• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Washington Post Admits Russian Propaganda Story May Be Fake

sangha said:
We are supposed to believe that the possibility that Hillary Clinton is running a pedophilia ring out of the basement of a pizzeria is something that should be investigated because fake news sites have posted articles about this

And we are supposed to believe that the possibility that Russia is interfering with our elections is something that should be ignored because the CIA suspects that it is true
Click to expand...

( shoots shotgun into the air for emphasis )
 
Fishking said:
That is hilarious!!

You posted that without reading what was in there and then following the embedded link to the original story in the WaPo, with the sited editors note :lamo
Click to expand...
I agree. Notice how only Jack Hays was able to debate the topic of the thread without making a monkeys of himself? This poster (and couple of others who did not feel like thinking too deeply before posting) initially chimed in with the claim that Zero Hedge is a "fake news" website, when confronted about that he avoided it and changed his argument. Now he is employing one of the most overused but popular troll cliches the word wide web over, the old lame I accept your surrender brilliance! I guess Lowdown silently accepted his surrender on his initial claim some time back. Now he is onto reiterating the non topic related bromides of Mr. Person. We've got some pea pod inhabitants maybe breathing a little too much of each others exhalations in this thread. Watch out as they rush to congratulate each other for agreeing with themselves about the topic they have decided to change the thread to. Hilarious indeed. ;)
 
Sardonicus said:
I agree. Notice how only Jack Hays was able to debate the topic of the thread without making a monkeys of himself? This poster (and couple of others who did not feel like thinking too deeply before posting) initially chimed in with the claim that Zero Hedge is a "fake news" website, when confronted about that he avoided it and changed his argument.
Click to expand...

ZH is a fake news site and my argument has remained constant - the ZH story about WaPo is fake news
 
sangha said:
ZH is a fake news site and my argument has remained constant - the ZH story about WaPo is fake news
Click to expand...
Your argument has remained completely constant in the lack of anything other than your own insistence about a matter you raised contention over. Got anything to back it up? There has been a recent focus placed on "fake news" websites, and quite a lot of good journalism about who those sites are and how they operate has been brought forward. You sure you caught any of that, or are you just latching lazily onto something you think you know but can't quantify? Since there is a public record about who is behind and what exactly Zero Hedge is, your ignorant claim stands exposed. Or is it now your so called argument that financial blogs by well known Wall Street insiders (who have taken the blog public) are supposed to be part of the "fake news" phenomena you obviously heard something about but did not spend any time familiarizing yourself with. Might this be time for an "I accept your surrender" cliche?
 
Last edited:
An addendum to the above is needed. I misspoke when I made citation to "who" it had been assumed was behind ZH initially. In fact all three persons came to be known to the public and they were not as suspected, Wall Street insiders. In fact they were not even Americans, but then I'm speaking to the actual real world facts about what Zero Hedge is. You were waxing none too cleverly or convincingly about your Zero Hedge is a "fake news" website hiccup.:2razz:
 
Mr Person said:
Oh, that's another gem.

During Bush's tenure, we were supposed to ignore the fact that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq and still support the war because Bush just did what the CIA told him. Now we're supposed to use the fact that there weren't WMDs in Iraq to excuse ourselves for ignoring potential Russian interference in our election.




You guys will say ANYTHING.
Click to expand...

Right back atcha.
 
Lutherf said:
Sorry, Maggie, but we have to implement political forum rule #1 here. Any legitimate story linked to via a known biased site immediately and permanently deligitimizes the story.

For example, if the Weather Chanel site says it's Tuesday and for some reason Breitbart picks up that link it immediately becomes something out her than Tuesday.
Click to expand...

CNN is the single most biased site on the airwaves, followed closely by NBC.

Every so-called "mainstream" media site is entirely devoid of credibility these days.

The "mainstream media" is the largest generator of fake news on the planet.
 
Jack Hays said:
but I know the intelligence work is sound.
Click to expand...

No, you don't.

You're totally blowing smoke.

You know jack about any intelligence report that may or may not have come from the CIA.

Why do liberals lie all the time? Is this the only way they can lose elections? lol
 
ballantine said:
CNN is the single most biased site on the airwaves, followed closely by NBC.

Every so-called "mainstream" media site is entirely devoid of credibility these days.

The "mainstream media" is the largest generator of fake news on the planet.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. All mainstream media ultimately depend on their credibility. To suggest that random internet sites are more trustworty is to stretch credulity beyond breaking. Only fake news proponents would make such a fatous claim and expect to be taken seriously.
 
There are some thoroughly incompetent and/or dishonest websites out there, but of course which are valid and which are incompetent/dishonest is often in the eye of the beholder.

