Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Nov 25, 2016.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    There may be no way to prove whether or not this affected the election enough to win it for Trump, but with some of the states going to Trump by relatively narrow margins, there's no question it's certainly possible, perhaps even probable.

    How many people quoted sites like The Gateway Pundit, The Daily Caller and others, amplifying and echoing the idea that Clinton just couldn't be trusted -- this despite the fact that Politifact showed her to be much more trustworthy than Trump?

     
  2. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #2
    There was a lot of fake news about Trump. I wonder what kind of impact that had.
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Such as?
     
  4. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #4
    Are you kidding? If one can't tell the difference between real and fake news, they shouldn't be voting.
     
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    I hope Alex Jones is a product of Russian propaganda.

    Because it would be scarier to believe he just occurred naturally.
     
  6. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #6
    Careful, cons don't respond well when you ask them to backup claims with evidence.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Well that's half the electorate out.

    But seriously you should be able to find something...
     
  8. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #8
    Article is from MSN as in MSNBC. Which was linked to DNC propaganda from released wikileaks obtained emails. These guys (MSNBC, NBC, CNN and the like) must be really mad they didn't get to cover WW3. Clintons health was a legitimate concern when you had her being helped up stairs, loaded into a waiting van like a side of beef.

    "PropOrNot’s monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans." Wouldn't mind seeing the complete list of sites. RT is a known propaganda agency, though you will find they cover things that MSM doesn't for whatever reason.

    "This propaganda machinery also helped push the phony story that an anti-Trump protester was paid thousands of dollars to participate in demonstrations, an allegation initially made by a self-described satirist and later repeated publicly by the Trump campaign." There's video of those connected with groups that worked with the Clinton campaign admitting to doing just that.

    "“The way that this propaganda apparatus supported Trump was equivalent to some massive amount of a media buy,” " As opposed to the mainstream media collusion with the DNC and Clinton campaign?

    "“They use our technologies and values against us to sow doubt,” said Robert Orttung, a GWU professor who studies Russia. “It’s starting to undermine our democratic system.”" Clinton did that all on her own with her email scandal.
     
  9. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #9
    with trump it is hard to tel since he could not keep his lies straight either.
     
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    Yeah, lots of fake news about Trump. Mostly from her sycophants in the MSM. WaPo and NYT among the primary BSers. Another aspect was the ignoring of Hillary's corruption, which received little MSM coverage. The MSM made no mention of her failures as SecState, which caused so much death and destruction.

    Good ol' Fred has an excellent take on why she lost:

    http://fredoneverything.org/uniquely-talented-only-the-democrats-could-have-lost-to-trump/

    She and the MSM ran their arrogant mouths way too much.
     
  11. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #11
    True but since they are....
     
  12. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #12
    I'm curious too. I wonder if it was like Brexit and how "remain lied too!", when plenty of their predictions have come true and none of their claims have been debunked. But I wonder. I could be wrong.
     
  13. Gjwilly macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #13
    So their tactic was telling the truth.
    For shame!
    :D
     
  14. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #14
    Bring back the literacy test from the 1960's.:oops::p 10 minutes to answer 30 questions, one wrong answer = failure. Unanswered questions = wrong answer.:eek: I'll admit I failed that test.:( I had to read the questions twice because of the tricky wording and ultimately ran out of time.:mad: Even people smarter than I failed the test.
     
  15. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #15
    Maybe he still has bot 1.0 installed. If that's the case wait for the upgrade and the adherence will improve. With v1.1, once he fibs, it's cast in stone. Even his tweets will attain new coherence over extended time frames. Lies that make sense?

    I can't figure out if that will really be an improvement LOL.

    It keeps running through my head this is kinda fun in advance of the inauguration but after that I may have less of a sense of humor about some of this stuff. Of course our President-elect did say he'd be a different person once in office. Honestly though, that doesn't sound like an upgrade. That sounds more like a whole new OS installation.
     
  16. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #16
    Perhaps fake news was promoted by Russia. However, the news that sunk Hillary’s presidential aspirations wasn’t fake: private email servers, “I will put coal miners out of work,” Clinton Foundation corruption, $1,000-per-minute secret speeches to Wall Street moguls, warmongering all over the ME, and being the ultimate Washington insider during a change election.
     
  17. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #17
    Context is everything to you, eh? LOL.

    Well... hope for change was everything to the Trumpistas. What kind of change, apparently no matter?
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    Let's hope he does a Clean Install.
     
  19. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #19
    What about all the bogus info and news leading to Brexit?

    Too much junk floating around these days.

    You can rely on your own country for crap.
     
  20. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #20
    I wonder if these were the same experts who were predicting a Hillary landslide.
     
  21. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #21
    It was just butt hurt Hillary supporters:)
     
  22. MacAndMic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #22
    I am scratching my head at this one, what fake news was put out about Hillary? Or does this mean that the honest news was artificially spread more than what would have naturally taken place?

    On the other hand, you could also say that the "real" media outlets were the "machine" that spread way more stories about Trump than Hillary and now they are angry because they got beat at their own game.
     
  23. Gjwilly macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #23
    Ding Ding Ding!
     
  24. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #24
    Trump was pretty good at creating his own horrible stories about himself, I don't know why anyone would expend energy making them up. I mean you can't even make up the stuff we all watched this guy actually say and do during the campaign. Most pols seeing something like that happen just stand back and let the guy step on his own message. Clinton's problem was she didn't have her own better message and also stepped on her own chances every time she put off the media in that inimitable way she has of trying to dodge them and making it worse by doing that.

    On balance I'm not at all sure "fake news" had a measurable impact. I think people were repelled by both these candidates even before they became their respective party's nominees. Some voted on what they could make out of the differences in party platforms on various issues. Some were more repelled by one or another apparent character flaw in either of the candidates. Some just didn't like one more than they didn't like the other based on what they saw of TV news clips and reports of rallies that were easily enough proven as "true". Some may have been swayed by the debates.

    "Fake news" is at least partly in the eye of the beholder of even mainstream media pieces anyway. There's far more of that every day than of "really faked" news parked on Facebook feeds. So many people seem to think all mainstream news is partly or completely faked nowadays. That's not true but it's perceived to be true in some quarters.

    So... it's "truthy" that mainstream news is faked... so back to the question of how much "real fake news" mattered in the election? Cannot be answered when the premises of what's fake and what's not fake are so blurred by individual perception.

    If I refuse to believe a piece in the Washington Post that simply reports observations at a Trump rally on a given day, just because I prefer to believe it's fake, what is the difference in impact on me, personally, between that "fake" news and some piece of "real fake" news that someone churned out about Cllinton? Who the heck knows? Maybe I think they're both fake. I'm at least half wrong then in my hypothetical case here, but you can't tell me anything if I've made up my mind... even if my critical thinking ability is limited.
     
  25. MacAndMic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #25
    Unfortunately when it comes to politics and what is perceived as a social issue we do not get reporting, we get sensationalism. What is even more unfortunate, people do not realize they are being manipulated.

    I know for me, if I read or hear a news report that does not address the 5 w's and how immediately, I move on. I don't want to be told how to think, I want the info so that I can form my own opinion.
     

Share This Page