Go to Appearance > Menu to set "Primary Menu"
Category archive

Propaganda - page 5

Guerrilla warfare against the State Media

The Illegitimate President

by

 

In the wake of Tuesday’s news debacle that arose from the, now infamous, “Russian Dossier” on President-Elect Trump, it may be prudent and beneficial for us to take a step back and briefly examine the history and timeline of the smear jobs and de-legitimacy tactics being perpetrated by those in opposition to President Trump’s impending confirmation.

 

Buzzfeed’s blatant and mud slinging, amateur attack on Trump this week was just another stone thrown at the President-Elect in a seemingly desperate attempt to try and derail his inevitable ascension to the highest office in the nation. The Trump campaign has faced a, noted and documented, journey through a firestorm of increasing opposition and attacks from both the progressive left and the establishment, including increasing abandonment from many in the Republican party itself.

 

As Trump first declared his intentions to run for President, he was merely laughed off by every personality, celebrity, pundit and “expert” in the national spotlight. Instead, much off his support and exposure came through grassroots movements and alternative media sources such as  Drudge Report, a site which many claim won Trump the election as it boasted a record amount of traffic during the election season, while also enjoying boosts in support after Wikileaks released bombshells that helped to sink his opponent.

 

The post mortem to this realization was, of course, the rise of the now infamous “Fake News”, originally expounded by many in the alternative media in an effort to decry the falsities of the Mainstream Media, it was hijacked and redirected by these same establishments onto the originators in an attempt to discredit the news outlets and sources who reported truths rather than lies and helped awaken much of the American populace to the lies and agendas of the Hillary campaign and it’s globalist masters.

 

As the campaign grew and swelled with support while surviving the numerous attempts on it’s progress, both from Republican members such as Jeb Bush, who has now been linked to an original instigator in this latest “Russian Dossier” report, Paul Ryan and the decrepit War Hawk Senator John McCain, and the threatened coup by the established Republicans during the RNC, opposition began to shift gears. The coordinated efforts seemed to slow as more petty smear attacks were launched through the media. What is becoming more apparent now though as we are a mere week out from the swearing in of Mr. Trump is that the final attempt on his affirmation is once again a sick twist and reversal of facts and former allegations against the establishment and its Clinton puppet.

 

As November 9th fast approached President-Elect Trump began espousing his fears of tampering, hacking and voter fraud by the establishment in an attempt to rig the election and guarantee the nomination of their pet candidate. This was summarily and viciously shot down by many in the Mainstream Media who were quick to turn the valid concerns into another mockery and slam against Mr. Trump’s legitimacy as a candidate. Many puppet sites that masquerade as “truther” and “fact checker” sites sprung up posting impassioned opposition to these claims. The now notorious progressive owned site, Snopes, was the flag bearer during this time for the many impassioned, progressive millennials desperate for reassurance in their seemingly radicalized opposition to Trump.

 

The great irony and final push to unseat Mr. Trump arose in the wake of his hacking allegations and his monumental victory on election day. Now, with the release of these questionable documents the Mainstream Media, the political establishment and their globalist masters are making their final push to upset and stop Mr. Trump from becoming President Trump.

 

The Russian Dossier is the final stroke to the plan to stop his election. By raising fears and conditioning the public to accept, without being shown evidence of, Russian hacking during the election, the Mainstream Media has successfully silenced and halted any risk of exposure of their own election frauds while making it seem as though Mr. Trump was placed upon the Presidential seat by his apparent stalwart ally, Vladimir Putin and his Russian cronies, through, wait for it, election fraud. Just another reversal of truth in the same vein as the “Fake News” controversy. The reports this week are now being used in a salacious attempt to cement Trumps obvious alliance with Russia and lend further credence to the reason behind and validation for Russian hacking, going so far as to question seemingly routine contact between the two parties as they attempt to twist the Russian plant narrative even further.

 

The progression of this narrative is, if it were in some way true, eerily convenient for the establishment that failed at turning the people against Trump. Then failing in spectacular fashion at overturning the election through an absurd recount and finally failed at intimidating the Electoral College into abandoning its constitutional responsibility to vote the will of the people.

