{"id":337259,"date":"2017-11-30T11:55:24","date_gmt":"2017-11-30T10:55:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/backlash-against-russian-fake-news-is-shutting-down-debate-for-real\/"},"modified":"2017-11-30T11:55:24","modified_gmt":"2017-11-30T10:55:24","slug":"backlash-against-russian-fake-news-is-shutting-down-debate-for-real","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/backlash-against-russian-fake-news-is-shutting-down-debate-for-real\/","title":{"rendered":"Backlash Against Russian \u2018Fake News\u2019 Is Shutting Down Debate for Real"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/b>A few days before the Halloween hearings<\/a> held by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, where powerful tech companies would provide testimony about their roles disseminating \u201cfake news\u201d during the 2016 election, Twitter<\/b> announced it would no longer accept advertising from the Russian government-sponsored broadcast channel Russia Today <\/b>(RT<\/b>), or the state-owned Sputnik<\/b>.<\/p>\n

In a Twitter PublicPolicy<\/b> blog post (10\/26\/17<\/a>), the company said it would \u201coff-board advertising from all accounts\u201d owned by RT<\/b> and Sputnik<\/b>. The decision was based on its own assessment of the 2016 US election \u201cand the US intelligence community\u2019s conclusion<\/a> that both RT<\/b> and Sputnik<\/b> attempted to interfere with the election on behalf of the Russian government.” As substantiation, Twitter<\/b> merely provided a link to the January 6, 2017, intelligence report (ODNI).<\/p>\n

BuzzFeed<\/b> (11\/1\/17<\/a>) reported that Twitter<\/b> based its decision on the intelligence report that called RT<\/b> “the Kremlin\u2019s principal international propaganda outlet,” also providing a link to the report without a word about its documentation or quality. Most reporting did the same, including the New York Times<\/b> (10\/26\/17<\/a>), which said Twitter<\/b>\u2019s decision \u201cwas informed by specific findings of the United States intelligence community, made public in January<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

A lonely voice critical of the Twitter<\/b> ban was the Electronic Frontier Foundation (10\/27\/17<\/a>), which warned the action was a threat to free expression, both in the US and globally.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>At the time the report was published, Vox<\/b> (1\/6\/17<\/a>) repeated many of the \u201cintelligence\u201d assertions, including the Kremlin propaganda charge. Vox <\/b>told readers that \u201cRT<\/b> is way more important than we think,\u201d saying the report contained \u201cstriking observations\u201d about RT<\/b>\u2019s reach, message and proximity to the Russian government. For example, staff at RT<\/b>\u2019s bureaus are not just close, but \u201cvery, very close to the Kremlin.\u201d One network head was from Russia\u2019s \u201cdiplomatic service,\u201d and \u201cLondon\u2019s RT<\/b> bureau is managed by the daughter\u201d of a former Mikhail Gorbachev speechwriter.<\/p>\n

It appeared that neither Vox<\/b> nor those who penned the \u201cintelligence report\u201d remembered that under Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, glasnost (meaning openness) and a liberal press flourished in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev\u2019s face appeared on the cover of Time<\/b> magazine (1\/1\/90<\/a>) when it declared him the Man of the Decade, and later that year (6\/4\/90<\/a>) the magazine quoted him as saying, \u201cI detest lies.\u201d<\/p>\n

Taking a closer look at the seven pages of claims against RT<\/b> (a full one-third of the total intelligence report on Russian interference) that led to Twitter<\/b>\u2019s decision, some journalists might have concluded that RT<\/b> provided substantive news to the American public in 2012, and later during the election. They might also have noticed that the report makes shoddy, misleading arguments, embarrassing mistakes (such as confusing European and US date notations), unsubstantiated claims, and lacked any grounding in the foundations of journalism in a democracy. As Robert Parry (Truthdig<\/b>, 7\/31\/17<\/a>) pointed out, US government accusations against RT<\/b><\/p>\n

\n

have related more to it covering topics that may make the establishment look bad\u2014such as the Occupy Wall Street protests, fracking for natural gas, and the opinions of third-party presidential candidates\u2014than publishing false stories.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The US intelligence officials apparently do not like RT<\/b> reporting about the abuses of the American Security apparatus. They complain that RT<\/b>‘s reports often characterize the United States as a “surveillance state” and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality and drone use (RT<\/b>, 10\/24\/12, 10\/28\/12, 11\/1\u201310\/12).<\/p>\n

RT <\/b>is also condemned for reporting on Occupy Wall Street: It \u201ccreated a Facebook<\/b> app to connect Occupy Wall Street protesters via social media. In addition, RT<\/b> featured its own hosts in Occupy rallies.\u201d Airing material far outside acceptable discourse in mainstream commercial media, RT<\/b> also \u201cfocused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed and the US national debt.\u201d<\/p>\n

