The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"U.S. State Department Funds a Disinformation Index That Warns Advertisers To Avoid Reason"
Reason's Robby Soave has the details; an excerpt:
The Global Disinformation Index (GDI) is a British organization that evaluates news outlets' susceptibility to disinformation. The ultimate aim is to persuade online advertisers to blacklist dangerous publications and websites.
One such publication, according to GDI's extremely dubious criteria, is Reason….
The U.S. government evidently values this work; in fact, the State Department subsidizes it. The National Endowment for Democracy—a nonprofit that has received $330 million in taxpayer dollars from the State Department—contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to GDI's budget, according to an investigation by The Washington Examiner's Gabe Kaminsky….
Reason's rating was due to three factors, according to GDI: "no information regarding authorship attribution, pre-publication fact-checking or post-publication corrections processes, or policies to prevent disinformation in its comments section."
It is not clear precisely what GDI means—the organization did not respond to requests for comment, and it has not made its full scoring analysis available to the public. But contrary to what GDI suggests, the authorship of Reason articles is clearly communicated to readers. Reason writers link to their sources, and promptly make (and note) corrections whenever appropriate. It's true that Reason does not specifically police disinformation in the comments section; that is perhaps an area where Reason's philosophy—free minds and free markets—clashes with GDI's….
If a self-described disinformation-tracking organization wants to loudly proclaim, in partisan fashion, that advertisers should only use mainstream and liberal news sites, it has that right. But advertisers should take note of its obvious bias, total lack of transparency in detailing media outlets' scores, and other methodological issues. And the State Department certainly has no business helping to fund it.
The whole article is much worth reading.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Meanwhile, Clapper blames Politico for mis-characterizing the letter from the 51 intelligence officials concerning Hunter's laptop and Glen Kessler at the WAPO swears by it; two and a half years after the fact.
Politico's article on it was fine. But Politico's headline did misrepresent what the letter said. The headline said that the letter said it was Russian disinfo. The letter did not say that, and the article made that clear.
No, the letter was quite careful to lend the impression that the analysts had a genuine reason to believe the laptop was Russian disinformation, without actually saying that, in fact repeatedly saying they didn't know that. But closing with, "It is high time that Russia stops interfering in our democracy." Not, "Honestly, for all we know this is 100% real." shows where they wanted people to end up.
In fact, they had no basis to think it actually was Russian disinformation at all, except that you wouldn't be shocked if the Russians tried something like that.
Once again, the guy who can't figure out that someone who said "They're trying to steal the election; we have to fight like hell to stop it" was calling for people to fight like hell to stop it, somehow can find "impressions" in what everyone else says.
And, of course, you're wrong when you say they had no basis to suspect that it was, given (a) the incredibly implausible story of the alleged laptop's provenance; and (b) that it had previously been widely reported that Russians were peddling stuff to Rudy.
I guess you're the guy who's unaware that "fight like hell" is a common political metaphor.
"Look,” Biden said during the last 2020 presidential debate when asked about the laptop, “there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan.”"
It appears Biden thought the same thing as Brett.
Or, you know, Biden was campaigning for office, an activity that does not reward precision or even accuracy.
And he ought to be faulted for that. Many voters would've changed their votes had they known the laptop story was true.
Also noteworthy, he can't point to any contemporaneous tweats (i.e., pre-election, when still relevant) where he was calling Politico et al. out for "deliberately distort[ing]” his letter / statements.
Brett - one point to add - Being intelligence agents, Its highly likely most , if not all, those 51 intelligence officers knew of the extensive biden family corruption over the past 20+ years, with extensive knowledge of the Bursuma corruption (especially since it was reasonably well known in the obama whitehouse)
That may be the case but coming 2 1/2 later Clapper's comments ring hollow.
"Politico’s article on it was fine. But Politico’s headline did misrepresent what the letter said. The headline said that the letter said it was Russian disinfo. The letter did not say that, and the article made that clear."
Clapper had more than sufficient time and coverage to correct any misconceptions about what was written.
Your point being what?
Politico was not being 100% truthful, that's what.
4th paragraph of the letter -
It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.
Next 7 paragraphs - all detailing the reasons those 51 intelligence agents thought it was a russian operation.
My comment from an earkier post:
Mr. Bumble 3 hours ago (edited)
I am assuming you are referencing the Global Disinformation Initiative listing of “dangerous” sites. Here are the sites that GDI lists as least “dangerous”:
And the “Least risky sites” when it comes to spewing disinformation and propaganda? Who are they? Try not to laugh. In the order the DGI [sic] lists them, they are as follows:
NPR AP News The New York Times ProPublica Insider USA Today The Washington Post BuzzFeed News Wall Street Journal HuffPost
From a story in The American Spectator:https://spectator.org/biden-targets-the-american-spectator-in-conservative-blacklisting/
Want to talk about dangerous?
NPR is a serious offender of spewing out disinformation.
March and April of 2020 - 10+ hours a week for two weeks reporting the impossibility of the covid virus being created in a lab and the escape from a lab
Nov 2019 - 30+ hours per week during the first trump impeachment with extensive discussion of the impropriety of Trump asking for an investigation of a political opponent, but nary a word of the extensive biden family corruption.
Maybe it's time to check back with all those people who were so comfortable with Google and YouTube and old Twitter and Facebook acting as censors.
Are they still "legitimately exercising their own freedom" in this case? How much government conspiring to censor citizens before it stops being "legitimate"?
Is anyone learning anything?
"Progressives" and "liberals" only learn one lesson -- censor harder.
Perhaps we might learn not to give them the benefit of the doubt when they actively engage in evil and are entirely remorseless about it.
For various reasons, many people fail to learn over and over and over.
One lesson being the guys whining that they're being censored while banning books from libraries and removing scholarship they don't like from universities and passing laws that target minorities detrimentally might not actually care about liberty.
Most civilized societies do not let children access gay porn or race-hatred training materials.
Oh, come on. We know your complaint is that there's not enough race-hatred in the materials; you just want to target other people.
I love how you acknowledge the race hatred integral to CRT with your choice of phrasing.
Yes, but what's that to do with book-banning and academic suppression?
What books are removed from sale?
Or do you confuse "not carrying a book in a school library" with "banning"?
He thinks children should be reading gay porn in schools.
Banning books from libraries is still banning books - and hey, if they're so unacceptable in children's libraries how can they be acceptable in children's sections in bookstores? Coming soon!
'He thinks children should be reading gay porn in schools.'
BTD thinks literally all children's books are gay porn.