I have no opinion on Zero Hedge as that is not a site I consult for my news. I do trust Drudge, however, as most news organizations do, as being on the cutting edge of what the news is likely to be--he/it has the uncanny ability to sniff out stories that the mainstream media hasn't picked up on yet. I would guess every news organization in the country, perhaps on the planet, consults Drudge every day to make sure they don't miss something important in developing news. But those on the left often put Drudge in the same category of 'fake news' as they assign Zero Hedge, World Net Daily, and some others.

And I cringe when somebody quotes Media Matters or Daily Kos, among others, as authoritarian, both of which are generally so dishonestly partisan or ideologically skewed as to be laughable.

Do people really get their news from Facebook where some of the most grievous misinformation is posted on all sides of the political spectrum? I used to try to debunk those silly posts, but there are too many, so now I just scroll over them and pay them little mind.
 
ballantine said:
That should set all your alarm bells ringing.

Now you know the guy's b*ll****ting you.

"Consensus" my foot.

We're being lied to.
Click to expand...

ballantine said:
No, you don't.

You're totally blowing smoke.

You know jack about any intelligence report that may or may not have come from the CIA.

Why do liberals lie all the time? Is this the only way they can lose elections? lol
Click to expand...

I'm no more a liberal than I am a conservative. And you are wrong about what I know.
 
LowDown said:
And yet you can't point to anything specific that's false about the article.
Click to expand...

Weird, the Russians are reporting the same thing:

https://www.rt.com/usa/369598-washington-post-fake-propaganda/

The Post came under fire on social media for its provocative hit piece which claimed that “Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda campaign” actually influenced the US presidential election.

The article, published late last month, referenced “independent researchers” who allegedly determined that Russian state media, RT and Sputnik News among them, produced “misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy.”
Click to expand...

Your positions are sprouting with Russian allegiances. Almost like Russia says, the American right does. Seriously? It's up for questioning that the Russians have targeted our elections by creating content - in English - by American journalists - on American news and to reach American consumers?

The rise of RT, a favorite of alt-right types doesn't strike you as a little odd?

Not even a little bit?



:lol:
 
Hatuey said:
Weird, the Russians are reporting the same thing:

https://www.rt.com/usa/369598-washington-post-fake-propaganda/



Your positions are sprouting with Russian allegiances. Almost like Russia says, the American right does. Seriously? It's up for questioning that the Russians have targeted our elections by creating content - in English - by American journalists - on American news and to reach American consumers?

The rise of RT, a favorite of alt-right types doesn't strike you as a little odd?

Not even a little bit?



:lol:
Click to expand...

And no doubt when Osama bin Laden parroted everything the American left said in criticizing America it was evidence that the American left is being manipulated by Islamic Radical Terrorists. Even now the Iranians echo everything the American left says in criticism of the American government, like they are reading straight out of Zinn's history book. I wonder if American progs are being paid to say and write this stuff.

But that would be like saying that the tail is wagging the dog.
 
ballantine said:
No, you don't.

You're totally blowing smoke.

You know jack about any intelligence report that may or may not have come from the CIA.

Why do liberals lie all the time? Is this the only way they can lose elections? lol
Click to expand...

Well, he's an intelligence professional who teaches it at a university, a claim he has made since he started here at DP. But whatever.

It is correct to point out that we really don't know for sure what the CIA says about this. This all comes from an anonymous leak to a questionable news source (Washington Post). Glenn Greenwald, of all people, pointed this out:

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence. “Needless to say, Democrats — still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves — immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory.”
Click to expand...

And this from Juan Cole:

No, America, it wasn’t Russia: You did it to Yourself. “Clinton’s own polling people found the big turning point was when she called Trump voters a ‘basket of deplorables.’ Americans don’t like being talked down to, and had already gotten rid of Romney for the same sin. The spectacle of Clinton taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to give a speech to the people who put them out of their homes in 2008-9 also turned many of them off so that they stayed home, while another section of them decided to take a chance on Trump. He will screw them over, but from their point of view, they worried that she might have, as well. Trump was promising to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs via protectionism, whereas everyone understood that Sec. Clinton’s first instinct was to do TPP and send more jobs to Asia. So it was Clinton’s public persona and public positions that hurt her and depressed Democratic turnout in places like Detroit and Flint, not anything in Wikileaks (can anyone name even one newsworthy email?)”
Click to expand...

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/251501/
 
Sardonicus said:
Your argument has remained completely constant in the lack of anything other than your own insistence about a matter you raised contention over. Got anything to back it up? There has been a recent focus placed on "fake news" websites, and quite a lot of good journalism about who those sites are and how they operate has been brought forward. You sure you caught any of that, or are you just latching lazily onto something you think you know but can't quantify? Since there is a public record about who is behind and what exactly Zero Hedge is, your ignorant claim stands exposed. Or is it now your so called argument that financial blogs by well known Wall Street insiders (who have taken the blog public) are supposed to be part of the "fake news" phenomena you obviously heard something about but did not spend any time familiarizing yourself with. Might this be time for an "I accept your surrender" cliche?
Click to expand...

