It’s worse than we thought
The Washington Post says Russian psy-ops helped Trump win. That’s a cheery thought.
You know, if we’re this easily pushed over by in idiot-strongman, we’re basically a failed state. We might as well be Somalia. Liars, cheats, frauds and bullies can team up and trick enough of us into voting for Their Guy so that he wins, and puts the whole damn world in danger. It’s ludicrous and disgusting, and there’s no coming back from it. The US is a disgrace and a global threat.
The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.
Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.
I wonder how many of the leering bullies we’ve all been fighting on Twitter for years are working for Russia.
There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.
“They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests,” said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who along with two other researchers has tracked Russian propaganda since 2014. “This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media.”
Well by god they’ve certainly eroded mine! Or rather they’ve obliterated it. A country that can elect a Trump should be a pariah state.
The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.
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. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.
Some were in on it, others were the useful idiots. Together, they’re Team Destroy Everything!
It’s not even clear to me what’s in it for Russia. It weakens the rival power, ok, but at the price of unleashing a nuclear-armed imbecile on the world, and accelerating global warming. It seems a tad overkill.
The speed and coordination of these efforts allowed Russian-backed phony news to outcompete traditional news organizations for audience. Some of the first and most alarming tweets after Clinton fell ill at a Sept. 11 memorial event in New York, for example, came from Russian botnets and trolls, researchers found. (She was treated for pneumonia and returned to the campaign trail a few days later.)
This followed a spate of other misleading stories in August about Clinton’s supposedly troubled health. The Daily Beast debunked a particularly widely read piece in an article that reached 1,700 Facebook accounts and was read online more than 30,000 times. But the PropOrNot researchers found that the version supported by Russian propaganda reached 90,000 Facebook accounts and was read more than 8 million times. The researchers said the true Daily Beast story was like “shouting into a hurricane” of false stories supported by the Russians.
Brilliant. Just fucking brilliant.
The final weeks of the campaign featured a heavy dose of stories about supposed election irregularities, allegations of vote-rigging and the potential for Election Day violence should Clinton win, researchers said.
“The way that this propaganda apparatus supported Trump was equivalent to some massive amount of a media buy,” said the executive director of PropOrNot, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers. “It was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump’s campaign. . . . It worked.”
And it worked because people who trend the other way are less likely to be taken in by that kind of bullshit. Is that ironic enough for you? It’s way too ironic for me.
A former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael A. McFaul, said he was struck by the overt support that RT and Sputnik expressed for Trump during the campaign, even using the #CrookedHillary hashtag pushed by the candidate.
McFaul said Russian propaganda typically is aimed at weakening opponents and critics. Trump’s victory, though reportedly celebrated by Putin and his allies in Moscow, may have been an unexpected benefit of an operation that already had fueled division in the United States. “They don’t try to win the argument,” said McFaul, now director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. “It’s to make everything seem relative. It’s kind of an appeal to cynicism.”
Well congratufuckinglations, Russia, the kingdom of ultimate cynicism is here.
The findings about the mechanics of Russian propaganda operations largely track previous research by the Rand Corp. and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
“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.”
Starting?
The Rand report — which dubbed Russian propaganda efforts a “firehose of falsehood” because of their speed, power and relentlessness — traced the country’s current generation of online propaganda work to the 2008 incursion into neighboring Georgia, when Russia sought to blunt international criticism of its aggression by pushing alternative explanations online.
The same tactics, researchers said, helped Russia shape international opinions about its 2014 annexation of Crimea and its military intervention in Syria, which started last year. Russian propaganda operations also worked to promote the “Brexit” departure of Britain from the European Union.
So we’re living in Russia’s world now. I don’t like it.
Another crucial moment, several researchers say, came in 2011 when the party of Russian President Vladimir Putin was accused of rigging elections, sparking protests that Putin blamed the Obama administration — and then-Secretary of State Clinton — for instigating.
