if you could achieve a grand slam using stale cheese then yes

Has The NYT Gone Collectively Mad?
Robert Parry, ConsortiumNews.com, Sep 11 2017

For those of us who have taught journalism or worked as editors, a sign that an article is the product of sloppy or dishonest journalism is that a key point will be declared as flat fact when it is unproven or a point in serious dispute, and it then becomes the foundation for other claims, building a story like a high-rise constructed on sand. This use of speculation as fact is something to guard against particularly in the work of inexperienced or opinionated reporters. But what happens when this sort of unprofessional work tops page one of the NYT one day as a major “investigative” article and reemerges the next day in even more strident form as a major editorial? Are we dealing then with an inept journalist who got carried away with his thesis or are we facing institutional corruption or even a collective madness driven by ideological fervor? What is stunning about the lede story in last Friday’s print edition of the NYT is that it offers no real evidence to support its provocative claim that, as the headline and subhead state:

To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Pindos, “Flooding Twitter and Facebook,” Impostors Helped Fuel Anger in Polarized Pindostan.

In the old days, this wildly speculative article, which spills over three pages, would have earned an F in a J-school class or gotten a rookie reporter a stern rebuke from a senior editor. But now such unprofessionalism is highlighted by the NYT, which boasts that it is the standard-setter of pindo journalism, the nation’s “newspaper of record.” In this case, it allows reporter Scott Shane to introduce his thesis by citing some Internet accounts that apparently used fake identities. He ties none of them to the Russian government. Acting like he has minimal familiarity with the Internet, Shane builds his case on the assumption that accounts that cited references to purloined Demagog emails must be somehow from an agent or a bot connected to the Kremlin. For instance, Shane cites the fake identity of “Melvin Redick,” who suggested on Jun 8 2016, that people visit DCLeaks which a few days earlier had posted some emails from prominent pindos, which Shane states as fact, not allegation, were “stolen by Russian hackers.” Shane then adds, also as flat fact:

The site’s phony promoters were in the vanguard of a cyber-army of counterfeit Facebook and Twitter accounts, a legion of Russian-controlled impostors whose operations are still being unraveled. The Russian information attack on the election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Demagog emails or the firehose of stories, true, false and in-between, that battered Mrs Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far less splashy, and far more difficult to trace, was Russia’s experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the pindo companies that essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did not stop them from being turned into engines of deception and propaganda.

Besides the obvious point that very few pindos watch RT and/or Sputnik and that Shane offers no details about the alleged falsity of the “firehose of stories,” let’s examine how his accusations are backed up:

An investigation by the NYT and new research from the cybersecurity firm FireEye, reveals some of the mechanisms by which suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had leaked. On Wednesday, Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100k in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the election campaign. On Twitter, as on Facebook, Russian fingerprints are on hundreds or thousands of fake accounts that regularly posted anti-Clinton messages.

Note the weasel words: “suspected”; “believe”; ‘linked”; “fingerprints.” When you see such equivocation, it means that these folks, both the NYT and FireEye, don’t have hard evidence. They are speculating. And it’s worth noting that the supposed “army of fake pindos” may amount to hundreds out of Facebook’s two billion or so monthly users and the $100k in ads compares to the company’s annual ad revenue of around $27b. I’d do the math but my calculator doesn’t compute such tiny percentages. So this “army” is really not an “army” and we don’t even know that it is “Russian.” But some readers might say that surely we know that the Kremlin did mastermind the hacking of Demagog emails! That claim is supported by the Jan 6 “intelligence community assessment” that was the work of what Obama’s DNI Clapper called “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies, the CIA, NSA and FBI, but as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you hand-pick the analysts, you are hand-picking the conclusions. But some still might protest that the Jan 6 report surely presented convincing evidence of this serious charge about Pres Putin personally intervening in the election to help put Donald Trump in the White House. Well, as it turns out, not so much, and if you don’t believe me, we can call to the witness stand none other than NYT reporter Scott Shane, who wrote at the time:

What is missing from the public report is what many pindos most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’

So even Scott Shane, the author of last Friday’s opus, recognized the lack of “hard evidence” to prove that the Russian government was behind the release of the Demagog emails, a claim that both Putin and Julian Assange have denied. While it is surely possible that Putin and Assange are lying or don’t know the facts, you might think that their denials would be relevant to this lengthy investigative article, which also could have benefited from some mention of Shane’s own skepticism of last January, but you don’t want inconvenient details to mess up a cool narrative. Yet if you struggle all the way to the end of last Friday’s article, you do find out how flimsy the NYT’s case actually is. How, for instance, do we know that “Melvin Redick” is a Russian impostor posing as an pindo? The proof, according to Shane, is this:

His posts were never personal, just news articles reflecting a pro-Russian worldview.