Nige, If I go over to my neighbor's house, and remove their copy of "Catcher in the Rye", that's banning books. If I toss the copy in my own library, that's just curation.
What we've got is the people running the local schools wanting to pretend that the government they work for isn't allowed to make curation decisions.
State-mandated curation.
Your Newspeak is coming in nicely.
Your Republicans are so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should
Government is only allowed to make curation choices that are emotionally satisfactory to leftists, people who don’t like America or Americans, and sexual groomers of children. That’s how the books got there in the first place.
It’s totally illegitimate to remove them to protect children and families. No child can ever be protected from anything if it might threaten the satisfaction of the special people in any way.
State mandated curation of the state's own libraries. You may dislike the curation decisions, but it's not "censorship" unless you're 'curating" somebody else's library.
The local school is not "somebody else" in relation to the state, unless they're a local private school.
If their curation decisions involve banning books, then banning books it is. You're tying yourself in knots to justify it.
@Nige
So if I decide to give my math textbook at my house to someone else, then that constitutes as me "banning" the book. That's the logic you're using. It's best if you lose that wrong thought.
I love how you were reflexively defending gay porn in grade school libraries and didn't even have a clue what content was upsetting the normal parents.
It's almost as if you aren't a serious person, but a character doing a job.
I love how you claim that any book banned must be, by definition, gay porn. That the claim is ridiculous is not an impediment on making it.
Some of the banned gay porn:
Lost and Found Cat : The True Story of Kunkush’s Incredible Journey by Doug Kuntz, Amy Shrodes and Sue Cornelison
Love to Mama: A Tribute To Mothers, by Pat Mora, Paula S. Barragán M.
Lubna and Pebble, by Wendy Meddour, Wendy and Daniel Egneus
My Two Dads and Me, by Michael Joosten and Izak Zenou
My Two Moms and Me, by Michael Joosten and Izak Zenou
Neither, by Airlie Anderson
Never Say a Mean Word Again: A Tale from Medieval Spain, by Jacqueline Jules and Durga Yael Bernhard
Nya’s Long Walk: A Step at a Time, by Linda Sue Park and Brian Pinkney
On Mother’s Lap, by Ann Herbert Scott and Glo Coalson
One Green Apple, by Eve Bunting and Ted Lewin
The Rough-Face Girl, by Rafe Martin and David Shannon
Running the Road to ABC, by Denize Lauture
Sulwe, by Lupita Nyong’o and Vashti Harrison
Uncle Jed’s Barber Shop, by Margaree King Mitchell and James E. Ransome
Yoko (Yoko Series), Rosemary Wells
Zen Shorts (Zen Series), by Jon J. Muth
10,000 Dresses, by Rex Ray and Marcus Ewert
14 Cows for America, by Carmen Agra Deedy, Wilson Kimeli Naiyomah and Thomas Gonzalez
Abuela, by Arthur Dorros and Elisa Kleven
All Around Us, by Xelena Gonzalez and Adriana M. Garcia
Alma and How She Got Her Name, by Juana Martinez-Neal
Amina’s Voice (Amina’s Voice Series), by Hena Kahn
And Still the Turtle Watched, by Sheila MacGill-Callahan and Barry Moser
Any Small Goodness: A Novel of the Barrio, by Tony Johnston and Raul Colon
Ashes to Asheville, by Sarah Dooley
Barbed Wire Baseball: How One Man Brought Hope to the Japanese Internment Camps of WWII, by Marissa Moss and Yuko Marissa Shimizu
The Berenstain Bears and the Big Question (The Berenstain Bears Series) by Jan and Stan Berenstain
@Nige
Gee, it's as if they contain objectionable material that's not suitable for children!
Leave the porn accessible only to adults, and leave it up to parents to teach their children to be responsible with their own bodies. We don't need these books that encourage, endorse or glorify sexual conduct aimed at children.
If a school is run by the government, that means the government makes the decisions. Should we teach 5th graders how to use a dildo and provide graphic educational materials on the subject? Should we indoctrinate children with leftist ideology? Things like that.
If a school is not run by the government, then the government need not have any say in the matter and the decision can be made by private parties.
No-one said you don’t have blatantly deceptive pretexts for it.
What's deceptive about it? Public schools have been sharing objectionable books to children. That's not what taxpayers want.
Gee, I wonder why they think there's disinformation in the comment section here.
Where's the "disinformation" in any of this? There have been numerous cases of public school staff sharing objectionable material to children, to the point that even gays have become opposed to what's happening. So why are you defending this?
Why don't these librarians and leftists go up to children on the street or at the park and hand out these books if it's so important that children have access to them?
Answer: Because they would be arrested and might end up on the sex offender registry. The deniability they get from making the books available in the library avoids that.
Have these books been banned from public libraries and bookshops yet, then, if they’re that objectionable? When will that start? When will possession of these books be deemed an offence and the possesors be put on the sex offender registry?
Some books that will get you on the sex offender registry:
At the Mountain’s Base, by Traci Sorell and Weshoyot Alvitre Before She Was Harriet, by Lesa Cline-Ransome and James E. Ransome Chik Chak Shabbat, by Mara Rockliff and Kyrsten Brooker Cow on the Town: Practicing the Ow Sound, by Isabella Garcia Dreamers, by Yuyi Morales Dumpling Soup, by Jama Kim Rattigan, and Lillian Hsu-Flanders Fry Bread: A Native American Family Story, by Kevin Noble Maillard and Juana Martinez-Neal The Gift of Ramadan, by Rabiah York Lumbard and Laura K. Horton Grandfather Tang’s Story, by Ann Tompert and Robert Andrew Parker Hush! A Thai Lullaby, by Minfong Ho and Holly Meade Islandborn, by Junot Díaz and Leo Espinosa Little Night/Nochecita, by Yuyi Morales Looking for Bongo, by Eric Velásquez
Read my reply above. These activists have no place in encouraging children to read sexual content.
>And the State Department certainly has no business helping to fund it.
That's just what a disinformation appologist / "Putin Stooge" would say...
Don't forget "insurrectionist."
The people in charge just don’t give a shit about anyone’s rights any more. Take the political question out of it and simply ask yourself why the US government should be giving money to an effort like this at all for any reason. There’s no justification, but they can do this with impunity because they’ve been doing it (and even escalating it) for some time now and there’s never any consequence for it. Hell the entirety of one political party and at least a portion of another and the majority of the media are cheering them on.
And this morning I saw an article where Bill “Davos” Gates says we should adapt AI to roam the internet snuffing out wrongthink on climate change and health and stuff. So that’s what’s coming and good luck finding anyone to try and stop it.