I used to read ZH but had to quit after they kept making false claims about the monthly employment reports, and did it repeatedly, month after month. There were only two choices - they were deliberately and aggressively ignorant and incompetent, while writing about stories on a subject on which the author claimed some expertise, or liars. No need to go into details, but it was impossible the site kept making innocent mistakes. At best, they were pushing an ideological agenda, which is fine - I read them for their contrary take on financial matters and it was good to see other views - but what's not fine is using false stories about employment, for example, towards that goal.

At any rate, I had to conclude if they'd so obviously tell falsehoods (gross incompetence or lies, doesn't matter) about something as easily checked as the monthly employment report, about which I had some familiarity, I certainly couldn't trust them on subjects about which I knew little and depend on others for information.

I have no idea if they've been influenced by Russians or whatever, but IMO it's a mistake to read their stuff for anything other than entertainment, especially if you're using their information to make decisions about investing.
 
WaPo publishing fake news.... well that's not news at all.
 
Sardonicus said:
An addendum to the above is needed. I misspoke when I made citation to "who" it had been assumed was behind ZH initially. In fact all three persons came to be known to the public and they were not as suspected, Wall Street insiders. In fact they were not even Americans, but then I'm speaking to the actual real world facts about what Zero Hedge is. You were waxing none too cleverly or convincingly about your Zero Hedge is a "fake news" website hiccup.:2razz:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the main guy is an immigrant from Bulgaria, but he was a Wall Street type, just banned from trading because of legal problems. Another principle is a credit derivatives strategist.

FWIW, one of the main writers as Tyler left this year and said this after leaving - in April (Bloomberg link above):

“I tried to inject as much truth as I could into my posts, but there’s no room for it. “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft,” Lokey wrote, describing his take on the website's politics. Ivandjiiski countered that Lokey could write “anything and everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it.”
Click to expand...

So maybe it's not surprising they ended up on that PropOrNot list......:roll:
 
LowDown said:
And no doubt when Osama bin Laden parroted everything the American left said in criticizing America it was evidence that the American left is being manipulated by Islamic Radical Terrorists. Even now the Iranians echo everything the American left says in criticism of the American government, like they are reading straight out of Zinn's history book. I wonder if American progs are being paid to say and write this stuff.

But that would be like saying that the tail is wagging the dog.
Click to expand...

Obama Bin Laden was... pro-choice? What about a globalist? What were his positions on global warming? I don't know. I just know you've got the same position as the Russian media on this issue.

How odd.
 
American said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0

No evidence of affecting the election according to the FBI. And that idiot Reid's assertion followed by no evidence from him either.
Click to expand...

LOL, 10 days before the election the FBI concludes there is no evidence the tampering affected the election. But the same FBI needed to announce they found some EMAILS!!! on someone else's computer, so the entire country needed to know about it cause Hillary also had EMAILS!!! :roll:

BTW, if the Russians hacked those emails from various Democratic outlets (and not republican ones) and released them in a steady drip during the closing weeks of the election, causing a non-stop series of stories about the emails, how the hell can they conclude there was no intent to harm Hillary or that the releases didn't affect the outcome? They cannot.
 
JasperL said:
Yeah, the main guy is an immigrant from Bulgaria, but he was a Wall Street type, just banned from trading because of legal problems. Another principle is a credit derivatives strategist.

FWIW, one of the main writers as Tyler left this year and said this after leaving - in April (Bloomberg link above):



So maybe it's not surprising they ended up on that PropOrNot list......:roll:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up on the situation, but I'm already well abreast of all the developments related to Zero Hedge. There are many things that it is, and you might find that we agree on quite a lot of that too. But "news" it ain't and never has been. Isn't it funny just how often people on message boards like this one ignore the realities of the world for the sake of an internet argument?

JasperL said:
LOL, 10 days before the election the FBI concludes there is no evidence the tampering affected the election. But the same FBI needed to announce they found some EMAILS!!! on someone else's computer, so the entire country needed to know about it cause Hillary also had EMAILS!!! :roll:

BTW, if the Russians hacked those emails from various Democratic outlets (and not republican ones) and released them in a steady drip during the closing weeks of the election, causing a non-stop series of stories about the emails, how the hell can they conclude there was no intent to harm Hillary or that the releases didn't affect the outcome? They cannot.
Click to expand...
Well we can see you are convinced you know the answer here when two intelligence agencies disagree. However, at the end of the day the person who harmed Hillary's POTUS run the worst was Hillary herself. That home brew server arrangement she made sank her ship. Good too, she deserved it. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom