How the Trump-Russia Data Machine Games Google to Fool Americans

[zoogs]

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/06/how-the-trump-russia-data-machine-games-google-to.html

I'm falling way behind in posting articles. This one was too important not to go back and dig up:

Nope. The New York f'ing Times doesnt pop up until page five. Ahead of it: Lifezette; Talking Points Memo; The Blaze; The Daily Caller; something called ntknetwork; constitution.com; GOP.com; GatewayPundit; the aptly named NewsBusters; TownHall.com; and, kings of kings, Breitbart and InfoWars.

Now, to state the obvious, the way those results are ordered isnt exactly organic. Alexa ranks the NYT at 120 globally; WaPo at 190. Now, what about the illustrious townhall.com, which had not one but two hits on page one? Its ranked at 9,109. In other words, those first four pages (four full pages of synchronized bullsh#t) are evidence of a massive and centrally managed strategic misinformation campaign being waged on your brain.

These dozens of sites are all peddling the same lie with articles published at the same time. So if you wondered whether there really was collusion and wanted to dig into the Googs to get your story straight, youd be overwhelmed by four f'ing pages of what look like news sites telling you that even Democrats say theres flat-out no evidence of collusion. So why the f#*k, you ask, are we wasting our time and resources attacking poor, duly-elected President Trump on false pretenses?

Please read it. I'm still somewhat a believer in humanity. I find it hard to believe that rational people regardless of political affiliation can remain blind to what's going on.

At the same time, we have to recognize that this reality is powerful. It does shape the worldview of many, many susceptible people. There's no way it wouldn't. Thus, neither can we be blind to the scope of the threat before us.

 

[TGHusker]

What an article. Mass propaganda machine at work. Just think if there was something like this available during WW 2 or the Cold War. This could happen with the left or the right on any topic from climate science to the current Trump messes. If you control the language you control the conversation - the facts be damned.

So, the only way to steer free of this 'mind control' I would think is to visit a multiple of websites - those that are opposing each other (and especially those that challenge your own natural bias), fact check as best you can and don't make emotional connections to the 'facts' presented until sufficient time is allowed to bear out the truth. Being willing to go where the facts lead and not one's own bias. This thread could be linked to that thread I believe Knapp started a few weeks ago about why how our bias' are formed.

 

[zoogs]

I think the 'multiple websites' defense is problematic. Rather, we must be able to discern credible, respectable sources -- which may still make mistakes and put out questionable analyses which we can debate at length -- from ill-intentioned, pot-stirring malice mills.

That can't be THAT hard to do, once someone is willing to recognize the issue.

 

[TGHusker]

I think the 'multiple websites' defense is problematic. Rather, we must be able to discern credible, respectable sources -- which may still make mistakes and put out questionable analyses which we can debate at length -- from ill-intentioned, pot-stirring malice mills.

That can't be THAT hard to do, once someone is willing to recognize the issue.

I meant multiple respected sites. But then the debate 'what is a respected site'?

 

[RedDenver]

I think the 'multiple websites' defense is problematic. Rather, we must be able to discern credible, respectable sources -- which may still make mistakes and put out questionable analyses which we can debate at length -- from ill-intentioned, pot-stirring malice mills.

That can't be THAT hard to do, once someone is willing to recognize the issue.

I meant multiple respected sites. But then the debate 'what is a respected site'?

Yep, trying to discern the "respectable sites" is tricky. Site management changes over time, different shows on the same site can have different reliability, and a site can be good on reporting some issues and not others. A couple examples are NBC, which has done a good job tracking Trump, but is likely to champion military action and disregard anti-war issues. And RT which has some shows that are reliable but others that are propaganda for the Russian state.

 

[zoogs]

That's what I mean by it can't be that tricky. I do understand the intent is to cast enough doubt to make this hard.

RedDenver, you point out a good example of a respectable outlet that nonetheless has things we may criticize them for (depending on our own politics; you and I may be quite anti-war but others are not). This is the difference between using sources and subscribing wholesale to them. If unimpeachable is the standard, then everything is fake news and then a flawed but respectable journalistic outlet such as the New York Times becomes indistinguishable from Moscow propaganda channel Sputnik or RT.

On a personal politics note, I applaud you holding NBC to that line; I feel the same.

 

[RedDenver]

That's what I mean by it can't be that tricky. I do understand the intent is to cast enough doubt to make this hard.

RedDenver, you point out a good example of a respectable outlet that nonetheless has things we may criticize them for (depending on our own politics; you and I may be quite anti-war but others are not). This is the difference between using sources and subscribing wholesale to them. If unimpeachable is the standard, then everything is fake news and then a flawed but respectable journalistic outlet such as the New York Times becomes indistinguishable from Moscow propaganda channel Sputnik or RT.

On a personal politics note, I applaud you holding NBC to that line; I feel the same.

My own take is that no site/source is going to be unimpeachable, so I use a variety of sources and also try to get outside my comfort zone and look at issues from the opposing perspective. And I also try to remain skeptical of my most trusted sources, especially opinion pieces and pieces that don't have sources linked. I find that a good tell that an article is questionable is when it doesn't contain a link back to the source material. You do have to look at the sources to see if they're legitimate though.