Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CTV News)   Russia: U.S. media trying to influence our politics. Uh-huh   ( ctvnews.ca) divider line
    More: Ironic, United States, Russian parliamentary committee, American news outlets, U.S. presidential race, certain U.S. media, internal political situation, Federal Security Service, State Duma  
•       •       •

731 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 May 2017 at 10:23 PM (26 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-05-19 06:47:16 PM  
LoL
 
2017-05-19 09:53:36 PM  
"These mass media spreading information on the territory of Russia are part of a massive system of U.S. influence on the internal political situation in Russia."

They're spreading information! How nefarious!
 
2017-05-19 09:59:49 PM  
Payback's a biatch, ain't it boys?!?!
 
2017-05-19 10:00:52 PM  
Crying a river over here, really...
 
2017-05-19 10:27:42 PM  
MSM not showing enough shirtless pictures of Putin?
 
2017-05-19 10:28:48 PM  
Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself.
 
2017-05-19 10:29:42 PM  
Cry me a Volga...
 
2017-05-19 10:31:29 PM  
What goes around comes around, tovarich.
 
2017-05-19 10:32:23 PM  
They don't have politics, they have a dictatorship.

fark Russia.
 
2017-05-19 10:32:55 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-05-19 10:39:07 PM  
Influencing our politics is why the 1st Amendment exists.
 
2017-05-19 10:40:53 PM  
Wait until immigration from former Soviet states to the US is banned.   That should take care of the undue influence of America.
 
2017-05-19 10:41:26 PM  
Good. I hope the FBI installs Alexei Navalny to replace Putin for as far as I care.
 
2017-05-19 10:54:10 PM  
In Russia.........come over here closer to me, so that I may strike you.
 
2017-05-19 10:56:13 PM  

fusillade762: "These mass media spreading information on the territory of Russia are part of a massive system of U.S. influence on the internal political situation in Russia."

They're spreading information! How nefarious!


You have to remember,  Russia is a country where the state routinely murders reporters.   He's being serious.
 
2017-05-19 11:01:49 PM  
Goose meet gander.
 
2017-05-19 11:10:26 PM  
silly Russians.  that's what the CIA is for.
 
2017-05-19 11:18:24 PM  
In Russia, U.S. media influence YOU!
 
2017-05-19 11:40:04 PM  
Of course US is trying to influence whatever it can within the boundaries of the law in all global affairs.

Same with Russia.

I am not mad at Russia for conducting a propaganda campaign.  I am just disappointed in my fellow US citizens that it was so effective.

Now if they farked with the physical voting boxes, that is a different issue.

If they bought air time to show a photoshop of Donnie slapping a puck thru the five-hole of goalie played by Hillary and it got Bubba to care enough about hockey and elections to vote against the goalie, well then, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
 
2017-05-19 11:42:36 PM  
"Our" politics? Oh Vlad, the gall; the sheer arrogance.

s3.postimg.orgView Full Size
 
2017-05-19 11:45:07 PM  
Oh, you are serious? Let me laugh even harder.
 
2017-05-19 11:46:30 PM  

El Trolo: "Our" politics? Oh Vlad, the gall; the sheer arrogance.

[s3.postimg.org image 561x214]


None of these is true.
 
2017-05-19 11:54:24 PM  

Hyjamon: Of course US is trying to influence whatever it can within the boundaries of the law in all global affairs.

Same with Russia.

I am not mad at Russia for conducting a propaganda campaign.  I am just disappointed in my fellow US citizens that it was so effective.

Now if they farked with the physical voting boxes, that is a different issue.

If they bought air time to show a photoshop of Donnie slapping a puck thru the five-hole of goalie played by Hillary and it got Bubba to care enough about hockey and elections to vote against the goalie, well then, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.


Propaganda? No problem, but I draw the line at hacking political email accounts. That was Illegal Interference plain and simple.

Fortunately, any competent campaign from here on out will do what the French did (they actually did something smart) and run a counter hacking team behind the scenes which setup thousands of dummy emails and servers full of trash to throw hackers off the scent of the real ones. Mix that with some planted wannacry viruses for them to play with for snooping and you have yourself a good time.
 
2017-05-19 11:59:41 PM  
We don't need to influence you directly.
We and the West just keep sending all the things you want to buy...

