NYT’s Fake News about Fake News
Robert Parry, Consortium News, Feb 22 2017
A grave danger from the Western mainstream media’s current hysteria about “fake news” is that the definition gets broadened from the few made-up stories that are demonstrably false, often fabricated by kids to get more clicks, to include reasonable disputes about the facts of a complex controversy. This danger has grown worse because the NYT, WaPo and other major Western news organizations have merged their outrage over “fake news” with the West’s propaganda campaign against Russia, by claiming without evidence that the Russian government is somehow putting out false stories to undermine Western democracy. When news organizations actually track down “fake news” outlets, they are usually run by some young entrepreneurs from outside Russia who saw made-up stories as a way to increase revenue by luring in more readers eager for “information” that supports their prejudices. Nevertheless, a front-page NYT article on Tuesday, citing “fake news” as a threat to Europe, contains what arguably is “fake news” itself by claiming that many of the purported 2,500 stories “discredited” by the EU’s ‘East Stratcom’ operation have “links to Russia,” although the NYT doesn’t identify those links. The article by Mark Scott and Melissa Eddy then goes on to blur these two separate concepts:
In a year when the French, Germans and Dutch will elect leaders, the European authorities are scrambling to counter a rising tide of fake news and anti-EU propaganda aimed at destabilizing people’s trust in institutions.
But it is this mushing together of “fake news” and what the NYT describes as “anti-EU propaganda” that is so insidious. The first relates to consciously fabricated stories; the second involves criticism of a political institution, the EU, which is viewed by many Europeans as elitist, remote and disdainful of the needs, interests and attitudes of average citizens. Whether you call such criticism “propaganda” or “dissent,” it is absurd to blame it all on Russia. When it comes to “destabilizing people’s trust in institutions,” the EU, especially with its inept handling of the Great Recession and its clumsy response to the Syrian refugee crisis, is doing a bang-up job on its own without Russian help. Yet rather than face up to legitimate concerns of citizens, the EU and Pindo governments have found a convenient scapegoat, Russia. To hammer home this point, to make it the new “groupthink,” Euro and Pindo leaders have financed propaganda specialists to disparage political criticism by linking it to Russia. Even worse, in Pindostan, the NYT and other mainstream publications, reflecting the views of the political establishment, have editorialized to get giant technology companies like Facebook and Google, to marginalize independent news sites that don’t accept the prevailing conventional wisdom. There is an Orwellian quality to these schemes, a plan for a kind of Ministry of Truth enforced by algorithms to weed out deviant ideas, but almost no one whose voice is allowed in the mass media gets to make that observation. Even now, there is a chilling uniformity in the endless denunciations of Russia as the root of all evil. Though the NYT treats the EU’s ‘East Stratcom’ operatives as 11 beleaguered public servants sticking their fingers in the dike to protect the citizenry from a flood of Russian disinformation, “stratcom” actually is a euphemism for psychological operations, the strategic use of communications to influence the thinking of a target population. In this case, the target populations are the Euro sheeple and to an ancillary degree the Pindo creeple, who get to absorb the same propaganda from the NYT. The real goal of stratcom is not to combat a few sleazy entrepreneurs generating consciously false stories for profit, but to silence or “discredit” sources of information that question Euro & Pindo propaganda.
NATO has its own Stratcom command based in Latvia that also is assigned to swat down information that doesn’t conform to Western propaganda narratives. USAID and the NED also pour tens of millions of dollars into media operations with similar goals, as do major Western foundations, such as Soros’s Open Society organizations. Last December, the Pindo Congress approved and Obama signed legislation to create an additional $160m bureaucracy to combat “Russian propaganda.” In other words, the West’s stratcom and “psychological operations” are swimming in dough, despite the NYT’s representation that these “anti-disinformation” projects are unfairly outgunned by sinister forces daring to challenge what everyone in the know knows to be true. If these “stratcom” operations were around in 2002-2003, they would have been accusing the few people questioning the Iraq-has-WMD certainty of putting out “fake news” to benefit Saddam Hussein. Now, journalists and citizens who don’t buy the full Monte demonization of Russia and Putin are put into a similar category. Instead of trusting in the free exchange of ideas, the new attitude at the NYT, WaPo and other Western news outlets is to short-circuit the process by smearing anyone who questions the official narratives as a “Putin apologist” or a “Moscow stooge.” Beyond being anti-democratic, this anti-intellectual approach has prevented serious examination of the facts behind the West’s war or words against Russia. To shut down that debate, all you need to do is to say that any fact cited at a Russian news outlet must be false or “fake news.” Any Westerner who notes the same fact must be a “Putin puppet.” Western “stratcom” doesn’t even want to allow Russian media to criticize politicians who are criticizing Russia. The NYT lamented:
Many false claims target politicians who present the biggest obstacles to Moscow’s goal of undermining the EU.
The NYT doesn’t offer any examples of such “false claims.” Instead, the NYT writes that Russian news channels had “targeted the presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron, who belongs to the party and is running on a pro-EU platform.” But what does that mean? Is it now an act of aggression when newscasts in one country criticize a leader of another country? If so, are the European news channels that have “targeted” Trump somehow deserving of Pindosi government retaliation? Doesn’t the EU, and by extension the NYT, accept the idea of political disagreement and debate? This closed-mindedness is especially dangerous and indeed existentially risky when applied to a confrontation between nuclear-armed powers. In such a case, the maximum amount of debate should be encouraged, instead of what amounts to blacklisting dissidents in the West who won’t toe the official propaganda lines. Disturbingly, the leading forces in this suppression of skepticism are the most prestigious newspapers in Pindostan and Europe. Even after the disastrous experience with the Iraq War and the bogus WMD groupthink, Western news outlets that were party to that fiasco have virtually excluded well-reported articles and documentaries that question the Pindo or Euro narratives of the New Cold War. For instance, there has been almost no presentation in the mainstream Western media of an alternative, and I would argue more complete and accurate narrative of the Ukraine conflict, taking into account the country’s complex history and deep ethnic divisions.
It is essentially forbidden to refer to the violent overthrow of elected Pres Yanukovych three years ago as a “coup” or a “putsch,” or to cite evidence of CIA-backed “regime change,” such as the intercepted phone call between Toria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt in which they discussed how to “glue” and “midwife” the Nazi junta in Kiev. In the supposedly “free” West, you can only refer to the post-coup events in Crimea, in which the people of the largely ethnic Russia area voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, as a “Russian invasion.” No skepticism is allowed, even though there were no images of Russian troops wading ashore on Crimea’s beaches or Russian tanks crashing across borders. The “invasion” supposedly happened, even though no invasion was necessary because Russian troops were already in Crimea under the naval basing agreement at Sevastopol. Amid the West’s current hysteria about “Russian propaganda,” Pindo & Euro ‘citizens’ are not even given the opportunity to watch well-reported documentaries about key moments in the New Cold War, such as this eye-opening investigative report debunking the Western propaganda myth constructed around the death of Sergei Magnitsky, or this well-produced historical account of the Ukraine crisis. Western news outlets and governments take pride in blocking such dissenting views and contrary information from reaching the Euro & Pindo sheeples. Like East Stratcom, the EU’s Brussels-based 11-member team of diplomats, bureaucrats and former journalists, establishment institutions see themselves bravely battling “Russian disinformation.” They see it as their duty not to let their people hear this other side of the story. If that is what the West’s institutions have come to, dismissing reasonable criticism and thoughtful dissent as “Russian disinformation,” is it any wonder that they are losing the confidence of their bleeples?