'why the US government should be giving money to an effort like this at all for any reason.'
Is it because of all the disinformation that has been targeted at US elections? (Obligatory: they should know, they do the same to other countries.)
'wrongthink'
I wouldn't trust AI to sniff its own virtual armpit, and Bill Gates even less, but pretending that deliberate disinformation about these topics doesn't exist is, again, dumb.
"I wouldn’t trust AI to sniff its own virtual armpit, and Bill Gates even less"
Lies. You'll keep supporting all the censorship. At least, as long as your feeble mind perceives that it's likely to be directed at people and viewpoints you dislike.
What censorship? I criticise the removal of books from libraries and government banning of academic scholarship all the time.
If an educational institution is run by the government, then it is run by the government. Seems axiomatic, no?
If it isn't, then it isn't.
You are trying to make operational decisions out to be banning/censorship. Someone makes those decisions one way or another. If you are against the government doing it, that's an argument for private enterprise.
That's because they are banning/censorship/supression.
On the contrary, removing books from circulation isn’t automatically banning, censorship or suppression.
If I give my math textbook to a friend, with your logic, I am “banning”, “censoring”, “suppressing” a branch of mathematics from my house. But it doesn’t work like that. Lose your disingenuousness.
You're using the lie of authority to dodge any criticism of the policy.
Pretty sure Biden does all sorts of stuff you don't like and manage to criticize just fine.
Have some dignity and be consistent.
You're deluding yourself if you think curating is somehow the same as banning. It isn't.
>blockquote>Lies. You’ll keep supporting all the censorship. At least, as long as your feeble mind perceives that it’s likely to be directed at people and viewpoints you dislike.
Are you describing the authoritarian right-wingers who support the Volokh Conspiracy's repeated partisan censorship?
On the contrary, we want to keep children protected from sexual content. Keep the porn only for adults, and leave body responsibility to parents.
But sure, go ahead and protect groomers, you totalitarian.
"but pretending that deliberate disinformation about these topics doesn’t exist is, again, dumb."
The problem is pretending that these efforts are actually aimed at "deliberate disinformation" rather than just dissent.
No, the problem is pretending deliberate disinformation is a form of dissent.
Yeah, yeah, I get it: As long as you think the censors are on your side, they can do no wrong.
What censors? The only censorship that's been identified is the right-wing book banning and teacher muzzling that's going on.
Quite the contrary, you missed out the entire collusion among left-wingers in the government and large companies with regards to censorship of dissenting voices. Look it up, Robby's been covering it for a while now.
But sure, go defend the idea of children having access to sexual content. See where that takes you, Randal.
Censors are never on your side but if somone posts a list of best and worse sources in terms of disinformation I can usually judge for myself how accurate they are. And if someone thinks that's censorship, then you have to wonder why.
It's censorship because flagging is a form of suppression. That's exactly what the Biden administration has orchestrated, among other censorship tactics like shadow banning.
You're delusional to believe otherwise.
Maybe you should pay attention to the fact that the money isn't coming directly out of the State Department as some kind of "Help-Joe-Biden" slush fund; it's a small allocation of funds spent by the NED, which is one of a few foundations set up by the U.S. to support liberal democracies across the globe.
That is why disinformation is part of the mandate. You can't support vulnerable democracies across the world without some attention to the forms of hybrid warfare that autocrats and meddlers engage in to try to corrupt governments and undermine democracies. Setting aside whatever you might believe about Russian and Chinese interference in American media, we can observe these efforts in many other countries. Practically every country you can think of has had some kind of disinformation scandal (or catastrophe, when it's helped spur genocides) in recent years.
Now, you can certainly ask whether the U.S. government should be supporting liberal democracy in other countries. I am not really sure why any American would be ambivalent about doing so - and I think a strong U.S. requires alliances with other liberal democracies, not autocratic regimes that are invested in corrupting and degrading our own government - but that is the core of the question. Reason's intentional re-framing of the issue - to make it all somehow be part of the "Twitter Files" and the "weaponization of the U.S. government against free speech" - is misleading and far beside the point.
Shutting down speech and supporting liberal democracy is not the same thing. In fact, it’s the opposite.
And where did I say anything about Biden?
What speech has been shut down?
See the collusion between government and Big Tech. Robby's been covering it for a while.
What happened here is Simon wrote out an excellent explainer as to what is actually happening and why (as opposed to whatever you think is happening and why). Then you either ignored everything, or are entirely incapable of understanding, what he wrote.
I suggest you read The Twitter Files to see what's actually been happening. It's thorough and well-sourced, give it a shot. SimonP's observation is inaccurate.
You should try reading what people write, including your own comments. Simon politely explained the reality to you and you completely ignored every word that didn't fit your outrage narrative.
"The people in charge just don’t give a shit about anyone’s rights any more."
What a huge assumption to think you're including Biden in that statement - you know, the actual President.
Of course to a political chucklehead like you it makes no difference that the compliers of the “disinformation index” are engaging in disinformation. Because it’s ok if your side does it.
You have no comprehension skills whatsoever if you think I have a 'side.'
I've literally stated a dozen times on this very site, that I am not, never have been, and never will be affiliated or registered to a political party of any persuasion.
You're nothing but an unknown Tucker Carlson wannabe. Rageragerage, facts be damned. Do you also wear a bowtie?
Your strawmanning problem is not getting better.
Look at you, supporting spending tax money to suppress sites like reason.
You’re crying about fascism without recognizing that you’re the fascist.
Exactly how is Reason being "suppressed?"
Read Robby's article about the nature of the GDI:
https://reason.com/2023/02/14/global-disinformation-index-state-department-list-risk-reason/
The organization has been actively involved in censoring opposing viewpoints. Based on your other posts, you have become willfully ignorant of this, or are just outright dishonest. Either way, lose it.
'the compliers of the “disinformation index” are engaging in disinformation'
That's a defensible claim. Please go ahead and do so.
Read my reply to Randal above. The GDI is actively involved in censorship. Why defend it?
I saw an article where Bill “Davos” Gates
My dude....
Doesn't invalidate his post.
I’ve been reading/perusing Reason’s main page since the VC moved here. I think any reasonably-informed person would agree that it’s a misinformation shop. A clear editorial agenda, routine employment of “fake news” techniques (e.g., mischaracterizing and cherry-picking resources, citing its own coverage as “evidence,” repetitive re-framing of stories). The uncritical and sometimes hyperbolic coverage of the “Twitter Files" is demonstrative. Not a peep that I’ve seen about the recent congressional testimony cutting against their preferred narrative on that topic. Reason’s coverage is also often deeply misleading on topics curiously relevant to wealthy oil and gas tycoons. Funny, that.