Putin, a former KGB officer, announced his desire to “break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams” during a 2013 visit to the broadcast center for RT, formerly known as Russia Today.
“For them, it’s actually a real war, an ideological war, this clash between two systems,” said Sufian Zhemukhov, a former Russian journalist conducting research at GWU. “In their minds, they’re just trying to do what the West does to Russia.”
It’s an extension of the Cold War except that Russia now represents the extreme right as opposed to any kind of left.
Though widely seen as a propaganda organ, the Russian site has gained credibility with some American conservatives. Trump sat for an interview with RT in September. His nominee for national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, traveled to Russia last year for a gala sponsored by the network. He later compared it to CNN.
The content from Russian sites has offered ready fodder for U.S.-based websites pushing far-right conservative messages. A former contractor for one, the Next News Network, said he was instructed by the site’s founder, Gary S. Franchi Jr., to weave together reports from traditional sources such as the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times with ones from RT, Sputnik and others that provided articles that often spread explosively online.
It’s the boot stamping on the human face forever. We’ve arrived.
Seeing Mano Singham and Marcus Ranum (and others) so blithely dismiss this kind of thing with “There’s no evidence!” and “Even if it is true, it pales in comparison to what the US has done to other countries’ elections” was one of the more infuriating bits of obfuscation I witnessed in the past few months. The implications for this shit are dire, and we have to live in a world that that kind of smugness helped to wreak.
The conventional media bear a heavy responsibility for this too. Years of cowering when accused of liberal bias by right-wingers have left the fourth estate a ratings-chasing shadow of its former self. And we’re to blame too, insisting on getting our news for free and not understanding that good investigative journalism isn’t cheap.
If Russia has managed to destabilize the US, it has done so with our collusion. None of us stood up for freedom of the press and pushed back hard enough against the media bias narrative. We let an foreign-born ultra-right press baron take over our airwaves and newspapers, without challenging any of the narratives he wanted to push. And we allowed the technological revolution the internet brought us to replace serious discussion of policy with outrage porn and click bait.
The internet was once vaunted as a revolutionary force for good. It has proven to be the opposite; oppressing the voices of the weak, magnifying the powerful, and acting as an echo chamber for the thoughts and opinions once compelled to remain in people’s heads by social mores.
When they write the history of the early twenty-first century (assuming they get the chance), historians will not be kind. We have let hubris, the need for instant gratification and a cognitive desire for easy answers lead us down a dark path. Whether the light at the end of the tunnel is hope or an oncoming train remains to be seen.
The conventional media also has accepted, and propagated, a false equivalency narrative by which there isn’t, as Jim Hightower claims, “a dime’s worth of difference”. The Democrats are not perfect, ergo they are the same as the Republicans. Never mind that, if nothing else, the divisive rhetoric of the right has had a dampening effect on everyone, and has ramped up the hatred for marginalized groups, leading to still more abuse and awfulness.
But, hey, Russia’s happy. Erdogan’s happy. ISIS is happy. And the alt-right is happy. What more could anyone ask?
Claire,@2
“We let a foreign-born ultra-right press baron take over our airwaves and newspapers…”
What’s the significance of ‘foreign-born’? The Trump debacle isn’t simply the result of foreign interference by Russians or that sinister Australian, Assange or the equally sinister foreign-born Murdoch. It was caused by America’s undemocratic electoral system. It was self-inflicted.
And, if I may pile on as yet another furriner, by the institutionalised laziness and trivialisation of much of American education. “You the people” have to a great extent chosen ignorance. Now we all have to endure that unripe fruit.
@RJW The significance is that Murdoch shows no love for the countries into which he has inserted his putrid ideology. Yes, technically he’s an American now, but he seems to want to remake the country into his own ghastly image.