 

The framework for a final blow is now being laid with many “reputable” paragons of truth in the Mainstream Media beginning to propagate the idea of Trump as a Russian plant, and by extension, allowing the idea of impeachment to now be sown. A seed which will no doubt be snatched up and regurgitated ad nauseum by the many crestfallen progressives, millennials and snowflakes who must view this new world as though it is nearing a post apocalyptic chasm of no return with the near certain ascension of their personal dark lord.

 

With the Mainstream media content to resort to smear jobs and personal attacks on the incoming President, and his cabinet, one must now take greater responsibility in fact checking and researching what is being delivered to the public and question everything in an effort to avoid the continuance of “Fake News”. Disinformation and propaganda from media puppets will continue long into President Trump’s term as the establishment and its minions are putting all their efforts into now delegitimizing the incoming President in order to undermine his efforts and oppose progress from his cabinet after failing to prevent his nomination. While the President-Elect certainly has many of his own flaws, this rabid fear and resistance by the establishment and the world’s elites is hopefully a sign that Mr. Trump may actually be the dangerous outsider, come to threaten the rotten core that is the establishment, that many who voted for him hope he will be. But greater than that, potentially slim hope, is the fact that the cracks in the facade that is the Mainstream Media are growing, and through them the American public is beginning to see that there is a very real elite establishment with an agenda of it’s own that cares little for its fellow man.

 

The Trump Hunt Continues

by
[maxbutton id=”3″ ] [maxbutton id=”4″ ]

As concrete evidence about Russian hacking in the 2016 Presidential Election continues to seem more like an obsessive dream rather than reality for many in opposition to President Elect Trump, the prevalence of daily smear jobs on the president-to-be is ramping up. After the CIA told the American public, in not so many words, that they didn’t need to see the evidence supporting the now infamous allegations about Russian involvement and should merely trust them, there seems to be a new tactic in the road to discredit Donald J. Trump. With fake news  currently being such a nebulous topic, and seemingly little accountability present in some of the bigger culprits, namely CNN and the Washington Post, in the Mainstream Media, blatant smear campaigns are now being launched in an attempt to stoke outrage in opposition from a populace that seems more inclined to let others tell them what to think and how to feel than to do so for themselves.

 

Today, another nail in the proverbial coffin that continues to accept more of the dying remains that was the Mainstream Media’s former credibility, was hammered home as, the questionably reliable at best, website Buzzfeed published what it claimed were smoking gun documents alleging Trump having illicit ties to Russian. This was of course, quickly picked up and regurgitated with gusto by the likes of CNN, WaPo, MSNBC, NPR and many others as truth.

 

The great irony of this newest bombshell is the emergence of an unlikely antagonist in all this, that of a user on 4Chan who claims to be responsible for propagating the report to an overly zealous anti-Trumper Rick Wilson.. The same report that Senator John McCain, one of Trump’s most outspoken GOP adversaries, handed over to the venerable intelligence agencies for review. All this is of course, simply par for the course as the attempt by the establishment and it’s lap dogs to delegitimize Trump continues.The difference today though, is that the Mainstream Media, the establishment and those in the intelligence community at fault have succeeded in eroding even more of their waning credibility in another failed attempt at propagating disinformation and propaganda.

 

It is, however, appalling to sit back and realize just how little integrity must remain in many of these powerhouse news outlets or the governmental establishment when actions, opinions and stories are judged in light of this new, unabashed attack on a future president who has no problem calling out some of these organizations for the fake news they propagate. In the end, today’s events should raise even more questions into just how honest and trustworthy not just the Mainstream Media is but also the intelligence agencies that are supposed to have this nation’s interests at heart truly are and to what lengths they will go to further their own agendas.

 

Trump Slams CNN: “You Are Fake News”, Crowd Applauds

by

The conversation about “Fake News” hasn’t ended, it’s just getting started.