Eugene, you’ve attached this blog to that misinformation, and the more you favorably link their coverage (or, in this case, their own weak rebuttal to a thoroughly accurate characterization of their coverage), the more you make clear to your readers that you’re not an honest dealer.
Now do the "lowest-risk" outlets listed in the report. (Don't forget BuzzFeed and HuffPost!)
I am not familiar with either BuzzFeed or HuffPost, because I consider those trash sites. The other outlets - which span a broad range of editorial perspectives - seem to be properly ranked.
We have both kinds of music: country & western.
Which perspectives do you think the "lowest-risk" outlets lack, exactly?
Well, the obvious answer, since this is Reason, is a libertarian perspective.
But, you know, pretty much anything to the right of Joe Biden. (I assume you'll attempt to point to the WSJ on their list as a counterexample, but the WSJ news pages are nothing like their editorial pages. The latter are hard right; the former are generally indistinguishable in perspective from the other outlets cited.)
Now, I'm not bothsidesing things; I've said here before that the right wing media ecosystem has essentially abandoned the journalistic endeavor. (Some of them may never have attempted it, while others — like FNC, for instance — used to at least try.) You can't compare the liberal slant of CNN to the MAGA propaganda arm OANN. Or the liberal NYT to the Federalist. The former in each group are doing news with a progressive slant; the latter are doing conservative clickbait commentary.
FNC used to provide news with an obvious bias; the Trump era drove off anyone there aspiring to be a journalist — e.g., Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith. — and left them with only Trump talking heads.
Generally agree with your comment.
"You can’t compare the liberal slant of CNN to the MAGA propaganda arm OANN. Or the liberal NYT to the Federalist. The former in each group are doing news with a progressive slant; the latter are doing conservative clickbait commentary."
Well, you can compare, as well as contrast. I agree the general difference is as you describe. However the manifest intentions and bias are comparable in revealing an orientation of activism and seeking to influence perceptions toward political ends. Each side is just doing that in different ways that are calculated for maximum effectiveness in their different contexts.
I used to watch CNN a lot. Under Trump, they became the anti-Fox News, anything the other guy's leader did or said was wrong 100% of the time.
This was not an improvement. They seem to be getting better, but any time Trump seems to be running, back at it.
Which is fine, but recognize this. Descending to Fox "Benghazi for 4 years for Hillary" News is going the wrong way.
"but any time Trump seems to be running, back at it."
They will be the same way for anyone on the right who isn't a neocon, with exponentially increasing intensity the more that person presents a viable political threat.
Oh no, they'll say DeSantis is the presentable, house-trained Trump, like they used to do features on presentable Nazis. They'll bring up his record on covid, book-banning, academic supression and anti-trans legislation about as often as they brought up Trump's tendency to cheat and lie.
@Nige
You're only validating M L's point.
- Florida turned out to be very well off with its COVID response, considering its high elderly population
- As stated above, the curation of books is nothing like banning them. Even then, children should not have any access to books with sexual content in it.
- No suppression has happened in regards to academics. Even then, if these school programs have been funded by taxpayers, then taxpayers should have a word at how they're run. You cannot have taxation without representation.
- The bill is to prevent teachers from coercing children into an ideology that makes sexuality a central part of life. Had you done any actual research, you'd find out that these teachers have very sinister motives. This isn't "anti-trans", as you claim.
- Transgenderism has no validity to it. It's sheer pseudoscience.
- The press like CNN has been dishonest before, like promoting the Trump-Russia hoax.
Do you really want to defend the grooming of children from teachers? Don't let this be the hill to die on, Nige. Stop spreading the lies you spew!
I assume you’ll attempt to point to the WSJ on their list as a counterexample, but the WSJ news pages are nothing like their editorial pages. The latter are hard right; the former are generally indistinguishable in perspective from the other outlets cited.
Yeah, it's almost as if there existed a rough consensus on what constituted unbiased news, which publishers of differing ideologies could nevertheless recognize and adhere to.
I guess that's one way of describing the journalism schools pumping out PR agents for the Democratic party.
How many journalism schools did you attend and graduate from, Brett?
You wouldn't be talking out of your ass here, just like you did about your flu statistics, would you?
Where do you think the younger journalists learned their contempt for objectivity, anyway? In J-school, obviously.
Journalists are systematically more contemptuous of the notion that they should cover all sides of a story than the general public.
So the answer to my question then, is 'zero.'
Understood.
Interesting use of the word 'contempt,' considering the data doesn't show anything of the sort. More mind-reading on your part in a subject matter you have absolutely no knowledge or experience of?
I noticed you seem to be incapable of reading the words I wrote regarding your flu statistics. You wouldn't be ignoring them in favor of pretending you weren't flatly wrong, would you? I only ask because it's the third time I've brought it up, and you've now struck out, having ignored all three.
Someone of your age shouldn't have such a problem admitting you were wrong.
@Jason Cavanaugh
Brett showed you evidence of the lack of credibility in journalists, and all you did was attack him directly by asking him if he attended any journalist schools. That doesn’t refute his argument, that’s just your own fallacy of an ad hominem attack.
You also haven’t pointed out where he was supposedly wrong.
You are being disingenuous. Repent of your error.
Yeah, no ideological blinders there...
The problem, Simon, is that to you "misinformation" means "everything you don't agree with". Why should anybody pay attention to your opinion?
No, the problem is that YOU think that's what misinformation means to other people. It's not the people who disagree with misinformation you have to worry about, it's the people who agree with it.
No, the issue is that the outlets that claim objectivity are in fact not so. Why should we trust them to be the arbiters of truth when they have demonstrated that they shouldn't be trusted?
bevis has done his research, Many of these outlets have not. Why support the latter with their censorship?
I suggest you watch a Munk debate called "Be It Resolved: Don't Trust Mainstream Media" and see why the GDI is incorrect at labeling disinformation, let alone encourage censorship:
https://youtu.be/nvaf7XOOFHc
No, I've read enough "misinformation" to have a good sense of when the author is trying to pull one over.
Even Reason's critical "reporting" on its treatment by the GDI is purposely obfuscated. They cite another disinformation tracker - NewsGuard - that is supposed to be superior, for no reason other than its methodology being more transparent. So what is its methodology? Well, that takes some digging... until you find that their nine "apolitical" journalistic criteria are heavily subjective, providing ample opportunity for the importation of bias. And when you compare those criteria against Reason's actual coverage, one wonders how in the world NewsGuard could possibly have ranked Reason well. Misleading headlines? Obscure ownership and hidden conflicts of interest? Repeating falsehoods and cherrypicking? All of these are routine on Reason's front page, and yet NewsGuard gives them a sterling rating. Maybe this should not be surprising for an organization founded by a former WSJ op-ed columnist and board member who's published with AEI and the Heritage Foundation.
Reason can't even defend against accusations of peddling disinformation without peddling in disinformation about those accusations! What a piece of shit website this is.
Needless to say, SimonP is lying. (What does "Obscure ownership… is routine on Reason's front page" even mean?)
Newsguard isn’t a ‘disinformation’ measure, it’s a ‘conformity’ measure i.e., they define a few traditional journalistic outlets as “trustworthy” and then measure how close you match their reporting/analysis.
I don’t think you’re particularly qualified to predict what such a person would do.
I mean, you're full of it in general, but the whole point is that this group did not identify any 'disinformation' from Reason while nevertheless asserting that Reason risks disinformation.
If there has been any specific instance in which you think I've demonstrated my total, abject ignorance, please feel free to cite it.
Government should not be the arbiter of truth spoken against it?
Government should not be the arbiter of truth spoken against it?
Also? Government should not be the arbiter of lies spoken against it. Easy peasy, but do you conclude from that government should thus make funding decisions which empower lying, empower truth telling, or ignore truth and falsehood altogether?
Simon, you've attached your comment to that misinformation too, you are part of the problem.
But ironically GDI's rating of reason is almost all dis-information:
"no information regarding authorship attribution"
I never see anything here or on the main page that doesn't list the author.
"pre-publication fact-checking"
Reason is actually better than most mainstream news sources because they don't use anonymous sources that can't be checked.
"or post-publication corrections processes"
I've seen corrections here and on the Main page, but most of the content is opinions.
"policies to prevent disinformation in its comments section."
Of course they have a robust policy to counter disinformation in the comments: other commenters to call them out.
Generally, when Reason is scamming you, (And they do, sometimes, but I think no more often than most media outlets.) it's lies of omission, not commission. You can almost count on their criminal justice stories about how somebody has been wronged omitting key details.
For instance, that story they ran on the woman who 'mistakenly' filed an affidavit saying she'd gotten her right to vote back, got prosecuted for it, and convicted. For an innocent mistake!
If you looked up the details, you found that the crime she'd been previously convicted of, that left her a felon, was coaching people to file fraudulent affidavits, and say it was an innocent mistake if they were caught.
Gee, I wonder why the judge didn't believe her excuse? You think maybe that would have been worth mentioning?
Using editorials and opinions as cover for misinformation is pretty much the standard operating procedure for most (actual) fake news sources. Fox news makes most of its money off of Tucker and his ilk while using real, daytime news to hook in unsuspecting viewers. Then !Whamo!, they get caught up in the post-work fear-monger buffet that culminates with Tucker espousing replacement theory.
On the contrary, they’re transparent in saying that it’s their own opinion. Kazinski’s reply stands: if you think they’re wrong, then tell them why they’re wrong.
The same can’t be said about the likes of The New York Times, who pretend to give objective news when in actuality they’re filled with slant and lies of omission. That is a far more destructive mode of journalism, but once again, can be called out on.
I myself am calling you out for your misinformation. Kazinski is still correct.
If Reason was gay, the VC would be its beard.
Exactly. But then Eugene would turn out to be a lesbian.
And yet neither of you have been able to provide any counterarguments against those who have refuted SimonP.
The irony of a group publishing a list about disinformation and yet being totally opaque about its methods.
"U.S. State Department Funds a Disinformation Index"
So the index is disinformation? They shouldn't label their disinformation programs as such, kinda defeats the point!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981)
What a great use of $330 million dollars.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
$330 million was the budget of the NED, not the amount spent on this list.
Yes. And it should be cut to zero.
Do you know what the NED is? It's a Cold War era effort to promote American values overseas, in ways that the CIA couldn't because its brand was toxic in most countries. Obviously back then the NED was focused extensively on anti-communism, which is less salient now, but it still attempts to promote democracy and liberty.
Now, I understand your position: since MAGA is on the other side in the democracy vs. authoritarianism battle, it's bad to promote American values.
It was a Cold War entity which continued to exist after the Cold War was over. (Good thing it's the only such entity!)
I did know that much about the NED before making my comment.
My position isn't what you said, it's simply that taxpayers shouldn't give $330 million to this nonprofit to "promote democracy overseas."
I don't see a need for that, and even if I did see a need to "promote democracy overseas," I don't trust the government or some private recipient of government funds to do that properly, or to spend $330 million honestly and efficiently in doing so.
I would hold this position even if there WEREN'T evidence that the place is staffed with leftists who are using the money to do things like suppress libertarian and conservative speech.
In general, I could be open to a compelling case that we should do some form of "promote democracy overseas," and that a government grant of $330 million to a nonprofit is a good way to do that effectively, to conduct X Y and Z specific programs that are efficient and worthwhile. But the idea is rather interventionist for my tastes.
No you didn’t know what the NED is.
I did after reading Robby Soave's article yesterday.
The problem is, NED never promoted "American values" overseas. It promoted the values of America's ruling class, essentially, which were often quite contrary to the values of average Americans.
No, it promoted American values overseas.
And you know the values of the "average American" how?
Go ask them! I'd wager the vast majority of the time it is not the same values as the ruling elite.
It promoted the values of America’s ruling class
Love it when conservatives wrap around and sound like communists.
No, seriously, remember when, after WWII, we helped Japan write a constitution? And by "helped", I mean largely dictated it?
Didn't end up anything like ours. Gee, how did that happen?
Tell me more about the invidious forces of American Capitalist Class, their running dogs, and their colonization of Japan, Brett.
You sound like a tankie.
And you are mistaken, Sarcastr0. Japan remains to have issues.
"HAL was told to lie, by people for whom lying is second nature."
Disinformation now means saying things the Government/political left don't like. So, yeah, Reason is guilty.
When the right (also in Government, by the way) likes disinformation so much, they end up in that sort of index a lot.
And you'd be mistaken. We're not the ones who suppressed the Hunter Biden story or the COVID lab leak theory for one. That was your side.
Knowing how much these government bureaucrats meddle in foreign countries, why wouldn't they also meddle in ours?
Whose going to stop them? Surely not their own principles since they do not have any.
Sue the State Department. Make them stop funding this. It is a 1st Amendment violation
How? The first amendment doesn’t prevent the government from stating opinions about the relative value of different sources of private speech. That was one of the previous administration’s favorite pastimes. "Fake news!" “Enemy of the people!”
You’re delusional if you actually think the government directing companies to censor opposing political viewpoints is the same as “stating opinions”. The former actually happened under the DNC and Biden administration; Trump did nothing of this sort.
You are being deceptive. Repent of your lies.
Same stuff, different day.
U. S. government agencies and Congressional committees, plus politically connected people and organizations, would run lists of subversives, commies, pinkos, etc. Or at least they listed those who they thought belonged in these categories.
Also, NED was simply one example of Cold War agencies trying to mold public opinion, though Congress tried desultorily to limit propaganda aimed at American citizens. A safeguard which wasn’t fully enforced and now there’s no pretense of enforcement.
There seems to be some idea in these comments that the key question is how the people should be propagandized by their own government, not whether it’s legitimate. That’s based on the commenter’s assessment of what propaganda is true, and *that* can be influenced by the government’s propaganda about propaganda.
And let’s not get started on the “we’re not lobbying” lobbying activities of government agencies seeking the public’s money.
In the Before Times, there was a scandal when it turned out that the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which tried to spread anticommunist ideas in Europe and elsewhere, was getting U. S. government money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom
Who could object to anticommunism? Yet somehow government involvement, when brought to light, incited a great deal of criticism.
Lots of independent thinkers and writers who claimed to be flourishing in the marketplace of ideas turned out to be heavily subsidised, in secret, by US intelligence.
Any lessons for today?
Tucker Carlson is no Conor Cruise O'Brien.
Neither is Buzzfeed.
Preach it.
And yet you come up with excuses for the side Buzzfeed is on and only attack those who oppose them.
Disinformation Infractions List
… Site 457
… Site 458
… Reason.com: Regular posters state Replacement Theory is true.
Given that the State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, which then contributes about one tenth of one percent of that funding to GDI, and keeping in mind that disinformation includes both information that is false and information that is true but misleadingly incomplete, is it disinformation to claim that
Maybe the first step to getting off the list is to stop doing what gets you on the list.
That’s all very well if you believe that
-the government will remain leftist and
-the government will always support your version of leftism.
But what if the government intervenes in inter-left disputes as well as “left/right” disputes, and regards left-wing dissent with as much suspicion as right-wing dissent? It’s not as if left-wing governments have traditionally been friendly to dissenting forms of leftism.
Look at the nastiness between admittedly radical feminists who oppose the “trans” cause, and leftists who support that cause.
Look at the left-wing discontent with corporate dominance of the culture and the economy – while pro-administration leftists are willing to take it as a given and work with friendly corporations.
Look at the Democratic Party's hostility to the left-wing Green Party.
Can you be sure in advance that your version of leftism will always be the same as the government’s? Because if you deviate, soon you’ll be labelled a misinformation purveyor yourself.
And you’ve proved too much with your “just the tip” argument – even if the whole $330 million went to GDI you’d still be able to argue that it’s only a minuscule portion of total federal expenditures.
'-the government will remain leftist and
-the government will always support your version of leftism.'
The idea that the sort of people who run schemes like NED, with its origins in the Cold War, are leftists is pure fantasy, as is the idea that the US government is leftist.
Yours is an intra-leftist “True Scotsman” dispute, not about the NED of 1983, but about NED at age 40.
Also, you may want to look into antisoviet leftists - their enemies even had a name for them, "Cold War liberals." They helped get NED off the ground. Right-wingers were involved as well, though I don't think it was a right-wing idea to subsidize a group which promotes Buzzfeed while encouraging boycotts of Reason.
If you should depart from the plantation and criticize, say, corporate influence on the Biden administration, you would be the wrong kind of leftist and would have to worry about the same censorship pressures as a MAGA organization.
Yours is a 'we rely on disinformation so heavily we stenuously object to even the mildest calling out.'
'I don’t think it was a right-wing idea to subsidize a group which promotes Buzzfeed while encouraging boycotts of Reason.'
No, it's just that one has less disinformation than the other.
'corporate influence on the Biden administration,'
Don't get me started. He's WAY too deferential to the fossil fuel industry despite acknowledging the threat of the climate crisis.
'the same censorship pressures as a MAGA organization.'
Complaining about being cesnored and being censored are not the same thing, especially coming from groups that rely so much on disinformation.
“Don’t get me started. He’s WAY too deferential to the fossil fuel industry despite acknowledging the threat of the climate crisis.”
You see, that’s the sort of thing which, if you take it too far, would make you the wrong kind of leftist.
In one state, the proadministration leftists of the Democratic Party used Trumpian conspiracy theories about electoral fraud to try and keep the Green Party off the ballot. They failed miserably, at least as far as ballot access was concerned, but they succeeded if their purpose was harassment.
I'm not 'the wrong kind of leftist.' It's not leftist to think that ignoring the causes and effects of the climate crisis will make it go away, and giving in to the same people who made trillions in profits creating this situation is a bad idea.
That's excellent, but if you're too threatening to the dominant strain of liberalism, you'll get hassled like the Greens.
Nobody gives a shit about the US Greens. Not even to hassle them.
"Democrats Bareknuckle Green Party off North Carolina Ballot"
"“I told her, ‘What you’re doing now makes Democrats look very desperate,’” said Harney, a registered independent. “But, more importantly, it goes against the democratic process because you’re actively trying to ensure another party doesn’t make it onto the ballot.”"...
"Harney is one of more than a dozen signers mentioned in the lawsuit who reported receiving intimidating messages, calls or home visits.
"These signers said some canvassers declined to identify themselves or falsely claimed to represent the Green Party or the elections board. Others said they were sent by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – the driving force working to elect [Senate candidate] Beasley and other Democratic Senate candidates nationwide."
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-07-29/democrats-barenuckle-green-party-off-north-carolina-ballot
Like I say, they got on the ballot eventually, after fighting a combination of Trumpian claims and downright intimidation.
Nobody gives a shit about the US Greens.
The article I cited rebuts this.
That article is not going to make anyone give a shit about the US Green Party.
You said nobody cared enough about them to hassle them, when clearly that's not the case.
@Nige
Doesn't change the fact that The Margrave of Azilia proved you completely wrong.
Yours is an intra-leftist “True Scotsman” dispute
Love how to so many on the right, liberalism is many and varied and also authoritarian and lock-step.
the proadministration leftists of the Democratic Party
Those Joe Biden and Kamala Harris leftists!
Good lord, you've robbed the word of any meaning. Leftists, if they vote Dem at all, do so very grudgingly.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a leftist. Not everyone who disagrees with me is a right-winger.