I’m foreign-born too, and immigrated here of my own free will. There are aspects of American culture I don’t care for (guns for everyone!) or don’t understand (why is PB&J considered an edible concoction?) but I don’t expect to impose those tastes and values on the people here. That’s not to say I won’t vote with my beliefs when I become a citizen. But I don’t have an outsized influence on the media.
I believe he coarsened British culture and then turned around and did the same in the US. He is not loyal to either country, no matter what he says or what pieces of paper he holds.
@ Rrr Oh yes. The fear of intelligence and education is dangerous.
I loathe peanut butter and jelly.
I just wanted to get that on the record, so that no one would think all Americans love it. This one doesn’t.
Claire @6
There’s another interpretation of Murdoch and his ‘ideology’. Murdoch became a billionaire by providing just what millions of readers in Australia, the US and the U.K. wanted to read and to hear–the so-called ‘confirmation bias’. That’s the unpalatable truth for those of us on the Left.
The editorial content of Murdoch’s media is designed to support his business interests, so naturally it’s pro right wing governments in the English-speaking world. I’m not sure, if he’s much different from Trump in the final analysis apart from being far less vulgar. Murdoch’s paid parrots will certainly attack right wing politicians if they’re considered a threat to his corporate interests.
Ophelia,
This Australian can’t stand Vegemite either, I think it’s called ‘Marmite’ in the UK.
RJW @9 I owe you an apology. I did not mean to imply that Murdoch’s vileness stemmed from his nationality, just from the fact that he doesn’t to my mind reflect British or American values and yet he dominates our media markets. But I imagine Aussies wouldn’t be too thrilled to have him there either.
I like to hope that humanity has more going for it than your thesis would suggest. This year has done considerable damage to that world view.
And you’re right. Marmite is an abomination.
Claire @ 10
Understood.
My point is that Murdoch’s media empire does indeed reflect the values of a significant proportion of the citizens in those countries. Brexit, the huge vote for Trump and the fact that an anti-immigrant party has part of the balance of power in the Australian Senate are confirmation. We have to face facts.
Ophelia @8 – second that. I almost refused to go to school when I started first grade because a cousin had told me you had to take PB&J for lunch…and I had been dying to go to school. Thanks, Mom, for telling me the truth on that one!
You know, RJW, I agree. It’s unfortunate that the media is still refusing to face up to the truth of Trump’s election – half this country hates the other half, and will vote to make sure that other half loses what rights it had worked hard to gain because they are grievously disturbed by the color of their skin, the shape of their genitals, or the people they love. This is bigotry, and no amount of blather about economic populism can hide the impact that this election is going to have on real people.
I don’t think “what does Russia gain” is the right question. The right question is “what does Putin gain?”. And the answer is clear: weakened opposition to his imperialist goals.
The Washington Post says …
A lot of crap, regularly – and this particular load should be taken with several boxcars of salt.
Because Alternet never says crap?
Aw, c’mon – you usually have better arguments, which actually address the points made.
The key point made by the Alternet writer in this case is that WaPo is accepting and amplifying the claims of an unknown, amateurish, and heavily ideological crew of ranters who make specific (though rather implausible) assertions without disclosing either the methodology used to reach them or the sources of their data.
So far, I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. Have you?
A brief and not very polite comment like yours @ 14 seldom motivates me to respond with a detailed argument.
Or I guess you expect me to give a detailed response to the article you linked? But why should I do that? You gave me no reason to read it, you simply sniped and dropped a link. You took no trouble but you want me to drop everything and respond at length?
I merely hope you will reconsider an argument based on quite shaky factual premises.
Maybe you’ll consider Intercept’s parallel critique more attention-worthy?
Well, one good thing to come out of this is those complaints that commentators here all fawn over Ophelia and agree with her every utterance look pretty freaking silly given the number of disagreements and disputes that crop up.
“[T]o read Max Blumenthal is…like being confronted with a young skunk who hasn’t learned to piss yet.”
–Christopher Hitchens
(What!? It’s funny.)
Or how about the ever-scathing Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone report?