sites accused of being under control of, or influenced by Russia.

Ironically, the Washington Post headline, Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread ‘Fake News’ During Election, Experts Say reads like it a “fake news” supermarket tabloid.

The article, written By Craig Timberg, is even worse. It cites anonymous researchers, who propose a Russian fake news team may have delivered the election to Donald Trump.

The article asks Could better Internet security have prevented Trump’s win?

….

ZeroHedge was on The List at PropOrNot along with many other names you will recognize including that bastion of perpetual right-wing, Republican propaganda, Naked Capitalism (Hint – that was sarcasm).

Smear Campaign

The Washington Post article is nothing more than a McCarthy-style smear campaign against sites that are anti-Hillary, anti-war, or pro-Russia.

No evidence was provided. The authors of “the list” remain anonymous, purportedly out of fear of Russian hackers, who have ZeroHedge and others under their control.

Don’t worry, it’s not McCarthyism. They are merely calling for “formal investigations by the US governments” because they “strongly suspect individuals violated the Espionage Act, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and other related laws“.Most of the Fake News Comes from Respected Sources

Check out this pair of Tweets by Newsweek author Kurt Eichenwald:

https://twitter.com/JimmyPrinceton/status/807202804217548800

More Tweets

The Washington Post now admits it spread #FakeNews about WikiLeaks in its splash article on #FakeNews https://t.co/ulwpIhj6ac

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 9, 2016

NBC’s Fake News King Brian Williams Launches Crusade Against “Fake News”

NBC's Fake News King Brian Williams Launches Crusade Against "Fake News" https://t.co/Df1Y5TMyOM

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 9, 2016

Recall that NBC Nightly News Anchor Brian Williams was fired for perpetuating fiction. He was picked up as the breaking news anchor for MSNBC.

Rolling Fiction? Now, Williams is on a tirade against Fake News.

Clinton fan manufactured fake news that MSNBC personalities spread to discredit WikiLeaks docs

Glenn Greenwald tweeted …

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/807215948486868993

Witch Hunt Begins

And so the witch hunt officially begins, not against the Washington Post, MSNBC, or NBC, but with Russia.

The person most upset at Russia is Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, an ardent supporter of Hillary.

Graham says “I’m going after Russia in every way you can go after Russia,” Mr Graham said. “I want [Russian president Vladimir] Putin personally to pay a price.”

@yvessmith @ggreenwald Obama's witch hunt inspired by WaPo's fake news on Russia. Naked Capitalism, others sucked in.https://t.co/ZUlpPkvGgr

— Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA) December 9, 2016

For my coverage of Obama’s witch hunt, including damning quotes by Lindsey Graham in praise of Hillary, please see Hillary Backer, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, Heads Obama’s Witch Hunt on Russia.

Graham blames Russia for Hillary’s loss.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock