Home | About | Donate

Media Warn of ‘Russian Bots’—Despite Primary Source’s Disavowal


#1

Media Warn of ‘Russian Bots’—Despite Primary Source’s Disavowal

Adam Johnson

One could forgive the average reader for thinking reporters covering bots had been replaced by bots. The formula is something we’ve seen a million times now: After a controversial story breaks, media outlets insist that “Russian bots” used the controversy to “sow discord” or “exploit tensions”; a “Russian bot dashboard” is offered as proof. (These “dashboards” let one see what Russian bots—automated online persona controlled by the Kremlin—are allegedly “pushing” on social media.)


#2

Bullshit piled on even more bullshit. The United States has gone insane.


#3

What’s bullshit? I feel like I saw bot commenters right here during the election. Now I want to go back through threads . . .


#4

Everybody has been Warned. Social Media has been Infected and those who refuse to “see” will be used.

“You can lead a horse to water,…”

Remember when Trump said, during his campaign, “I love the poorly educated”?

Well, if the shoe fits…


#5

Peace
Po


#6

I think the reason that there are so many stories on Russian bots can be traced back to a basic problem with social media. The news outlets now depend on social media to get viewers and this results in more sensationalist stories. The Russian bot stories must have a better chance of going viral than more in-depth stories about the actual problems. It comes down to we had much better news before social media. The newspapers made a good part of their money from subscriptions. Now many people are getting free news via social media. It is claimed that for 60% of the population their mains source of news is the Facebook news feed. The problem that has to be addressed is the social media business model. It is undermining privacy as well as good journalism. These news outlets are tracking the number of views of their stories in real time. As long as that goes on Russian bot stories will win out over less sensationalist news.


#7

But if the Democrats couldn’t blame Russia, they’d have confront their own corruption and ineptitude.

And of course, if it weren’t for Russian bots, everyone here would just come together to sing Kumbaya.


#8

[quote=“SkepticTank, post:7, topic:50620”]

Perhaps you ‘saw’ what you wanted to…belief is a powerful force for some.


#9

What’s most discouraging to me is not the repetition, nay, the droning on of most if not all mass media outlets about this Russo-phobic narrative; nor the obviousness of the agenda behind it. Rather, it’s that so many nominally “liberal”, presumably well-enough educated folk have suspended all critical thinking and disbelief and joined the ranks of those pushing the narrative. When I see friends, whose intelligence and values I never questioned, posting links to each new reported “discovery”, I have to acknowledge what mass marketing-types (and the behavioral psychologists whose work informed the marketers) have long known: that any claim need only be repeated long enough to effect widespread acceptance.

Given its timeline and the slowly / steadily morphing nature of the narrative, it would certainly seem that any person with any critical thinking ability whatsoever would at least question it. It really began with the (subsequently debunked) claim by HRC that Russia had hacked the DNC server and supplied WikiLeaks with emails to discredit her & the DNC. Soon thereafter, an “anonymous intelligence pro”, in a move reminiscent of the CIA’s infamous Operation Mockingbird disinformation program, planted the story with Washington Post and then the other outlets; followed by the public release of an official “Assessment” - a report concluding, without any accompanying evidence, that Russia was trying to help Trump and hinder Clinton.

When expert independent forensic analysis challenging the hacking claim (and supporting WikiLeaks’ and Br. Ambassador Craig Murray’s statements about the source of the emails) gained enough public visbility, the “hacking” charge stopped circulating at least from official narratives. (Though as recently as a week ago I read a NY Times article that nonetheless repeated the claim that Russia had hacked the servers).

Instead, while the essential message didn’t really change (that Russia is threatening and that Putin controls Trump), the actual narrative morphed. The threat wasn’t the debunked but never apologized-for hacking claim, it now was Russian troll farms and bot factories, sowing discord & influencing elections.

The basis of which assures us that the Evil Empire (oh, forgive me, that was Ronnie Ray-Gun’s term) is (once again) a) our mortal enemy ; b) stepping up its attacks on us because c) they hate our democracy ; and d) oh, by the way, Trump would never have beaten St. Hillary if NOT for the Russian bots, and Russian tools Sanders and Stein.

So here we are: lots of well-intentioned folk, many of whom had learned well back in the 60’s and 70’s that neither the CIA, FBI or NSA were the friends of democracy - here or abroad; and who might’ve themselves once marched against needless foreign wars and nukes - are now gladly repeating what could well be calculated, mass-manipulative stories that can only help escalate tensions. All because Trump got to the White House and must be stopped. For many, then, no price is too high to do that. The spook agencies are now to them (it appears) the saviors of democracy. So what if we renew and ratchet up the Cold War (which is only a term meaning that it hasn’t devolved to a hot one yet).

I won’t join them. And, if you’re inclined to join their parade, I won’t join you, either.

There are plenty of reasons why Trump should go; and probably plenty of avenues through which that can be achieved. (Though I’m also somewhat dismayed with the lack of apparent strategic thought about the consequences of removal of only the President.

Very likely, he’s in violation of the emoluments clause; and it is quite curious that investigations don’t seem to be looking much into that topic (though perhaps Mueller & Co are simply not showing their hands yet).

But that line of inquiry - of a politician monetizing their office - doesn’t hold the same appeal to the establishment - which projected an already-coronated HRC sitting in the White House, and which needs a story, however fabricated, to cover up their own misdeeds and missteps and to explain why she was denied her rightful place in history.


#10

Thanks for this link. Interesting and compelling. Matches my own suspicions.


#11

What garbage.


#12

Just show the proof(s). The truth is all I seek.


#13

The MIC thrives by fanning the flames of Russophobia. That, too, is a xenophobic extension of racism.


#14

It is about Ad Hominem. If you have a real argument, use it. If you don’t, should you insult the person’s mental capacity, alliances, honesty, et cetera? Not classy, not necessary, not a way to build unity and a team. A great technique for war, however!


#15

Some things are just opinions. I think in a site like this some people would like to hear opinion just stated as that.


#16

Then why post garbage?


#17

There are sites published in foreign countries which offer news that United States MSM won’t publish. This likely drives the MSM folks batty. And I have often seen in BBC, some China news outlets, and, yes, RT and sott.net, publishing things not heard yet on US media, with the US mainstream chiming in a day or three later, or found only with a search if at all.


#18

And if you couldn’t push your delusion in comments you’d be bored.


#19

You folks are just broken records for your own fantasies. In the real world, Paul Manafort, who was working for “free” as Trump’s campaign manager, filed to have evidence suppressed of his knowledge of hacked emails:

It’s funny reading the massive case of projection that are CD comments sometimes.


#20

One person’s “garbage” is another’s treasure.

A question you might ask yourself: Why do you feel compelled to dismiss & call another’s arguments “garbage”?

Why not instead point to the errors in fact or logic that you seem to think exist, and provide contradictory facts & logic?