During a press-conference today (January 11th, 2017), president elect Donald J. Trump slams CNN, calling them “fake news”. A CNN reporter repeatedly interrupts and yells over other reporters demanding Trump answer a question since he is attacking the broadcast station. Trump denies his request, calling CNN a “terrible organization”.

To understand the “fake news” issue, read this NEXT

There’s a Battle Raging on The Internet Right Now: Here’s Your Cheat-Sheet to The “Fake News” Epidemic

by

Fake news began as a nebulous term propagated by the mass-media shortly after Donald Trump unexpectedly won the Presidential Election.

 

The term was hastily introduced and ill-defined by the institutions and pundits that began proliferating it. Up until the November election, the term was rarely used, but within days it became an all out emergency of misinformation, according to the mass-media.

Everything from hoax sites and Russian government propaganda, to both right and left leaning alternative media critical of the establishment have been covered under the blanket term of “fake news”.

There have even been lists created by openly biased ‘progressives’ and new, unvetted organizations that have been circulated by the media as authoritative or even newsworthy. These lists claimed many large right-leaning (and a few left-leaning) alternative news agencies are “fake news”, which predictably, sparked outrage and controversy.

The term itself wasn’t popular until Mid-November when it exploded and received a tremendous amount of coverage, virtually overnight. If you’re wondering why you should care about this at all, I’ll ask you a simple question: Is the 1st amendment of the United States constitution (freedom of speech and of a free press) important to you at all?

If it is, you’ll be horrified at the new bill that was just signed into law,  something that we will show you in just a moment. But first, let’s see if we can get a grip on what fake news exactly is

The image below illustrates the popularity spike of “fake news” on google, the largest search engine in the United States and most of the world:

Fake news

By mid-November, sitting President Barack Obama and Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton warned that fake news was a danger to the American people and needed to be “addressed quickly”, with Clinton stating:

“It is now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences. This is not about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk — lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days and do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly….It is imperative that leaders in both the private and public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives.”

Barack Obama echoed this sentiment during a joint press conference with the current Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, when he said:

“If we are not serious about facts and what’s true and what’s not — and particularly in an age of social media where so many people are getting their information in sound bites and snippets off their phones — if we can’t discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems,”

He then went on to claim it threatened democracy:

“If everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won’t know what to protect. We won’t know what to fight for. And we can lose so much of what we’ve gained in terms of the kind of democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we’ve come to take for granted,” 1

But what is fake news?

With the advent of information aggregates (search engines) we have become accustomed to ‘asking google’ what something means.

It’s convenient, but also dangerous, as we’re placing all our trust in a private conglomerate to give us objective information, or at least point us towards it. We can only make a decision with the information at our disposal so if we’re only getting one half of the story, how can we make an informed decision?

When the average person determines to understand the definition of fake news, chances are they’ll ask the search engine.

If you google what “fake news” is you will not receive a succinct definition. Instead you’ll find everything ranging from Urban Dictionary definitions, to opinion pieces from major publications. In these you’ll see the jury is still out on what defines or constitutes “fake news”.

What we’re left with to define “fake news” are the claims made by what most now refer to as the mass media or the mainstream media.

The mainstream or mass media institutions include major broadcasting stations such as: CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and the like, Major newspapers and magazines (in print and online) such as: The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, The New Yorker, Forbes, Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, etc.

This is immensely important, as decisions on how to suppress fake news are already being formed by the powers that be. Speaking pragmatically, how on earth can we address an issue if we can’t even define what we’re talking about?

Before the topic of “fake news” really took off in mid-November, the results on google were almost entirely dominated by the mass media outlets lamenting the ‘fake news crisis’, but by mid-December the search results changed rather dramatically, as the alternative media and much of “The Internet” responded in indignation; alleging hypocrisy, faux-journalism and sentiments of Orwellian censorship being expressed by the establishment news agencies.

It quickly became apparent that there is a serious divide in opinion from the mainstream news and the majority of the American people (on both the left and right) as to what constitutes fake news and what should be done about it.

To get a clear and more objective perspective on this issue, it’s important that we see what both sides are claiming.