Repeated are familiar charges that Russians bolstered Donald Trump\u2019s campaign and diminished Hillary Clinton\u2019s. Claims that RT<\/b> harmed Clinton point to broadcasts that include debates with third-party candidates like Jill Stein. Indeed, Ed Herman (7\/8\/17\/)<\/a> argued that no case was made by the ODNI report and that RT<\/b>\u2019s content was rather the \u201congoing expression of opinion and news judgments.\u201d<\/p>\n

This intelligence report may go down as one of the shoddiest pieces of media criticism ever penned, and also the least scrutinized. (FAIR\u2019s Adam Johnson was one of the few to take a close look at it\u20141\/10\/17<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Ironically, RT<\/b>\u2019s own own reporting<\/a> of the \u201cintelligence\u201d marshaled against it is a masterful illustration of decoding skills no longer very evident in the US commercial media. RT\u2019s<\/b> January 7 broadcast with Kevin Owen spent almost 15 minutes on the US report, concluding that the \u201cfinal assessment neither implies that there\u2019s any evidence,\u201d nor proves that there are any facts.<\/p>\n

RT\u2019s Fracking Programming<\/b><\/p>\n

\"RT:<\/p>\n

Screengrab from RT<\/strong> featured in the ODNI report.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Complaints about RT\u2019s<\/b> coverage of fracking were given a prominent position in the ODNI report: \u201cRT<\/b> runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health,\u201d it stated. It went on to claim:<\/p>\n

\n

This is likely reflective of the Russian government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Vox<\/b> repeated intelligence claims about the alleged motivations for RT<\/b>\u2019s fracking coverage, but failed<\/a> to say that stories contained health and environmental impacts of fracking.<\/p>\n

Those in Congress representing the interest of the extractive industries have seized on this charge, equating anti-fracking coverage with \u201cdivisive messages\u201d such as hate speech. The Washington Times<\/b> (9\/26\/17<\/a>) reported on a congressional probe into Russian \u201cfracking-related social media ads.\u201d The committee rallied against<\/p>\n

\n

divisive social and political messages conveyed through social media [that] have negatively affected certain energy sectors, which can depress research and development in the fossil-fuel sector and the expanding potential for natural gas.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Under pressure to block \u201cfake news,\u201d Twitter<\/b> banned RT<\/b> ads, and Google announced that it would \u201cde-rank\u201d stories from RT<\/b> (and Sputnik <\/b>as well), placing them lower in search results. But while RT<\/b> is sponsored by the Russian government, it is still a legitimate international news agency, as are the UK\u2019s BBC News at Ten<\/b>, <\/i>Qatar-owned Al Jazeera<\/b>, and 20 Heures<\/b>, produced by France 2<\/b>\u2019s broadcasting service. It offers critical, alternative perspectives unavailable on other channels. It is also clearly labeled, not hidden like a bot or a fabricated Facebook<\/b> page, allowing the public knowledge of its origination and perspective.<\/p>\n

RT<\/b>\u2019s reporting bears striking similarities to alternative and independent media content, and that is why letting the charges against RT<\/b> stand unexamined is so dangerous. The actions being taken by tech giants to battle fake news are currently having devastating effects on alternative media and freedom of speech, while leaving the worst hate speech and junk news spinning across the internet by right-wing trolls.<\/p>\n

‘Professional’ vs ‘Junk’ News<\/b><\/p>\n

The way fake news is being defined in this battle is an attack on alternative journalism itself. CNN<\/b> reported (10\/26\/17<\/a>) on a study by Oxford University\u2019s Internet Institute on \u201c\u2018Junk News\u2019 and 2016 Election,\u201d finding that only 20 percent of sampled tweets contained links to \u201cprofessional\u201d news. (Together with \u201cprofessional political news,\u201d they comprise 30 percent of tweets.) \u00a0The anchor says, \u201cYou mean real news, like CNN<\/b>,\u201d to a nod of approval. Much of the rest of \u00a0Twitter<\/b> content is lumped together as ill-defined \u201cjunk,\u201d shown on a graph as \u201cpolarizing or conspiratorial: Inclu. Wikileaks<\/strong> and Russia\u201d; no mention is made of the racist, hateful or misogynist content of white supremacist trolls.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Such classifications emerge from na\u00efve technology researchers seemingly unaware that junk news and propaganda are deeply embedded within professional news brands: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, global warming is not anthropogenic and tax cuts for the rich will benefit the middle class. (Media critic Edward Herman penned a long history of the New York Times<\/b>‘ fake news about Russia, and before that the Soviet Union, that dates back as\u00a0 as the 1917 revolution itself\u2014Dissident Voice<\/b>, <\/b>7\/8\/17<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Yet in the battle against fake news, much of the best, most accurate independent reporting is disappearing from Google<\/b> searches. The World Socialist Web Site<\/b> (8\/2\/17<\/a>) reported that Google<\/b>\u2019s new search protocol is restricting access to leading independent, left-wing, progressive, anti-war and democratic rights websites. The estimated declines in traffic generated by Google<\/b> searches for news sites are striking:<\/p>\n