This has been this way for over a century, if not more.
FACT
 
2017-05-20 12:04:53 AM  

NathanAllen: El Trolo: "Our" politics? Oh Vlad, the gall; the sheer arrogance.
[s3.postimg.org image 561x214]

None of these is true.


Momentary subterfuge aside, they belong to the American People.
Poot pot isn't an American Citizen. I stand by my jpeg.
 
2017-05-20 12:05:52 AM  
Deadbeat Donny would never do that!
 
2017-05-20 12:14:34 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-05-20 12:14:40 AM  

keldaria: Hyjamon: Of course US is trying to influence whatever it can within the boundaries of the law in all global affairs.

Same with Russia.

I am not mad at Russia for conducting a propaganda campaign.  I am just disappointed in my fellow US citizens that it was so effective.

Now if they farked with the physical voting boxes, that is a different issue.

If they bought air time to show a photoshop of Donnie slapping a puck thru the five-hole of goalie played by Hillary and it got Bubba to care enough about hockey and elections to vote against the goalie, well then, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Propaganda? No problem, but I draw the line at hacking political email accounts. That was Illegal Interference plain and simple.

Fortunately, any competent campaign from here on out will do what the French did (they actually did something smart) and run a counter hacking team behind the scenes which setup thousands of dummy emails and servers full of trash to throw hackers off the scent of the real ones. Mix that with some planted wannacry viruses for them to play with for snooping and you have yourself a good time.


we seem to be in agreement in principle; just drawing lines at different spots.  DNC chair falls victim to a phishing scam?  again, not mad at the foreign entity for trying; disappointed that it worked.  brute force hacking a DNC chair email?  gray area for me.  We have to assume all foreign-abled entities are trying it...setting your password to "12345" vs "horseStapleBattery420" then who's to blame?  Foreign entity for trying or US civilian/campaign for being bad at IT security measures?  I leave $100 grand in cash on my front lawn vs. in my master bedroom closet..both are on my property but only one storage area would be covered by insurance if it was stolen.

not being snarky, but in future elections such distinctions will need to be made.

/not an IT guy for sake of discussion
 
2017-05-20 12:31:46 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-05-20 12:36:12 AM  
I guess they kind of have a point sort of.  I'm not aware of any straight forward government sponsored campaign to influence Russian politics (that I'm aware of).  But I guess our media reporting unfavorable news about Putin could reasonably be seen as trying to influence their politics?  Maybe?
 
2017-05-20 12:40:06 AM  

mattj1984: I guess they kind of have a point sort of.  I'm not aware of any straight forward government sponsored campaign to influence Russian politics (that I'm aware of).  But I guess our media reporting unfavorable news about Putin could reasonably be seen as trying to influence their politics?  Maybe?


If a political system cannot sustain contact with factual information, I humbly submit that the political system is the source of its own problems.
 
2017-05-20 12:46:41 AM  

keldaria: Hyjamon: Of course US is trying to influence whatever it can within the boundaries of the law in all global affairs.

Same with Russia.

I am not mad at Russia for conducting a propaganda campaign.  I am just disappointed in my fellow US citizens that it was so effective.

Now if they farked with the physical voting boxes, that is a different issue.

If they bought air time to show a photoshop of Donnie slapping a puck thru the five-hole of goalie played by Hillary and it got Bubba to care enough about hockey and elections to vote against the goalie, well then, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Propaganda? No problem, but I draw the line at hacking political email accounts. That was Illegal Interference plain and simple.

Fortunately, any competent campaign from here on out will do what the French did (they actually did something smart) and run a counter hacking team behind the scenes which setup thousands of dummy emails and servers full of trash to throw hackers off the scent of the real ones. Mix that with some planted wannacry viruses for them to play with for snooping and you have yourself a good time.


but her emails!
 
2017-05-20 01:00:54 AM  

Gawdzila: mattj1984: I guess they kind of have a point sort of.  I'm not aware of any straight forward government sponsored campaign to influence Russian politics (that I'm aware of).  But I guess our media reporting unfavorable news about Putin could reasonably be seen as trying to influence their politics?  Maybe?

If a political system cannot sustain contact with factual information, I humbly submit that the political system is the source of its own problems.


I think the problem is that the "Facts" are distilled/rephrased/altered to fit the Scandal == Ratings metric....  I truly believe that free and open media is gone, and that the Fark I enjoyed pre-Obama has been assimilated into the collective....
 
2017-05-20 01:12:00 AM  
Russian "Election"
 
2017-05-20 01:17:43 AM  

Fenrisulfr: Gawdzila: mattj1984: I guess they kind of have a point sort of.  I'm not aware of any straight forward government sponsored campaign to influence Russian politics (that I'm aware of).  But I guess our media reporting unfavorable news about Putin could reasonably be seen as trying to influence their politics?  Maybe?

If a political system cannot sustain contact with factual information, I humbly submit that the political system is the source of its own problems.

I think the problem is that the "Facts" are distilled/rephrased/altered to fit the Scandal == Ratings metric....  I truly believe that free and open media is gone, and that the Fark I enjoyed pre-Obama has been assimilated into the collective....


What facts do you believe have been "distilled/rephrased/altered?
 
2017-05-20 01:21:53 AM  
A projection so large that the nearest civilizations thousands of light years away can see it with their most powerful techonologies.
 
2017-05-20 01:24:48 AM  

Fenrisulfr: Gawdzila: mattj1984: I guess they kind of have a point sort of.  I'm not aware of any straight forward government sponsored campaign to influence Russian politics (that I'm aware of).  But I guess our media reporting unfavorable news about Putin could reasonably be seen as trying to influence their politics?  Maybe?

If a political system cannot sustain contact with factual information, I humbly submit that the political system is the source of its own problems.

I think the problem is that the "Facts" are distilled/rephrased/altered to fit the Scandal == Ratings metric....  I truly believe that free and open media is gone, and that the Fark I enjoyed pre-Obama has been assimilated into the collective....


But what is that belief based on?  Why do you think NYT or WaPo journalists are less credible now than in, say, the 1970s?  Why is covering scandals now a dishonest ratings grab, while covering scandals in the 70s and 80s was "free and open media"?  What, specifically, changed in the Obama era to change things?

I think free and open media still exists as much as it did before.  I think it is just much easier for people to find alternate "facts" and theories that they like better because, and use those as "proof" that media is now corrupt.
 
2017-05-20 01:39:31 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Fenrisulfr: Gawdzila: mattj1984: I guess they kind of have a point sort of.  I'm not aware of any straight forward government sponsored campaign to influence Russian politics (that I'm aware of).  But I guess our media reporting unfavorable news about Putin could reasonably be seen as trying to influence their politics?  Maybe?

If a political system cannot sustain contact with factual information, I humbly submit that the political system is the source of its own problems.

I think the problem is that the "Facts" are distilled/rephrased/altered to fit the Scandal == Ratings metric....  I truly believe that free and open media is gone, and that the Fark I enjoyed pre-Obama has been assimilated into the collective....

What facts do you believe have been "distilled/rephrased/altered?


It depends - What are you saying: the relevant FACTS? - Because so far everything has been innuendo, rumor, and "anonymous inside sources"'... That is where I think modern media has gone.... Would be interesting if there were a credibility stock exchange where truth == higher stock prices.....
 
2017-05-20 01:40:29 AM  
No influence, no influence! You're the influence!
 
2017-05-20 01:43:17 AM  
So there is an vast untapped market for advertising in Russia
 
2017-05-20 01:56:23 AM  

rogue49: We don't need to influence you directly.
We and the West just keep sending all the things you want to buy...

This has been this way for over a century, if not more.
FACT


This is one of the things that has bothered me for the last 40 years.  We could literally be controlling the world if we had focused on production and exporting our society instead of fighting stuipd little wars that just make people hate us.
 
2017-05-20 01:57:50 AM  

Fenrisulfr: Because so far everything has been innuendo, rumor, and "anonymous inside sources"'... That is where I think modern media has gone....


"Anonymous inside sources" have ALWAYS been part of political reporting, practically since political reporting began.  Important details of Iran-Contra were known from anonymous sources, Watergate had "Deep Throat".  Without anonymous sources we would simply have much less information, because sources with inside knowledge would either face sanction, or legal ramifications, or be unable to provide any more information if they were revealed.  It's why we have judicial precedent on revealing journalist sources, and political reporters have even gone to jail instead of revealing sources in some cases.  The credibility of those anonymous sources can be discerned and corroborated relatively easily either by other sources or by the responses of the people involved.

That aspect of reporting is no different now than it was 40 years ago  Why do you suddenly find it objectionable or suspect?
 
