By now you have all likely seen the list, published by some heretofore
unknown group, of a hundred or more websites that are tools of Russian
propaganda. I won’t bother linking to it
or identifying any of the supposed offenders – suffice it to say, many sites on
the list are those that I frequent often.
I was not aware of this list when I wrote this earlier piece
on fake
news. Had I been, I would have
referenced it then and been done with it.
As it is, I won’t write much even now.
Others have done some good work: if you haven’t seen it, take a look at
this video by James
Corbett; also, this piece by Ben
Norton and Glenn Greenwald.
The entire episode is so amateur and transparent, I struggle
with figuring out what, exactly, is going on.
The first thought that comes to mind is that it is a report created by
those who want to further discredit mainstream media – for the Washington Post
or other mainstream outlets to run with this as credible given the lack of
discipline behind the “study” and lack of information about the group behind it
screams of amateur hour and desperation.
The people behind the list believed that desperate outlets would take
the bait.
My second thought is that this was planned in anticipation
of a Clinton victory, in which case life might have grown very difficult for
those behind some of the listed sites.
Given that Clinton lost – well, why not float it out there anyway…again,
desperation. The more I think about it,
the more I lean on this second possibility.
In any case, with Trump in office (maybe…let’s wait until
January to confirm), I don’t think that the life of this list is long. And in four years – whether it is Trump or
someone else in office – I don’t think it will matter. By then, outlets like the New York Times will
actually report honestly (as
they recently promised) or they will shrivel to uninteresting nothingness.
The cat is out of the bag, and without Clinton in office
this list is going nowhere. As I
concluded in my post regarding fake news:
…if you can’t tell: no
one cares what you think.
For some time now, I have broached the subject with my friends and companions about the government losing control of the narrative, and what steps they might take to regain it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there will be calls for a need to license news agencies - through an "independent" licensing agency, of course. (wink wink) Those found to be writing journalistic-type reports without a license will have their domain names seized, with a very official-looking screenshot of a seizure notice (pictures of eagles and badges and what-not) all that remains.
To do this, educators must first start explaining to young elementary-level minds the dangers of fake news. Then a movie has to be made, starring a runner-up presidential candidate, warning everyone of the impending implosion of society if fake news isn't stopped within the next decade. Throw in some charts... they're always effective. Maybe show public sentiment alone and adrift on an iceberg. This movie would then be presented without debate during a mandatory showing in schools across the country. It will take about 20 years to get the public on their side.
WaPo's Gettysburg address by Jeremy Parfitt
ReplyDeleteEleven score and nine years ago our "fathers" brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in privilege, and dedicated to the proposition that some men should rule over others.
Now we are in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on the digital battlefield of that war. We have come to destroy a portion of that field and usher in a final resting place for those dangerous few who gave their all that that nation might perish. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do this.
But, in a larger sense, we must be ruthless, we must be vigilant, we cannot cede this ground. Those men, living and dead, who struggled here have succeeded, far beyond what our hubris will admit. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say, if we fail to erase what they have achieved here. It is for us the elite, rather, to be dedicated here to the vital fight against those who have thus far so surprisingly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these questioning few we take their platform and crush that cause for which they give their full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these people shall have toiled in vain - that this nation, under us, shall have a new birth of power - and that media of the establishment, by the establishment, for the establishment, shall not perish from the earth.
Cheers,
Jeremy