As it turns out, the NYT now operates with what must be called a neo-McCarthyite approach for identifying people as Kremlin stooges: anyone who doubts the truthfulness of the State Dept’s narratives on Syria, Ukraine and other international topics is a Russian agent. In the article’s final section, Shane acknowledges as much in citing one of his experts (Internet Haganah’s) “Andrew Weisburd, an Illinois online researcher who has written frequently about Russian influence on social media.” Shane quotes Weisburd as admitting how hard it is to differentiate pindos who just might oppose Hillary Clinton because they didn’t think she’d make a good president from supposed Russian operatives:

Trying to disaggregate the two was difficult, to put it mildly.

According to Shane:

Mr Weisburd said he had labeled some Twitter accounts ‘Kremlin trolls’ based simply on their pro-Russia tweets and with no proof of Russian government ties. The NYT contacted several such users, who insisted that they had come by their anti-pindo, pro-Russian views honestly, without payment or instructions from Moscow.

One of Weisburd’s “Kremlin trolls” turned out to be 66-year-old Marilyn Justice, who lives in Nova Scotia and who somehow reached the conclusion that “Hillary’s a warmonger.” During the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, she reached another conclusion: that pindo commentators were exhibiting a snide anti-Russia bias perhaps because they indeed were exhibiting a snide anti-Russia bias. Shane tracked down another “Kremlin troll,” 48-year-old Marcel Sardo, a web producer in Zurich who dares to dispute the West’s group-think that Russia was responsible for shooting down MH17 over Ukraine on Jul 17 2014, and the State Dept’s claims that the Syrian government used sarin gas in a Damascus suburb on Aug 21 2013. Presumably, if you don’t toe the line on those dubious government narratives, you are part of the Kremlin’s propaganda machine. In both cases, there actually are serious reasons to doubt the Western group-thinks, which again lack real evidence. But Shane accuses Sardo and his fellow-travelers of spreading “what pindo officials consider to be Russian disinformation on election hacking, Syria, Ukraine and more.” In other words, if you examine the evidence on MH-17 or the Syrian sarin case and conclude that the government’s claims are dubious if not downright false, you are somehow disloyal and making Russian officials “gleeful at their success,” as Shane puts it. But what kind of a traitor are you if you quote Shane’s initial judgment after reading the Jan 6 report on alleged Russian election meddling? What are you if you agree with his factual observation that the report lacked anything approaching “hard evidence”? That’s a point that also dovetails with what Vladimir Putin has been saying:

IP addresses can be simply made up. This is no proof.

So is Scott Shane a “Kremlin troll” too? Should the NYT immediately fire him as a disloyal foreign agent? What if Putin says that 2+2=4 and your child is taught the same thing in elementary school, what does that say about public school teachers? Out of such gibberish come the evils of McCarthyism and the death of the Enlightenment. Instead of encouraging a questioning citizenry, the new pindo paradigm is to silence debate and ridicule anyone who steps out of line. You might have thought people would have learned something from the disastrous group-think about Iraqi WMD, a canard that the NYT and most of the mainstream media eagerly promoted. But if you’re feeling generous and thinking that the NYT editors must have been chastened by their Iraq-WMD fiasco, but perhaps had a bad day last week and somehow allowed an egregious piece of journalism to lead their front page, your kind-heartedness would be shattered on Saturday when the NYT editorial board penned a laudatory reprise of Scott Shane’s big scoop. Stripping away even the few caveats that the article had included, the NYT editors informed us:

A startling investigation by Scott Shane of the NYT, and new research by the cybersecurity firm FireEye, now reveal the Kremlin’s stealth intrusion into the election was far broader and more complex, involving a cyber-army of bloggers posing as pindos and spreading propaganda and disinformation to an American electorate on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms. Now that the scheming is clear, Facebook and Twitter say they are reviewing the 2016 race and studying how to defend against such meddling in the future. Facing the Russian challenge will involve complicated issues dealing with secret foreign efforts to undermine pindo free speech.

But what is the real threat to “pindo free speech”? Is it the possibility that, in a very mild imitation of what the pindo government does all over the world, Russia used some Web sites clandestinely to get out its side of various stories, an accusation against Russia that still lacks any real evidence? Or is the bigger threat that the nearly year-long Russiagate hysteria will be used to clamp down on pindos who dare question fact-lite or fact-free Official Narratives handed down by the State Depat and the NYT?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s