WaPo article about "russian propaganda" is fake news. AND MORE FAKE NEWS

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, April 27, 2026 21:27
VIEWED: 2771
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 8, 2016 5:52 PM

Quote:
Washington Post Appends "Russian Propaganda Fake News" Story, Admits It May Be Fake

In the latest example why the "mainstream media" is facing a historic crisis of confidence among its readership, facing unprecedented blowback following Craig Timberg November 24 Washington Post story "Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say", on Wednesday a lengthy editor's note appeared on top of the original article in which the editor not only distances the WaPo from the "experts" quoted in the original article whose "work" served as the basis for the entire article (and which became the most read WaPo story the day it was published) but also admits the Post could not "vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's finding regarding any individual media outlet" in effect admitting the entire story may have been - drumroll - "fake news" and conceding the Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites - Zero Hedge included - with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.

It was the closest the Washington Post would come to formally retracting the story, which has now been thoroughly discredited not only by outside commentators, but by its own editor.

The apended note in question:

Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.

As The Washingtonian notes, the implicit concession follows intense and rising criticism of the article over the past two weeks. It was “rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations,”

The kind of article that GSTRING and KRAPO and THUGR take for actual ... yanno ... news

Quote:
Intercept reporters Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote, noting that PropOrNot, one of the groups whose research was cited in Timberg’s piece, “anonymous cowards.” One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report.

The piece’s description of some sharers of bogus news as “useful idiots” could “theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline,” Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune.

But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker, its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote “the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier.”

Criticism culminated this week when the "Naked capitalism" blog threatened to sue the Washington Post, demanding a retraction.

Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

1KIKI

Thursday, December 8, 2016 10:04 PM

What constitutes 'evidence'?

Something other than unsupported claims, especially those made by anonymous sources.

Verified videos - ie those whose provenance of time and place is vetted - would be evidence. Full quotes in context on the record would be evidence that something was said, posted, or reported; and links to original sources. Physical pieces of objects, preferably with a chain of custody, would be evidence. Original hand-written, signed and dated documents are evidence, as are unmodified original electronic files with data security in place. Statements sworn under oath are evidence (though not necessarily true).

Anonymous sources making unverified conclusions, with no physical objects, documents, files, links, analysis - and especially with no data security, chain of custody, or verified provenance - not evidence.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

1KIKI

Friday, December 9, 2016 6:33 AM

Fake News: Newsweek Admits They Didn't Write Or Even Read "Madam President" Issue
Dec 1, 2016 6:15 PM

Newsweek's political editor, Matthew Cooper, looked as though he'd had a rough month when he appeared on the Tucker Carlson show last night to discuss the "Madam President" debacle. While the printing and distribution of the erroneous "commemorative edition" magazine was embarrassing enough, Cooper also revealed that no one at Newsweek wrote the Hillary article or even bothered to proofread it before it was shipped off to stores around the country.
Frankly, it's difficult to discern between fact and fiction with this story, but, given the quality of the writing, we suspect Cooper had little choice but to distance himself and his team completely from the magazine. Here is a small excerpt in which Trump's supporters are again referred to as "deplorables" who "called to repeal the 19th amendment." Oddly, we covered the election pretty thoroughly and don't recall anyone calling for a repeal of the 19th amendment...guess we totally missed that one.

"...as the tone of the election grew darker and more bizarre by the day, President-Elect Hillary Clinton 'went high' when her opponent went even lower. No stranger to trudging through the mire of misogyny in her career as first lady, senator, and secretary of state, President-Elect Clinton continued to push for an issues-based campaign even as a handful of Trump's most deplorable supporters, seeing the wide margins Clinton held among female voters, called to repeal the 19th amendment. On election day, Americans across the country roundly rejected the kind of fear and hate-based conservatism peddled by Donald Trump and elected the first woman in U.S. history to the presidency. The culminating election of a career in politics spanning 3 decades and arguably more experience than any other incoming president, 2016's was not an easy race to watch, comment on or be a part of--but when the dust cleared it revealed a priceless moment in American history. The highest glass ceiling in the Western World had [been shattered]..."
Of course, in distancing himself from the magazine Cooper noted that the "writing in this is, shall we say, was not up to the editorial standards of Newsweek."
So, as Zero Hedge and others come under attack from the mainstream media for reporting "fake news", we now have a concrete example of an establishment "news" source admitting that it printed and distributed fake news under it's corporate brand that it neither wrote nor even bothered to read, yet no one, other than Fox News, says a word?

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

THGRRI

Friday, December 9, 2016 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Your post is Real Bullshit, that's for sure.
Case in point: Evidence-free allegation from GSTRING.

I've NEVER seen you accept anything as "evidence" so what would be the point? Zerohedge was "butt hurt" as you would say, because they were called out for their obviously slanted reporting and they retaliated by doing a hack piece on WaPo's response which you are supporting = Bullshit.