As it was the establishment media that first began pushing the topic they consequently dominated the search engines so that their articles were the first to appear when a user typed “fake news” into google. Below are the first 5 results on the first page of google when searching for the term from Nov.1 to Nov.14:

The Media’s Identification of “Fake News”
(Google search results from November 1 – November 14)

When searching google for “fake news”, this was the first page result

Fake news

(below are links to the first 5 google results from the above image)

I’ve paraphrased and quoted directly from these sites to condense the relevant portions pertaining to this article so you can see what the mass media considered “fake news”. If you click them you’ll be taken to the original articles for reference.

1.& 2. The New York Times
  1. Misleading or outright wrong stories
  2. False stories and faux-journalism to pollute democracy with dangerously fake news
    .
3. US News:

Fake news or left-and-right leaning propaganda, parody sites, sites deliberately sharing misinformation, hoaxes, hyperpartisan, wildly distorted clickbait

4. BuzzFeed:

Aggressively pro-Trump content aimed at conservatives and Trump supporters in the USsensationalist and often false content that caters to Trump supporters

5. BBC:

Information that is not just inaccurate, but totally made up – [sites] which deliberately imitate real life newspapers to government propaganda sites, and even those which tread the line between satire and plain misinformation

In summary, these are the words or phrases we see the mass-media using the most to describe “fake news”:

  • Misleading information
  • Satire/Parody/Hoax sites
  • [Russian] Propaganda

Since the mass-media does not give us a concrete definition, let’s do some analysis on what constitutes “fake news”.

  1. Misleading information & Clickbait: .
    .

    “Misleading information” is very much open to interpretation and bias. What one person says is misleading, another will cite as absolutely accurate. Indeed, in a fast-paced digital world where everyone is competing for eyeballs, headlines can be misleading (or creative depending on your perspective), but a headline that makes a bold claim and is perhaps a little misleading is NOT a crime, it’s just shoddy journalism.
    .
    Headlines or links that invoke a reader to click based on their incendiary nature or dramatic theme are typically referred to as “clickbait”, the word meaning it’s baiting the viewer to click. Objectively, this does not always constitute a falsity, rather, it typically points to an exaggeration.
    .
    Another way to look at “misleading” would be to see it as a heavy bias, for example an article written with selectively sourced material that is cherry picked to skew the argument. This is commonplace universally and is evident in the alternative media as well as the mass media.
    .
    If “misleading information” were to be abolished as “fake”, every large news organization and alternative media outlet in the United States would be shut down. Bias is a fact of life and not inherently bad.
    .
    An attempt to create a strong case for “misleading information” constituting “fake news” would fall flat due to the subjectivity of its nature and the weak link between misleading
    .
  2. Hoax, Parody and Satire .
    .

    Although not limited to fake news stories, parody, satire and hoaxes have always existed as a form of entertainment and humor. Entertainment outlets such as The Onion create content “disguised” to look like real news but cover fake stories that are often bizarre or ludacris. This is done humorously, not with malice, and would be very difficult to take as actual news stories covering real events.

    Andy Borowitz is a well known satirist who writes a “fake news” column for The New Yorker. The New Yorker is an actual news organization covering current events, but The Borowitz Report is not. His articles twist real world concerns or issues and turn them into humorous “news stories”. Some of these stories, though usually absurd, might be easier to confuse as reportings on actual events than hoax site articles, as they’re coming from an actual news agency.
    .
    Hoax sites often differ from parody or satire by investing a greater effort to conceal the fact they are not real, established news agencies, for example abcnews.com.co which publishes articles designed to look and read like real stories but are completely contrived works of fiction.
    .
    Sites like this exist almost exclusively for driving website traffic so the owners can make money with advertisements.
    .
    Hoax sites often take trending topics or underlying sentiment the writers feel resonate with the country and create fictional news stories with wild claims hoping readers will be outraged or shocked and will in turn share the stories via social media and email, hence sending more traffic and making the site owner more money.
    .
    An example of a hoax article would be this recent article: BREAKING: Capitol Hill Shooter Identified as Right Wing Extremist.
    .
    Google has already announced plans to no longer allow sites like this to run advertisements, which is unnerving given the fact that they get to determine what is a hoax site and what is not. It would be very easy to selectively censor media outlets at their discretion.
    .
    Hoax websites are likely what most people think of when they hear news anchors and pundits talking about “fake news”. This would be due to the fact that hoax sites are often used as an example.Indeed, hoax websites are propagating fake news either to be funny or turn a profit; but they have every right to do so as entertainment, and yes some people will mistake sites like this as actual news agencies at some point, but it is beyond doubtful that anyone reads a website like this regularly and believes it to be true for long. I would say parody and satire qualify as “fake news”, but should never be banned or filtered as that requires centralized oversight to determine a story’s trustworthiness, which leaves the door wide open for censorship of actual news.Although hoax sites certainly fall under the umbrella of “fake news”, to say it is “a threat to democracy” or is leading to “real world consequences” is more than stretch.
    .
  3.  Propaganda

