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

Are these the same experts that said Clinton was leading the polls by seven points?

When will these shills come to terms with the fact that people aren't listening to them any more?

 

Did CNN say it was okay for me to read that?

 

Anybody who has been reading our little forum fully gets how much disinformation is treated as reality.

 

Yes, I think so. Their two "independent sources" are sketch - like some random anonymous blogs with clickbait-y articles and lots of !!! saying that the best places to get your news are places like the WaPo, the NYT, Buzzfeed and Vice. Some of the sites on this list they have by these experts that are supposably helping spread Russian propaganda are sites like the ron paul institute lol.

 

Russia may, or may not be the bogeyman the media makes it out to be.

The problem for the media is that they went all-in painting Trump as the bogeyman, and Clinton as some paragon of American virtue. in doing so, they seem to have only succeeded in making the case that they are in fact nothing more than a propaganda machine for a network of individuals and countries, whose specific agenda remains utterly unexamined.

 

What would be an example of a fake Clinton news story?

 

John Oliver did an interesting editorial about the quality of news articles prior to the election.

When confronted with falsehoods in news sources he had promoted, Trump said “What do I know about it? All I know is what’s on the internet.”

 

http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/20...o-breitbart-radio-show-about-hillarys-health/

 

Fake news is vindicated as accurate intuition AFTER investigation.

I hope the US and Russia can become bffs.

 

I have just read that Trump's response to this has been to ridicule the CIA, as though the CIA is some sort of partisan NGO that can be conveniently dispensed with.

 

It seems oddly tenuous to claim knowledge of Russia's intention in leaking hacked information. My concern is more that the Democrats don't seem to take data security seriously.

If the democrat campaign manager submits his passwords to a phishing email, how can this become an argument that it wasn't his fault that his emails adversely affected the democratic campaign?

The headlines are:
"Russia hacked the election to favour Trump."

The headlines should be:
"Did Podesta deliberately, or incompetently sabotage the Democratic Campaign?"

 

Not that I know anything about Russia's involvement or what not, but is it just me that finds it so interesting that it is the Trump supporters that defend Russia? Maybe I'm getting things all wrong here, but I've deff. heard a change in tone recently, and even though I think this is more of an odd byproduct, can't we try to have something nice for once?