So About This Russian Bounty Thing
-
My comment from the Media Bias Check wasn't meant to be critical. Did you read it also said "High for factual reporting"?
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 12:40 last edited by@Catseye3 said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
My comment from the Media Bias Check wasn't meant to be critical. Did you read it also said "High for factual reporting"?
Of course I did. My point is that it mixes editorializing with "factual reporting." When words like "railing," "discordant,"and "divisive" appear in the so-called "news" section, on the front page, above the fold, it makes me wonder what other "factual reporting" The Times is doing.
-
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 12:42 last edited by
Cats, your post was about how Just The News seems to be pretty factual, while George's is about how the NYT is not. They are complementary.
-
Cats, your post was about how Just The News seems to be pretty factual, while George's is about how the NYT is not. They are complementary.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 12:44 last edited by
Remember this breathtaking news by NYT, where is it now???
No scorecard for track record I suppose.
-
Remember this breathtaking news by NYT, where is it now???
No scorecard for track record I suppose.
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 12:46 last edited by George K 7 Sept 2020, 12:47@Loki said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
Remember this breathtaking news by NYT, where is it now???
Here:
And then there's this:
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 12:46 last edited by
It got no traction and they were exposed once again.
-
AFAIK, there is no hard intelligence this actually happened.
We've got bigger things to worry about.
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 18:35 last edited byhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
"But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.
“The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior administration official said."
“This information puts a burden on the Russian government to explain its actions and take steps to address this disturbing pattern of behavior,” the official said, indicating that Biden is unprepared to walk the story back fully.
Significantly, the Biden team announced a raft of sanctions on Thursday. But those sanctions, targeting Russia’s sovereign debt market, are prompted only by Russia’s interference in the 2020 election and its alleged role in the SolarWinds cyber espionage. (In contrast, Biden administration officials said that their assessment attributing the breach of technology company SolarWinds to hackers from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service was “high confidence.”)
Putting on a tinfoil hat here, isn't it just possible that this type of disinformation was used to, ahem, affect an election?
Nah...
-
https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
"But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.
“The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior administration official said."
“This information puts a burden on the Russian government to explain its actions and take steps to address this disturbing pattern of behavior,” the official said, indicating that Biden is unprepared to walk the story back fully.
Significantly, the Biden team announced a raft of sanctions on Thursday. But those sanctions, targeting Russia’s sovereign debt market, are prompted only by Russia’s interference in the 2020 election and its alleged role in the SolarWinds cyber espionage. (In contrast, Biden administration officials said that their assessment attributing the breach of technology company SolarWinds to hackers from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service was “high confidence.”)
Putting on a tinfoil hat here, isn't it just possible that this type of disinformation was used to, ahem, affect an election?
Nah...
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 19:05 last edited by@george-k said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
"But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.
“The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior administration official said."
“This information puts a burden on the Russian government to explain its actions and take steps to address this disturbing pattern of behavior,” the official said, indicating that Biden is unprepared to walk the story back fully.
Significantly, the Biden team announced a raft of sanctions on Thursday. But those sanctions, targeting Russia’s sovereign debt market, are prompted only by Russia’s interference in the 2020 election and its alleged role in the SolarWinds cyber espionage. (In contrast, Biden administration officials said that their assessment attributing the breach of technology company SolarWinds to hackers from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service was “high confidence.”)
Putting on a tinfoil hat here, isn't it just possible that this type of disinformation was used to, ahem, affect an election?
Nah...
Yup another bit of vomit from the people who call other people liars. You can’t make this up.
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:12 last edited by
There are some people that need to roast in Hell for eternity.
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:13 last edited by
BTW...Cats, what is your opinion on this story now?
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:18 last edited by
This story was so forgettable that I had actually forgotten about it until now.
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:32 last edited by
@renauda said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
This story was so forgettable that I had actually forgotten about it until now.
Just consider us a regurgitating memory hole....
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:39 last edited by
Even if there was any truth to it at all, they may well have gotten the idea from us in the 1980's.
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:57 last edited by
"Dies in darkness" remember:
Wait...never mind:
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 21:04 last edited by
@jolly said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
Cats, what is your opinion on this story now?
I dunno. I forgot already.
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 21:08 last edited by
The WaPo fact checker (LOLGF):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/30/trumps-four-pinocchio-interview-russian-bounties/
onathan Swan, Axios: “It’s been widely reported that the U.S. has intelligence indicating that Russia paid bounties, or offered to pay bounties, to Taliban fighters to kill American soldiers. You had a phone call with Vladimir Putin on July 23rd. Did you bring up this issue?”
President Trump: “No, that was a phone call to discuss other things, and frankly, that’s an issue that many people said was fake news.”
— Exchange on “Axios on HBO,” July 29, 2020
Trump: “It never reached my desk. You know why? Because they didn’t think it — intelligence — they didn’t think it was real.”
Swan: “It was in your written brief, though.”
Trump: “They didn’t think, they didn’t think it was worthy. I wouldn’t mind. If it reached my desk, I would have done something about it. It never reached my desk because — ”
Advertisement
Swan: “Do you read your written brief?”
Trump: “I do. I read it a lot. I read a lot. They like to say I don’t read. I read a lot. I comprehend extraordinarily well, probably better than anybody you’ve interviewed in a long time.”
— “Axios on HBO” interview
Trump rarely gets fact-checked on camera, but here we have a good example of an interviewer pressing and prodding on a sensitive topic.
The president has been dismissive of U.S. intelligence reports that Russia offered bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan. (A “hoax” or “fake news,” Trump says.)
Follow-up questions in a one-on-one setting can expose the strength or weakness of a claim. When asked about reports that he was briefed on the intelligence, and why he didn’t raise the bounties in a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump started dissembling in response. -
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 21:11 last edited by Loki
The media actually helped China through our sole obsession with Russia and now we woke up and are saying holy shit how did they do all that.
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 21:17 last edited by
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 22:07 last edited by Loki
Hillary got in on the action too. Would be fun to see the talking points memo that went out and how wide the Soviet style disinformation campaign was.
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 22:14 last edited by
So all these players are spreading misinformation, or at least "unverified" information via social media.
And still, they persisted.