    Fake news.
    The “fake news” epidemic began to morph from “hoax sites” to
    “Russian Government Propaganda”, with news agencies like The Washington Post and others publishing sensational stories with dramatic claims. We’ll cover this further in just a moment.So, according to the accusers, everything from biased information, satire, clickbait, hoax sites and “Russian propaganda” is “Fake News”, but they give us no clear definition and it’s left open to interpretation unless you’re taking everything the mass-media espouses as gospel truth.

    I believe I stand with the majority of Americans on both sides when I say a much greater danger to democracy is lumping satire, propaganda, misinformation and hoax sites together, covering them with the blanket term “fake news”, and seeking some sort of draconian censorship or filter that attempts to suppress it.

    What’s interesting is that when we ask Google to define fake news we get some very different answers on the front page now than we did in November when it first broke.When searching for the definition of fake news on google in mid-December, these were the first page results. Google: define fake news
    .

    December 22, 2016

    Fake news

    (below our links to the first 6* google results from the above image)

    Again, I’ve paraphrased and quoted directly from these sites to condense the relevant portions pertaining to this article so you can see what some of those who oppose the mainstream media view as “fake news”. If you click them you’ll be taken to the original articles for reference.

     

1. Urban Dictionary

Fake newsThe following is being used as an example of fake news by the writer

.
This first result is from Urban Dictionary. If you’re unfamiliar with the site, Urban Dictionary is a crowdsourced online dictionary of slang words and phrases that was founded in 1999 as a parody of Dictionary.com and Vocabulary.com
[source].

Basically, anyone can submit a definition and volunteer editors review it and vote whether or not to post it publically. If approved, readers can upvote and downvote the definition. Many would say that Urban Dictionary is the internet’s dictionary for slang, euphemisms, oddities, internet lingo and non-traditional words or phrases used in English but not included in Websters or other traditional dictionaries.

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, New York Times, Huffington Post among many others are listed as “fake news” outlets in this Urban Dictionary definition. The accusation in the Urban Dictionary definition is clear: The majority of the media giants pushing the “fake news” stories are themselves untrustworthy and guilty of publishing inaccurate, misleading or agenda-driven information.

Clearly, we wouldn’t call Urban Dictionary definitive or the authority, but it does a pretty good job of summarizing the sentiment coming from much of the Alt-Media and a large segment of the United States and demonstrates the current polarity of opinion in the US and abroad.

2. The Daily Caller

In the weeks following Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in last month’s election, liberal journalists have launched an all-out assault on “fake news,” which some have blamed for the disconnect between political journalists and everyday Americans.

3. Wikipedia

News satire, also called fake news, is a type of parody presented in a format typical of mainstream journalism, and called a satire because of its content. News satire has been around almost as long as journalism itself

4. Fake News Checker

Fake news

Journalists Struggle To Define ‘Fake News’ Even As They Declare War On It

How Trustworthy is This Article?
Total votes: 0
Source:
Prison Planet
Publication Date:
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 14:23:24 +0000

Daily Caller | Many of those chirping about ‘fake news’ seem unable to agree on a consistent definition of what it is.