Well, I’d say Biden is a leftist, but I’d also say the establishment as a whole is a strange amalgam of ultra-wokism and corporate power, and let’s assume for purposes of argument that the latter is non-leftist.
Agitate too hard for worker rights, whether you’re right or left or unclassifiable, and you’ll be thwarted – you’ll find that putatively leftist institutions are pretty much corporate culture warriors whose commitment to worker justice is limited to unisex bathrooms (but not necessarily bathroom breaks).
If I’m knee-jerkingly taking attention away from that reality and alienating leftists, let me walk back some of that along the lines given above.
"Leftists, if they vote Dem at all, do so very grudgingly."
So long as you vote for them, they don't care if you're holding your nose or not. Biden wasn't chosen for his charisma.
The way to get on their bad side is not to support their election (remember the U. S. Green party). Try it and see.
Um... I feel like you're describing "how politics works in a free-speech democracy."
Denial of workers' rights?
It is literally true that the money originally came from the government, but it is disinformation to imply that the government directed funding to GDI, or that it used the NED as a smokescreen to covertly fund GDI.
In your alternate scenario, where all the money funnels through NED to GDI, those accusations would be defensible. In the reality we are stuck with, however, they are not.
"Once money goes out, who cares where it ends up, it's not my department!"
Well, yeah. That's the whole reason non-profits like NED exist. Otherwise it would be another office within the State Department.
If public money ends up with a censorship group, either the State Department which spent the money didn't know it would happen - in which case they're culpably negligent - or else they did know - in which case...
Anyway, neither scenario makes the govt look good, and either scenario involves the government promoting censorship. The fact that they use accounting gimmicks doesn't make it better.
"Censorship group?" They don't even have the power to censor. Nothing they're doing could remotely be described as censorship.
"The ultimate aim is to persuade online advertisers to blacklist dangerous publications and websites."
So? That's called "political activism." Now, you might not think the State Department should be doing political activism, and you might even be right. But censorship? You're crazy, and by crazy I mean desperately seeking grievances. The only thing worse than cancel culture is grievance culture. Man up man!
You're nuts.
You think when PETA does a boycott and says “the ultimate aim is to persuade online advertisers to blacklist dangerous publications and websites” that they’re doing censorship? That’s some new definition of censorship that reminds me of the left’s new definition of racism. Everything counts. You telling me I’m nuts is an attempt to discredit me and therefore it’s censorship. I mean, if that’s what you want ok, but then everything everyone does is racist censorship so I’m not sure how that’s useful.
Maybe I should get a federal grant to organize an advertising boycott against you. An indirect federal grand of course, making sure the money is laundered properly.
I expect you could find a billionaire or two willing to fund such an enterprise
@Nige
At least neither you nor Randal can seem to deny that government censorship has been happening now.
This is already how it works. There's no need to imagine. And guess what? The "wrong" leftists aren't pretending that their voices are being silenced and throwing a years-long hissy.
How much have you been hearing about "democratic socialists" lately? That whole Bernie / AOC sideshow was put down. But they're not so stupid to think that they're being somehow censored. It's just how debates go in societies that value free-speech. Sometimes you're not getting traction, and you have to decide whether to switch gears, double down, or be a crybaby.
The right has chosen crybaby. This is you:
"The world is flat."
"Well, you're wrong and stupid."
"Wah wah my voice is being silenced!"
No it isn't, you're completely free to keep going on about the flat earth. Or decide to smarten up. Either one would be better than all this cringe whining.
You act like you're ignorant of the treatment of the Green party by the government. And don't let's get started on the TERFS.
The terfs! Hahahaha please, tell me all about the terfs and greens rotting in jail for their impermissible speech.
So as long as they're "merely" fighting against their ballot access with Trumpian election fraud claims and voter intimidation...it's all OK?
Are the greens claiming that they're being censored? What are you even talking about? What do overzealous Democratic activists have to do with Reason being accused of misinformation?
Maybe there could be only one line on the ballot, for the legitimate, Democratic candidate. That wouldn’t be censorship, would it?
The ruling party - or at least the party in control of the federal executive - finds its money going to support boycotts of news outlets which happen to oppose the ruling party, and to encourage advertising in outlets which happen to support the party.
That same ruling party doesn't like competitors on the ballot except for their parners in the duopolistic party cartel.
Obviously not. Except under your new definition of censorship in which it's a synonym for "everything."
Assuming you missed it,
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-07-29/democrats-barenuckle-green-party-off-north-carolina-ballot
Now, let's say you're reading an article in the New York Times about the ruling party in, say, Hungary or Russia working to keep competing parties off the ballot. Do you begin to see the problem?
It's a problem, sure.
Maybe there could be only one line on the ballot, for the legitimate, Democratic candidate. That wouldn’t be censorship, would it?
No, it would not be censorship. The problem is that you're calling everything "censorship" for some reason.
OK, I’ll call it “a problem.”
The problem is that the ruling party – or at least the political duopoly and the associated establishment – wants to put everything under its bootheel. Censorship is one method of doing this.
If “censorship” isn’t the term for listing only some parties but not others on the ballot, then call it by some other name – election misinformation, or vote suppression.
Great. And also, what GDI is doing is problematic (possibly), but not censorship.
lol
'Censorship is one method of doing this.'
This is a list. On the other hand, books are being banned from libraries and scholarship being suppressed in academia.
The Attorney General's List in the Cold War was a list.
But it's good to know that educational censorship (if, as you insist, it is happening) cancels out other forms of censorship outside the academic context. That is reasssuring.
Margrave, folks are not cut out to set up in public as policy critics if they get the vapors when people in government dislike what the critics say. For pity’s sake, your expressive freedom is protected by the Constitution itself. Act like it. Laugh at your government critics, and publish stories to mock them. The Constitution gives the upper hand to the critics, not to the government.
Again, this is about public money going to a censorship organization. That shouldn't happen.
Nothing is being censored. It's a list.
"The ultimate aim is to persuade online advertisers to blacklist dangerous publications and websites."
That's not censorship.
Laundered government money pays for prior restraint on publications deemed undesirable. If the word "censorship" isn't robust enough to cover that situation, we need new words.
I'll use what seems to be your term and call it "a problem."
It's a violation of the First Amendment, that's for sure.
This controversy will not be resolved.
In publishing, the notion of an information/disinformation distinction finds support only in context of editing prior to publication. It is not possible to implement any such distinction, or purport rationally to support it, if you advocate and practice publishing without prior editing for everything published.
