"Fake News" is a result of Russian machine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The show "The Americans" is set in the early 1980s....so, uh, yeah, viable travel agencies. If you live/d in the U.S., and are old enough to post here, you'd know that's how virtually all travel was arranged well up until the late 1990s.

This forum is so disappointing now. I remember how smart it used to be, before this vile infestation of trolls, bots and to use Trumpspeak, losers.

OMG, are you people really now basing all this Russia hysteria on the premise of a TV show ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In between all these stupid posts calling other posters Russian trolls, has anyone actually taken the time to check out the organization WaPo used as their main source - Prop or Not?

Very scary that a supposedly credible news organization like WaPo would promote this alleged non-partisan group of "experts" and what they say is Russian propaganda or not. No one knows who actually works for Prop or Not. They refuse to let anyone know. We have no idea who is funding them or if they are actually experts in anything.

And their list of supposed Russian propaganda news orgs include prominent, respected organizations on both sides of the political aisle.

http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html?m=1

They are not credible anymore. They simply want Trump out and Hillary in, and have become agents for such. Don't think that Obama's nose is clean here either. It's not.

[Anonymous]

This forum is so disappointing now. I remember how smart it used to be, before this vile infestation of trolls, bots and to use Trumpspeak, losers.

I agree, the troll factor is tediously high.

But they seem most active from about 11 pm to 3 am. And fact-averse all day long.

[Anonymous]

Oooooh, those scary Russians. Said angry white men circa 1980. Says the angry pantsuit nation now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oooooh, those scary Russians. Said angry white men circa 1980. Says the angry pantsuit nation now.

No, you're not so scary. But the problem is our President-elect and his crowd are Putin fan-boys/girls and they seem to be borrowing their ideas and rhetoric from him. That's disturbing because I want an American-style President, not a demagogic strongman. Garry Kasparov's column from July is worth reading again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/donald-trump-reminds-me-of-vladimir-putin--and-that-is-terrifying/2016/07/23/36397692-50e5-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.9aa88793d16b

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The show "The Americans" is set in the early 1980s....so, uh, yeah, viable travel agencies. If you live/d in the U.S., and are old enough to post here, you'd know that's how virtually all travel was arranged well up until the late 1990s.

This forum is so disappointing now. I remember how smart it used to be, before this vile infestation of trolls, bots and to use Trumpspeak, losers.

OMG, are you people really now basing all this Russia hysteria on the premise of a TV show ??

Omg, are you aware that the show is based on the illegals program-real life sleeper cells?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooooh, those scary Russians. Said angry white men circa 1980. Says the angry pantsuit nation now.

No, you're not so scary. But the problem is our President-elect and his crowd are Putin fan-boys/girls and they seem to be borrowing their ideas and rhetoric from him. That's disturbing because I want an American-style President, not a demagogic strongman. Garry Kasparov's column from July is worth reading again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/donald-trump-reminds-me-of-vladimir-putin--and-that-is-terrifying/2016/07/23/36397692-50e5-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.9aa88793d16b

Yeah, that piece perfectly describes the moment and reasons my unease with Trump set in.

It is painful to admit, but Putin was elected in a relatively fair election in 2000. He steadily dismantled Russia’s fragile democracy and succeeded in turning Russians against each other and against the world. It turns out you can go quite far in a democracy by convincing a majority that they are threatened by a minority, and that only you can protect them.

What makes me nervous about the connection with Russia is not what Trump wants to with it, it's what Putin wants to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In between all these stupid posts calling other posters Russian trolls, has anyone actually taken the time to check out the organization WaPo used as their main source - Prop or Not?

Very scary that a supposedly credible news organization like WaPo would promote this alleged non-partisan group of "experts" and what they say is Russian propaganda or not. No one knows who actually works for Prop or Not. They refuse to let anyone know. We have no idea who is funding them or if they are actually experts in anything.

And their list of supposed Russian propaganda news orgs include prominent, respected organizations on both sides of the political aisle.

http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html?m=1

Had anyone even heard of the organization before the WaPo article? What evidence do we have that they're credible?

According to their website they are anonymous. This does not mean they are not credible -- journalism relies on anonymous sources -- but it does mean that journalists have to vet and ideally double-source the information carefully. In theory it is totally credible that a group of experts could put together something like ProporNot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is a Nothingburger.

eet ees Nothingburger, da

[Anonymous]

According to their website they are anonymous. This does not mean they are not credible -- journalism relies on anonymous sources -- but it does mean that journalists have to vet and ideally double-source the information carefully. In theory it is totally credible that a group of experts could put together something like ProporNot.

Really? Generally, when a reporter quotes anonymous sources, we know WHO the reporter is--and that the reporter knows who the sources are. This is no different from an anonymous message board. You don't understand that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

According to their website they are anonymous. This does not mean they are not credible -- journalism relies on anonymous sources -- but it does mean that journalists have to vet and ideally double-source the information carefully. In theory it is totally credible that a group of experts could put together something like ProporNot.

Really? Generally, when a reporter quotes anonymous sources, we know WHO the reporter is--and that the reporter knows who the sources are. This is no different from an anonymous message board. You don't understand that?

?? I'm talking about the Washington Post article citing them. Not DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In between all these stupid posts calling other posters Russian trolls, has anyone actually taken the time to check out the organization WaPo used as their main source - Prop or Not?

Very scary that a supposedly credible news organization like WaPo would promote this alleged non-partisan group of "experts" and what they say is Russian propaganda or not. No one knows who actually works for Prop or Not. They refuse to let anyone know. We have no idea who is funding them or if they are actually experts in anything.

And their list of supposed Russian propaganda news orgs include prominent, respected organizations on both sides of the political aisle.

http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html?m=1

Had anyone even heard of the organization before the WaPo article? What evidence do we have that they're credible?

According to their website they are anonymous. This does not mean they are not credible -- journalism relies on anonymous sources -- but it does mean that journalists have to vet and ideally double-source the information carefully. In theory it is totally credible that a group of experts could put together something like ProporNot.

Hahahhahaha. I also have a website where I can tell which news sources are good and bad. It's supported by a panel of the top experts. Happy to let you know their conclusions.

(Sadly, they also believe they must withhold their names and evidence of expertise, professional reputation.)

[Anonymous]

What bothers me most is that Obama was president for eight years, and yet he has done NOTHING about this very dangerous Russian infiltration. He hasn't even bothered to mention it...

Wait a minute... Could he be in on it too??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me most is that Obama was president for eight years, and yet he has done NOTHING about this very dangerous Russian infiltration. He hasn't even bothered to mention it...

Wait a minute... Could he be in on it too??

Curious if you have read Adrien Chen's piece from last year on this topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

According to their website they are anonymous. This does not mean they are not credible -- journalism relies on anonymous sources -- but it does mean that journalists have to vet and ideally double-source the information carefully. In theory it is totally credible that a group of experts could put together something like ProporNot.

Really? Generally, when a reporter quotes anonymous sources, we know WHO the reporter is--and that the reporter knows who the sources are. This is no different from an anonymous message board. You don't understand that?

?? I'm talking about the Washington Post article citing them. Not DCUM.

WAPO just said they were provided with the information before it was posted on the internet from the anonymous organization. The article did not say they had talked with them or checked them out. It just said they were anonymous. If they had talked with them, I would think WAPO would have said so.