5. Politico

Don’t Fret About Fake Political News

full panic has descended upon the established media over the incidence and prevalence of “fake news,” which has been rising like methane fumes from the deeps of the Web. Transmitted to readers primarily through Facebook News Feeds, some of the more notable rogue outlets include National Report, News Examiner, World News Daily Report, ABCNews.com.co, and Empire News. A recent BuzzFeed report discovered 100 pro-Trump sites pumping out fake news from Macedonia alone.

6. Reason

This Professor’s List of ‘Fake News’ Sites Goes Predictably Wrong

How did sites like Breitbart and Red State get included?

When a rash of news stories and analysis suggested that Facebook has a “problem” with “fake news” from pretend media outlets and wondered if something needed to be done about it, I warned about the potential consequences.

When we compare these results with the results from the establishment media, we see the vast difference in opinion as to what fake news actually is. Neither the views from the establishment media or the alternative can be declared as the undisputed truth, but what we can objectively see is that there are certainly two sides to the coin.

It begins to look more like a battle between the mass-media and the alt-media than a black and white issue, with each side calling the other a liar. Interestingly, it is the establishment news that is claiming that alternative news agencies are disseminating Russian propaganda and are as untrustworthy as hoax websites whilst also stating ‘measures need to be taken’ to keep it away from the public. This is what they are CLAIMING.

They don’t even open the floor to the American people for debate, opting instead to present the term “fake news” as universally understood and agreed upon, which it clearly is not.

It’s startling to think well established and supposed authority news agencies, who are supposed to be the leaders in free press, would be sounding the alarm on “fake news”, clamoring for the suppression of information.

The “Fake News” List

There was also a list of “False, misleading, clickbait-y and satirical ‘news’ sources.” compiled and released by a university professor who is an open feminist, social justice warrior and as one might suspect, very anti-Trump. The google document linked above has since been edited to remove the sites listed during it’s initial release and viral circulation around the web.

The list drew a lot of heat from many due to the author’s openly Progressive, Left-leaning bias and her listing of several well read and established Right-leaning news sites such as Breitbart, Red State, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, World Net Daily and more.

This list was picked up and broadcasted by The Los Angeles Times on November 15th. Within days, CNN, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, USA Today and several other prominent news outlets were circulating the list as well.

Many of these articles received criticism for a lack of transparency in citing the authority (or lack thereof) of the list, failing to mention it was compiled by an openly biased college professor. The professor who released the list claims she was shocked it went viral; stating it was meant as a tool for her students, not as a definitive, authoritative list for the general public.

This list played a huge factor in increasing the popularity of the fake news issue.

What is objectively true about all this is that one individual’s opinion of a news agency being fraudulent or misleading is just that, an opinion. Whether it’s a voice from the alt-media claiming the mass-media is fraudulent, or the mass-media claiming the alt-media is fake, does not constitute a definitive truth. This would seem to be common sense, but a growing segment of the American public seem somewhat lacking in that department.

In a free and open society, professor Zimdars has every right to make claims such as these, and a free press has every right to circulate these claims. What’s dubious is a news agency decrying “misleading information” while clearly disseminating a list in a context meant to imply authority where there is little, if any.

If nothing else, it is bad journalism to promote something so obviously agenda driven while posing as an unbiased source of current events. The same would be true if the list had been claiming mainstream media outlets as sources of fake news and was circulated by agenda-driven alt-media claiming to be unbiased.

The Russian Propaganda List

By the end of November a self proclaimed “independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise” released a list entitled: An Initial Set of Sites That Reliably Echo Russian Propaganda which yet again listed many of the largest alt-media outlets as disseminators of “Russian Propaganda.

See: Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say. However, these articles and their subsequent claims were backed by very dodgy, unreliable sources.

Other major news websites such as Drudge Report (which is one of the largest US news aggregators online 2. 3. 4. ), Red State, Brietbart and many, many others were accused of being disseminators of Russian Propaganda. The claims were salacious but almost entirely unsupported by any kind of evidence apart from what a new group of anonymous volunteers by the name of PropOrNot alleged.  

The most disturbing part of this is that at least one well established mainstream news outlet, The Washington Post, reported on it as if it were an authoritative or official list created by a respected institution.

PropOrNot, objectively, is not an authority nor is it “official” in any sense.

The Washington Post article and others came under fire by many other media outlets for a lack of journalistic integrity, “McCarthyite attacks”, and the desire for blanket censorship: Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group

The Washington Post article was eventually amended with an editor’s note added to the top which reads like a disclaimer after a brutal backlash by numerous alternative media outlets. A popular financial and political website, ZeroHedge, reported on the amendment.

Of important note is that after this debacle, fake news became synonymous with Russian propaganda in the mainstream news; which is disconcerting because it could be argued that foreign propaganda is an issue of national defense, in which case the United States government would have a voice in “protecting” American citizens.

Even if it were objectively true that all the media outlets accused of being fake in the widely circulated lists from professor Zimdar and PropOrNot were indeed fake, is censorship and suppression a reasonable, ethical, or even legal solution?

Constitutional experts and informed Americans agree that the 1st Amendment is clear when addressing the rights of free speech for individuals as well as the press, and leaves very little room for passing laws that restrict the free flow of public information, even if the information is inaccurate or a flat out lie.

This is not a partisan issue, it’s an issue of one of the most basic and important rights to US citizens. Regardless of your political sway, this should sound warning bells in your own head, especially when you have the sitting President and Secretary of State claiming it’s a threat and should be dealt with quickly.  

If you lean to the left, the notion of a Trump administration filtering your news for accuracy should scare you as much as the Obama administration doing the same thing would undoubtedly scare those who lean to the right.

Administrators of the law come and go, but the foundation of the law remains. What happens when we pass laws restricting the rights of the citizens? Simply this: Power is consolidated and handed to the current leader to wield over the people.

The implications of censorship on such a scale are profound and far reaching.

Even after the backlash, the mass-media continued to push the narrative of “Russian Propaganda”, while doubling down on the allegations of “Russian Hacking” and tampering of the US presidential election. This created a big, convoluted mess and it has happened so quickly that the vast majority of Americans were not fully aware of what was taking place.  

It is enough to make one wonder if there is an agenda at play…

Lo and behold, two days before Christmas, on Friday night December 23rd, barely a month after the “fake news epidemic”, President Barack Obama signed into law the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2017). Included in this is the Countering Foreign Disinformation and Propaganda Act (H.R. 5818). The bill was initially entitled the Countering Information Warfare Act.

This bill, which was signed into law, aims to fight the war on “misinformation and propaganda” through an inter-agency panel. In layman’s terms this means there will now be an organized effort within the United States government that works to silence websites, individuals and news agencies they deem to be spreading misinformation and propaganda.

As a wise man once said:

“Well, that escalated quickly.”

What’s even more troubling is that many reading this likely have no idea any of this has taken place. You’ve likely heard about “fake news” and “Russian hacking”, but the complete lack of media coverage on the full story, and especially of the NDAA 2017 has kept the majority of Americans in the dark.

The vast majority of coverage has come from the alternative media, the same news outlets labeled as “fake news” by the mainstream media.

With trust in the mainstream media at a historic low, the power granted to the federal government to legally disseminate “counter propaganda” and silence any dissenting voices by sheer force should be enough to Ally both the left and the right together in an effort to fight a true common enemy.
.
Read this short article to learn more about Countering Foreign Disinformation and Propaganda Act

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Countering Disinformation and Propaganda in the Post 2016 Election World

by
ndaa-2017-countering-foriegn-propaganda

What is the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” hidden inside the 2017 incarnation of the NDAA that was quietly swept through the Senate and what unlawful powers does it now grant the Government?

The NDAA has been a problem for liberty minded citizens when it was originally introduced in 2012 as it allowed for the controversial “Indefinite Detainment” for any alleged Terrorist without pretense while forgoing the traditional judicial process of obtaining warrants for searching and detainment. This of course led to a firestorm of opposition from many liberty and freedom minded individuals nationally as well as globally but as is becoming too much a sad norm, the opposition was marginalized and Obama signed a bill into existence that is every bit as controversial as the Patriot Act signed by his predecessor.

So now, here we find ourselves at the annual update of this Bill, unloved by many, as it is signed by President Obama in its new form to carry forward for the perceived betterment of our nation. The bill expresses that in now more than 180 days will the government  “…establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response…”, a de facto “Ministry of Truth” to allow for the aggregation and fact proofing of all information and news that is publically broadcast.

One of the most worrying aspects to this bill is the statement that the entity will be created via a “whole-of-government” approach as implied via :

(3) to develop, plan, and synchronize, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and other relevant departments and agencies, whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign information operations directed against United States national security interests and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support United States allies and interests.

This will allow the Center for Information Analysis and Response to handpick and approve what is acceptable and allowable for the American public to hear, watch and read in regards to news and information. Essentially creating a government controlled bottleneck and filter to “freedom” of information.

Much of the desired reasoning for public acceptance for this bill is staked on the unfounded accusations of Russian tampering with the 2016 Presidential Election as the bill explicitly states in its reasons for implementation that :

(2) the Russian Federation, in particular, has conducted sophisticated and large-scale dis­in­for­ma­tion campaigns that have sought to have a destabilizing effect on United States allies and interests;

This is extremely convenient timing for an establishment reeling from a devastating blow to its global policies and desire for censorship after suffering a stunning November defeat to President Elect Trump. A result which was no doubt the motivation for such a speedy approval and ratification by a political entity that fully expected Hillary Clinton, an avid supporter of censorship and governmental control over freedom of speech and internet control, to win handily.

As a separate issue this bill should certainly be alarming but when looked at in the lens of the larger picture globally about control of information and censorship, it can be cause for even greater concern than initially considered. The U.S. government and the U.N. is not afraid to shut down and censor the internet as revealed by a Brookings Institute report that over $2.4 Billion in damages was caused in 2016 due to over 50 government led internet shutdowns and the notorious battle between the U.S. and U.N and Wikileaks, as the two global juggernauts attempt to shut down and silence the truths that are shared via Julian Assange’s brainchild. This is even more worrisome when considered beside a Wall Street Journal report earlier this fall about the distinct possibility of the U.N. acquiring control of the internet.

The War on Fake News and how the Mainstream Media has used it to try and silence voices of truth and opposition and force itself back into acceptance and validity has been well documented but has set the table for the forceful entry of this new bill, whether the public likes it or not. The bigger danger is that although the forces that fight for liberty and freedom won a victory by proxy through the defeat of Hillary Clinton, the war for the preservation of freedom of speech itself is much larger and has become exponentially more difficult against global entities that are not afraid to use brute force and blatant censorship to further their agendas.

This is due in large part to the fact that Clinton’s defeat or Trump’s victory, whichever idea you prescribe to, was ushered in due in large part to the existence of alternative news outlets and sources as well as online entities such as Wikileaks, who continue to counter and illuminate the many state fed lies that populate controlled outlets. The Main Stream Media and online juggernauts such as Facebook, now a state sponsored puppet for censorship and propaganda due to its recent partnership with the progressive controlled “fact checking” site Snopes, and Twitter, which has surfaced repeatedly in recent months for its draconian censorship and account banning practices are at the forefront of the forces that are now tasked with herding the public into acceptance of the establishment views and agendas and undermining and discrediting the alternative outlets that enabled bombshells such as the Podesta email scandal that used truth to equip the American public with facts necessary to make informed decisions rather than being led blindly into a role that the establishment desires.

Ultimately, the signing of this bill, the Fake News controversy, and the desire for control over the internet are all part of the war on freedom of speech by an out of touch and corrupt establishment. The American public would do well to heed the warnings of one of its nation’s great forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, who after newly establishing the fledgling American Republic, plainly stated :

No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.”

And not allow their right to free speech, knowledge and information be so easily revoked and stripped away nor accept facts and news as truth without their own fact checking and vetting.

 

1 3 4 5
Go to Top