That will be equally true regardless of ideology. Whoever facilitates open-access publishing without prior editing for everything published will not merely risk becoming a creator of misinformation, but will inevitably become a prolific source of misinformation.
Note that to insist on the converse would be misleading. Prior editing before publication has inherent power to reduced greatly the publication of misinformation, but never to eliminate it entirely. Editing prior to publication is necessary to prevent publication of misinformation; it will never be quite sufficient to prevent misinformation entirely. Information gathering and checking is a separate process, fraught with its own possibilities for error.
I mentioned above, "open-access publishing." In historic context, that is a new phenomenon. Its invention affects the efficiency with which editing prior to publication can be expected to prevent misinformation.
Ease of public access to a publisher's means of publication is a variable a publisher can control. Inevitably, publishers which choose to constrain or eliminate ready public access to the publishers' own means of publication will enable in principle a more reliable mix of information. To the extent that public access to publishers' own means of publication is encouraged, the task to edit to prevent misinformation becomes more difficult and less efficient.
Third parties, including advertisers, which prefer to rely on publications featuring reliable information can choose to do so. It is not yet difficult to evaluate which publishers edit prior to publication to increase reliability, or to discern which publishers encourage ready public access to the publishers' own means of publication, and thus suffer reliability to decline.
To anticipate an objection which would be well founded, editing prior to publishing becomes a bulwark against disinformation only if that is the intent of the editing. Throughout American history, biased editing has fairly often been used to systematize disinformation.
That does not affect, however, the principal assertion that a premise of editing prior to publication enables rational discussion about disinformation in publishing.
I should think it would either enable or disable it, depending on what the editors were up to.
The disaffected
right-wing professor tossing
red meat to his rubes
At least he's feeding people out of charity, unlike your totalitarian socialism. But sure, keep on with the ad hominem attacks.
Apparently, the Democrats at the DOJ are putting people on the No-Fly list if you oppose gay porn in your children's schools.
In other words, the Democrats will remove your right to fly if you don't let them groom your children to suck older homosexuals' dicks.
The No-Fly list is a constitutional abomination regardless of the criteria they use to put you on it. That said, the only article I could find confirming this was at the Babylon Bee, which is a satire site.
I mean it's possible, I notice the usual 'fact checks' that take DOJ denials as proof positive that it isn't happening, but, cite?
Maybe they just won't let you on the plane because you keep ranting about gay porn?
I think someone who speaks out against letting children access gay porn is worth listening to, no? You're being dishonest with your assessment.
Some translation is needed here. "Disinformation" and "misinformation" have both become government-speak for dissent from official narratives, especially dissent that reveals lies by the left.
I wonder if a First Amendment suit for the right to avoid paying for efforts such as the State Department's would get anywhere. Clearly that effort is intended to, and does, corrupt all the major media and influence elections in harmful ways.
Yes. And?
You won’t get one. If Casey said it at all it was in some meeting. A woman named Barbara Honegger, former Reagan Admin apparently, is the person who claims to be the person who was the source for the quote. Casey may have said it but Honegger is the person who says he said it and provided the words. It could be a direct quote, a paraphrase, a misinterpretation of what he said, or nonsense.
Oh, and there’s also someone named Mae Brussel involved who might have been the person Honegger originally told the quote to.
Well the NAACP has it on their page, so it must be true.
But yes, Barbara Honegger is the source. She said:
"I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration. The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines. As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public.”
---Barbara Honegger
So, take it as you will.
Didn't Al Gore sell his cable TV channel to Al-Jezzara?
In my experience, foreign media outlets, yeah, even including Russia Today, are often indispensable for finding out about the existence of things your own media don’t want to talk about.
Sure, you don’t want to assume that they’re giving you the straight story on them, you want to do your own research. But they have different biases from our own media, and are entirely happy to carry stories that put the US in a bad light, which is sometimes the light it OUGHT to be in.
'which is sometimes the light it OUGHT to be in.'
Hah, 'sometimes,' right. The US does stupid shitty things all over the world all the time. If there's some specific thing you think the US ought not be doing and you go to RT to find out about it, you might as well lie down, open your mouth and write Insert Lies Here on your face.
Which is why you just treat their stories as a staring point. The way you should be treating ANY media outlet's stories. ANY media outlet is going to mislead you occasionally, if you're stupid enough not to read a wide range of sources.
And the sources you don't agree with are often the most important ones to include.
Why would *anyone* go to the RT given the complete absence of a free press in Russia?
Some sources are not worth reading. State-funded propaganda is one of them.
If you’re obliged to conflate outright deception to a difference of opinion, then you’re in a bad way indeed.
Yeah, that's how epistemic closure operates. "Some sources are not worth reading!", where the ones that aren't worth reading just by coincidence are the ones that challenge your priors.
Including propaganda funded by the NED?
Not having our best interests at heart, they're willing, even eager, to cover stories that make us look bad. Sometimes such stories are real, and not being covered by our own media.
The best propaganda is the propaganda that's true, it doesn't fall apart like wet tissue paper when examined. So where that sort of story is available, they gladly cover it.
Like I said, I wouldn't generally rely on anything in RT, (Or NYT, for that matter!) but it can be a good starting point for things you might want to look into.
Like there aren't whole disinformation eco-systems out there designed to pull the gullible down rabbit holes.
As though you read Mother Jones.
Engaging in critical thinking and media analysis is not being closed minded. It is, in fact, the only way to operate in the world today.
Check out the missions of RT versus NED.
The US media is not the same as the Russian media.
Again, conservatives sounding like tankies. Quote 'Manufacturing Consent' next for the full horseshoe.
And he's right. Children should have NO access to books with sexual content.
As for bringing up the Capitol incident out of nowhere (a fallacy, mind you, considering you haven't been able to refute him), I suggest you read this:
https://reason.com/2023/03/08/tucker-carlson-describes-the-capitol-riot-as-mostly-peaceful-chaos-is-he-wrong/
And your side has not done that, it has only censored those they disagree with.
The difference is that the NED is funding an organization that is actively censoring opposing viewpoints. RT itself hasn't done such a thing.
Both organizations have a right to give their opinions and neither should be censored. How exactly do we "conservatives" sound like "tankies"? You make no sense.
And you come up with the faulty assumption that the GDI, or any of the news outlets they support, hasn't been deceptive. This is false. See the Hunter Biden laptop story for an example.
Neither them nor RT should be censored, but should be called out whenever they're wrong. That seems too much to ask by your standards.
And you're supporting such "whole disinformation ecosystems". The GDI and those they support have not been 100% truthful.