2017-05-20 01:58:26 AM  

haknudsen: rogue49: We don't need to influence you directly.
We and the West just keep sending all the things you want to buy...

This has been this way for over a century, if not more.
FACT

This is one of the things that has bothered me for the last 40 years.  We could literally be controlling the world if we had focused on production and exporting our society instead of fighting stuipd little wars that just make people hate us.


There is a lot more money to be made for the powers that be in fighting little wars than just exporting products and culture.
 
2017-05-20 02:00:02 AM  

Gawdzila: Fenrisulfr: Gawdzila: mattj1984: I guess they kind of have a point sort of.  I'm not aware of any straight forward government sponsored campaign to influence Russian politics (that I'm aware of).  But I guess our media reporting unfavorable news about Putin could reasonably be seen as trying to influence their politics?  Maybe?

If a political system cannot sustain contact with factual information, I humbly submit that the political system is the source of its own problems.

I think the problem is that the "Facts" are distilled/rephrased/altered to fit the Scandal == Ratings metric....  I truly believe that free and open media is gone, and that the Fark I enjoyed pre-Obama has been assimilated into the collective....

But what is that belief based on?  Why do you think NYT or WaPo journalists are less credible now than in, say, the 1970s?  Why is covering scandals now a dishonest ratings grab, while covering scandals in the 70s and 80s was "free and open media"?  What, specifically, changed in the Obama era to change things?

I think free and open media still exists as much as it did before.  I think it is just much easier for people to find alternate "facts" and theories that they like better because, and use those as "proof" that media is now corrupt.


I really do not think it does anymore... in the Mass communications age(Radio/Tv/Internet) "Facts" are pushed, not pulled....  I.E. if you just listen to the narrative you are faced with you are TOLD how you MUST think....

The problem is, The people we entrust to provide us truthful, accurate information have a different agenda. They feel THEY are in charge of the "facts"... WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
 
2017-05-20 02:06:26 AM  

Gawdzila: Fenrisulfr: Because so far everything has been innuendo, rumor, and "anonymous inside sources"'... That is where I think modern media has gone....

"Anonymous inside sources" have ALWAYS been part of political reporting, practically since political reporting began.  Important details of Iran-Contra were known from anonymous sources, Watergate had "Deep Throat".  Without anonymous sources we would simply have much less information, because sources with inside knowledge would either face sanction, or legal ramifications, or be unable to provide any more information if they were revealed.  It's why we have judicial precedent on revealing journalist sources, and political reporters have even gone to jail instead of revealing sources in some cases.  The credibility of those anonymous sources can be discerned and corroborated relatively easily either by other sources or by the responses of the people involved.

That aspect of reporting is no different now than it was 40 years ago  Why do you suddenly find it objectionable or suspect?


Because I actually remember watching Walter Cronkite's and Tom Brokaw's coverage of it????.........
 
2017-05-20 02:08:45 AM  

NathanAllen: They don't have politics, they have a dictatorship.

fark Russia.


It's more like the Matrix than a dictatorship.

The population is given a choice, and honestly there aren't any good opposition figures that can keep a lid on Russia.

Weak leaders either don't make it, or get railroaded.

Russia is no more of a dictatorship than the US 2-party system is a democracy...
 
2017-05-20 02:10:28 AM  

Fenrisulfr: Gawdzila: Fenrisulfr: Gawdzila: mattj1984: I guess they kind of have a point sort of.  I'm not aware of any straight forward government sponsored campaign to influence Russian politics (that I'm aware of).  But I guess our media reporting unfavorable news about Putin could reasonably be seen as trying to influence their politics?  Maybe?

If a political system cannot sustain contact with factual information, I humbly submit that the political system is the source of its own problems.

I think the problem is that the "Facts" are distilled/rephrased/altered to fit the Scandal == Ratings metric....  I truly believe that free and open media is gone, and that the Fark I enjoyed pre-Obama has been assimilated into the collective....

But what is that belief based on?  Why do you think NYT or WaPo journalists are less credible now than in, say, the 1970s?  Why is covering scandals now a dishonest ratings grab, while covering scandals in the 70s and 80s was "free and open media"?  What, specifically, changed in the Obama era to change things?

I think free and open media still exists as much as it did before.  I think it is just much easier for people to find alternate "facts" and theories that they like better because, and use those as "proof" that media is now corrupt.