So how many forums and social media outlets do you post to btw?

SIG is so sad. I wonder can't drugs help her? Something, anything that may help with her delusions? Then again, the shock to her system may be fatal if she were ever to figure out she is as sick as she is. Best to let her delusion continue I guess.

____________________________________________

1KIKI

Friday, December 9, 2016 7:45 AM

WaPo prints fake news

Quote:
following Craig Timberg November 24 Washington Post story "Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say", on Wednesday a lengthy editor's note appeared on top of the original article in which the editor not only distances the WaPo from the "experts" quoted in the original article whose "work" served as the basis for the entire article ... but also admits the Post could not "vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's finding regarding any individual media outlet" in effect admitting the entire story may have been - drumroll - "fake news" and conceding the Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites - Zero Hedge included - with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.

... But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker, its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote “the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier.”

Newsweek prints fake news

Quote:

Fake News: Newsweek Admits They Didn't Write Or Even Read "Madam President" Issue
Dec 1, 2016 6:15 PM

Newsweek's political editor, Matthew Cooper, looked as though he'd had a rough month when he appeared on the Tucker Carlson show last night to discuss the "Madam President" debacle. While the printing and distribution of the erroneous "commemorative edition" magazine was embarrassing enough, Cooper also revealed that no one at Newsweek wrote the Hillary article or even bothered to proofread it before it was shipped off to stores around the country.
... So, as Zero Hedge and others come under attack from the mainstream media for reporting "fake news", we now have a concrete example of an establishment "news" source admitting that it printed and distributed fake news under it's corporate brand that it neither wrote nor even bothered to read, yet no one, other than Fox News, says a word?

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

1KIKI

Friday, December 9, 2016 11:39 AM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38258967

Hillary Clinton warns of 'fake news epidemic'

You mean like WaPo and Newsweek, Hillary? I'm sure you don't.

You go girl! And I mean really. Just. Go.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

SIGNYM

Friday, December 9, 2016 5:35 PM

Quote:
Your post is Real Bullshit, that's for sure.- GSTRING

Case in point: Evidence-free allegation from GSTRING. = SIGNY

I've NEVER seen you accept anything as "evidence" so what would be the point? Zerohedge was "butt hurt" as you would say, because they were called out for their obviously slanted reporting and they retaliated by doing a hack piece on WaPo's response which you are supporting = Bullshit. = GSTRING

YOU see, here's the problem, GSTRING: The article isn't about what ZH said about WaPo, it's about what WaPo said about WaPo. I even underlined the relevant part, but since you apparently missed it the first time here it is again

Quote:
... a lengthy editor's note appeared on top of the original article [about "fake news"] in which the editor not only distances the WaPo from the "experts" quoted in the original article whose "work" served as the basis for the entire article (and which became the most read WaPo story the day it was published) but also admits the Post could not "vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's finding regarding any individual media outlet" in effect admitting the entire story may have been - drumroll - "fake news" and conceding the Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites - Zero Hedge included - with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.

Reading comprehension: so not your thing.

So now, in addition to WaPo walking back it's "fake news" story, and Newsweek'd editor-in-chief walking back the malicious "Madam President" commemorative content, and NYT promising to do a better job on reporting .... I guess "fake news" infects the MSM too.

-----------
In the interests of complete clarity here is what WaPo says ABOUT ITSELF

Quote:
Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings

But sure doesn't mind passing on their opinions! ...

Quote:
regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list. https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/07/washington-post-appends-edito
rs-note-russian-propaganda-story/

So WaPo admitted to reporting completely un-verified material. Not that they engage in fake news, or anything!

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

1KIKI

Saturday, December 10, 2016 11:31 AM

Quote:
they wouldn't post this disclaimer for a very any portion of their source material

What did you mean to say?

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

SIGNYM

Saturday, December 10, 2016 9:35 PM

Quote:
You calling out "but, evidence" is a well known, well worn, tedious ruse at this point - we even have evidence of it.- GSTRING

Yeah, because asking for evidence is such a "ruse"!
Yanno, if you want to find out what's really going on - as opposed that what you're TOLD is going on - maybe you should start respecting evidence - and reality.

Quote:
If the Washington Post was such a proponent of publishing and/or promoting Fake News as you stridently suggest, then surely, logically, they wouldn't post this now would they?- GSTRING

Good question! WHY would WaPo post this now??? I think I know the answer, I'll give you a chance to think about it.

But if you're too lazy, you can find the answer here

Select to view spoiler:

We Demand That The Washington Post Retract Its Propaganda Story Defaming Naked Capitalism and Other Sites and Issue an Apology
Posted on December 5, 2016 by Yves Smith Yep, nothing like a threatened defamation suit to make the WaPo pull in its horns!

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE