In other news, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov calls for an “end to classified intelligence reports” and suggests “publication of raw intelligence data by all parties” (video in Russian)
These talking points seem eerily familiar - where have I heard them before? Oh wait, it was the alt-right creeps…
Does Russia plan on publishing their raw intel first or is this a “you guys go first and trust us” kind of thing.
Kinda thinking the latter.
Anything to weaken the trust in the US and allied ICs - bullshit such as this is for the “alternative” media in the US and Europe.
While I suppose that is true, it is infinitely preferable that we (ie, the world writ large) agree on the definitions of words and terms, and use them in a consistent fashion
Actually, that’s a big part of the problem. In an effort to obfuscate, the Trump administration is labeling as ‘fake news’ stories that turn out to be honest mistakes, as well as stories the sole ‘fault’ of which is the use of anonymous sources.
There is a qualitative difference between actual fake news (eg, the sort created and disseminated by the Russians during the election) and legit-news reporting errors (identified, apologized for and corrected by the source). To use the same term for both is to seriously muddy the waters concerning what’s going on.
That’s fine, but it is out of step with the parlance of the rest of the world. I have yet to hear any news organization refer to what the Russians did as ‘libel news’ or ‘slander news.’ Like it or not, the term for what they did is ‘fake news,’ and (IMO) that term should be limited to transgressions of similar type.
the US seem to attack the people in the Middle East who don’t attack the US : Saddam Hussein, Qadaffi, Assad, Iran, etc.
Now they’re pushing this Russia nonsense for more war.
Israel and necons Are most pleased
I agree. Which is why something as clearcut as “Fake” and “News” shouldn’t be so confusing. If we stop assigning arbitrary meaning to words depending on political affiliation, stance, etcetc, it would probably help a lot.
I use the word propaganda for what Russia did during the election. Also seems to fit nicely. I think the more important task would be people finding a way to understand that not all fake news is created equal, in the same way that not all crime is created equal. If you break the law, you’re a criminal, but there’s a pretty clear difference between a mass murderer and an underage drinker.
If Russia pushed something as news and it was fake, it meets my definition of Fake News does it not? Something can be both fake news AND slander/libel, but to me at least, publishing news that is fake (or isn’t real as it were) seems to have such a clearcut meaning I struggle to find a way to convince myself of a way to change my verbiage.
It shouldn’t take a debate to define 2 words with such a clear meaning. Was it released as news? check. Was it fake? check. Hence, fake news. As soon as the criteria for fake news starts looking at the INTENT, you find yourself in an endless battle of assuming what people mean without having a way to prove it.
By your definition, the birther movement wasn’t fake news if anyone pushing it genuinely believed Obama was a foreign born Muslim.
Don’t worry Raj Trump won’t do anything in Syria he is going to put America first. How many times do I need to tell you this? I’m telling you no way he bombs an airstrip or anything like that.
With the way this Russia-Trump narrative has gotten out of hand?
It will be sooner rather than later.
How much better would it get if Trump openly acknowledged that not only did Russia try to hack our election, but he believes it’s a problem, and Russia should have some form of blowback?
Being on board with sanctions and not handing out classified intel to the Russians might be a good start.
An excuse for future actions already. Trump bombs airstrip because of the media. He wants to put America first but the media won’t let him
Why are sanctions a good idea?
He should be cutting a trade deal that benefits America, not something that appeases Russia-Trump Crazies
I agree, fake news is in the service of propaganda. In fact, I believe I alluded to that in my definition of fake news previously (although I didn’t use the word propaganda explicitly).
The linchpin here is the word fake. If the intent of disseminating false information was propaganda, it meets the definition of ‘fake’ in this context. OTOH, if false information was disseminated as a result of an honest error, it does not meet the definition of fake in this context. This is my understanding of how most people use the term.
The ‘birther movement’ wasn’t fake news–there really was a birther movement. As for those ‘pushing’ it, given that there was no evidence to support their claims, they would be knowingly publishing falsehoods in the service of a political agenda. This would qualify as ‘fake news’ per my definition.
Because if a foreign hostile nuclear superpower fucks with your elections and suffers no drawbacks they feel like they can do it again?
Do you know why we drop bombs on terrorists? So they stop being terrorists.
Do you know why we sanction countries that piss us off? So they stop pissing us off.
Evidence for that claim is weak 
Pretzel Logic at it’s worst. (And NOT the great Steely Dan Album of the same name!)
Raj. You and other Trump supporters have 4-8 years of twisting yourselves into all kinds of configurations justifying what Trump says and does.
That’s going to get damn painful.
I’ve said it before; Collusion? NO
Turning a blind-eye to Putin’s Actions? I wouldn’t put it past Flynn, Manafort or even Kushner..
Feigning “no” connection to Russia strains all credibility.
I understand that. My point was to orchestrate that after the 1st line of connection, you lose the intent aspect. My uncle genuinely believes, to this day, that Obama is a foreign born Muslim due to some faked documents he saw online. To him, his intent is to save America from a traitor in our midst. Since he genuinely believes Obama to not be an American, he has zero intent to spread something he believes to be false.
As soon as you throw “intent” into the mix, you have a chance of losing an argument on what constitutes fake news. Making an already important topic more complicated by trying to overly define it only causes confusion and the chance for it to be abused, as is shown with our current day predicaments.
Not if you ask the sitting POTUS. Him openly believing Russia tried to meddle and doing nothing about it adds fuel to the fire.
All he has confirmed is that US intel reflects what we’ve been told.
The CIA has a history of not only being wrong, but also being used purely for political reasons.
Oh and the CIA admits they do not have specific evidence tying Russia to email leaks.
What exactly do they have evidence for? We don’t even know the specifics of their meddling?
They have a pee tape