I really do not think it does anymore... in the Mass communications age(Radio/Tv/Internet) "Facts" are pushed, not pulled....  I.E. if you just listen to the narrative you are faced with you are TOLD how you MUST think....

The problem is, The people we entrust to provide us truthful, accurate information have a different agenda. They feel THEY are in charge of the "facts"... WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?


You excel at unsubstantiated assertions. You also seem to misidentify your statements of opinion as fact. If you want to talk about credibility, you may want to check yourself.

As for anonymous sources, remember this: while the identity of a particular source may be protected, that doesn't mean that the reporter gets to keep that identity secret. His or her editor knows the identity of the source, there is always confirmation from multiple sources (all of which may be confidential), and legal has already spoken to the source to confirm the accuracy of the content. Unnamed sources have always been a staple of professional journalism, and there are very clear, well-established, bright line rules about how they are handled. Mistakes occur, but they are exceedingly rare. You should become a more knowledgeable consumer of information.
 
2017-05-20 02:20:31 AM  

BMulligan: Fenrisulfr: Gawdzila: Fenrisulfr: Gawdzila: mattj1984: I guess they kind of have a point sort of.  I'm not aware of any straight forward government sponsored campaign to influence Russian politics (that I'm aware of).  But I guess our media reporting unfavorable news about Putin could reasonably be seen as trying to influence their politics?  Maybe?

If a political system cannot sustain contact with factual information, I humbly submit that the political system is the source of its own problems.

I think the problem is that the "Facts" are distilled/rephrased/altered to fit the Scandal == Ratings metric....  I truly believe that free and open media is gone, and that the Fark I enjoyed pre-Obama has been assimilated into the collective....

But what is that belief based on?  Why do you think NYT or WaPo journalists are less credible now than in, say, the 1970s?  Why is covering scandals now a dishonest ratings grab, while covering scandals in the 70s and 80s was "free and open media"?  What, specifically, changed in the Obama era to change things?

I think free and open media still exists as much as it did before.  I think it is just much easier for people to find alternate "facts" and theories that they like better because, and use those as "proof" that media is now corrupt.

I really do not think it does anymore... in the Mass communications age(Radio/Tv/Internet) "Facts" are pushed, not pulled....  I.E. if you just listen to the narrative you are faced with you are TOLD how you MUST think....

The problem is, The people we entrust to provide us truthful, accurate information have a different agenda. They feel THEY are in charge of the "facts"... WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

You excel at unsubstantiated assertions. You also seem to misidentify your statements of opinion as fact. If you want to talk about credibility, you may want to check yourself.

As for anonymous sources, remember this: while the identity of a particular source may be protected, that doesn ...


Blah, Blah, Blah.... Unsubstantiated allegations.....    Gossip Porn.......
 
2017-05-20 02:22:09 AM  

Fenrisulfr: I really do not think it does anymore...


I know you don't.  I asked why you think that.  Instead you're just giving me more things you believe.  Why do you believe these things?


Fenrisulfr: in the Mass communications age(Radio/Tv/Internet) "Facts" are pushed, not pulled....  I.E. if you just listen to the narrative you are faced with you are TOLD how you MUST think....


I don't really think that a reporter having an opinion is particularly a problem if you know how to separate an opinion from a factual statement, which isn't all that hard to do.  A reporter trying to place factual information within a analytical narrative isn't telling you "how you must think", they are simply giving context to factual information to help understand it.  No news report in history has ever just been a stream of facts with no discussion or context.

I mean, do you think Edward R. Murrow didn't do some editorializing?  That doesn't mean that the facts he was reporting were incorrect; you're free to disagree with any reporter's analysis about the facts they present. You're not obligated to swallow things whole.


Fenrisulfr: The problem is, The people we entrust to provide us truthful, accurate information have a different agenda.


What agenda is that?


Fenrisulfr: They feel THEY are in charge of the "facts"... WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?


They aren't "facts", they're facts.  I don't think we need to do anything about it because, frankly, separating factual information from the analysis surrounding them isn't all that hard.  People have been doing it for ages.
 
2017-05-20 02:24:37 AM  

Fenrisulfr: Because I actually remember watching Walter Cronkite's and Tom Brokaw's coverage of it????.........


And can you tell me, specifically and substantively, what is different about them that makes their factual information credible, and a modern newscast's factual information NOT credible?
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report