“Fake news” has become an epidemic. No one, the publishers nor the readers, can be certain anymore if a story is true or not. It appears that every publisher would need an army of fact checkers to verify information in a story in the media or internet. That of course is extremely expensive and not practical at this time.
Thus, we expect that some entrepreneurs will see the opportunity and create “fact checking” entities who, for a price, will fact check each article before it is published. In the meantime, we and others who don’t have a political agenda, will do what we can to weed out the true stories from the false ones. It’s not fool proof.
One new entity, prop-or-not, suddenly surfaced out of the blue, given lots of publicity by the Washington Post. Apparently the goal is to discredit the conservative, alternative media that carries stories never seen in the major, biased media, by saying that they are either willing or unwitting agents of Russia.
They listed over 220 websites. These included the websites of very reputable people such as Congressman Ron Paul, former Reagan budget director David Stockman, former Reagan Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Imagine, they are all supposed to be Russian agents! So much for credibility.
The headline of a lead story on the site gives its’ apparent agenda:
Russia is Manipulating US Public Opinion through Online Propaganda
Some companies, like Facebook, are reportedly making efforts to identify potentially “fake news.” Facebook is said to be testing such an effort in Germany at this time. However, that may be fake news by itself.
We know from experience that Google is disinterested in weeding out “fake news” or intentionally planted false, defamatory “news.” That is very disappointing from such an enormously powerful organization. Perhaps that will change in the future. We consider it a shame that Google would unintentionally aid and abet those who want to defame people with good reputations
Of course, Google says that it is not their job. But isn’t it? Where do defamed people go to get their reputation back after it has been viciously and intentionally destroyed across the globe?
In Europe, the EU passed a law that can force Google to delete such material. It’s high time the US Congress took similar steps.
Here is an excerpt of an article on “Fake News” (from Forbes.com) involving the alleged Russian hacking of the US power grid, which was “ fake news”, and possibly another attempt to mold public sentiment against Russia. It’s probably not hard to guess where it came from. (Disclosure: I am a contributor to Forbes.com).
‘Fake News’ And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
Kalev Leetaru , CONTRIBUTOR
On Friday the Washington Post sparked a wave of fear when it ran the breathless headline “Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, U.S. officials say.”
The lead sentence offered “A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials” and continued “While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter, the penetration of the nation’s electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability.”
Yet, it turns out this narrative was false and as the chronology below will show, illustrates how effectively false and misleading news can ricochet through the global news echo chamber through the pages of top tier newspapers that fail to properly verify their facts.
Several paragraphs of additional material were added between 8PM and 10PM, claiming and contextualizing the breach as part of a broader campaign of Russian hacking against the US, including the DNC and Podesta email breaches.
Despite the article ballooning from 8 to 18 paragraphs, the publication date of the article remained unchanged and no editorial note was appended, meaning that a reader being forwarded a link to the article would have no way of knowing the article they were seeing was in any way changed from the original version published 2 hours prior.
Yet, as the Post’s story ricocheted through the politically charged environment, other media outlets and technology experts began questioning the Post’s claims and the utility company itself finally issued a formal statement at 9:37PM EST, just an hour and a half after the Post’s publication, pushing back on the Post’s claims: “We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization’s grid systems. We took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alerted federal officials of this finding.”
From Russian hackers burrowed deep within the US electrical grid, ready to plunge the nation into darkness at the flip of a switch, an hour and a half later the story suddenly became that a single non-grid laptop had a piece of malware on it and that the laptop was not connected to the utility grid in any way.
However, it was not until almost a full hour after the utility’s official press release (at around 10:30PM EST) that the Post finally updated its article, changing the headline to the more muted “Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say” and changed the body of the article to note “Burlington Electric said in a statement that the company detected a malware code used in the Grizzly Steppe operation in a laptop that was not connected to the organization’s grid systems. The firm said it took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alert federal authorities.” Yet, other parts of the article, including a later sentence claiming that multiple computers at the utility had been breached, remained intact.
The following morning, nearly 11 hours after changing the headline and rewriting the article to indicate that the grid itself was never breached and the “hack” was only an isolated laptop with malware, the Post still had not appended any kind of editorial note to indicate that it had significantly changed the focus of the article.
This is significant, as one driving force of fake news is that as much of 60% of the links shared on social media are shared based on the title alone, with the sharer not actually reading the article itself. Thus, the title assigned to an article becomes the story itself and the Post’s incorrect title meant that the story that spread virally through the national echo chamber was that the Russians had hacked into the US power grid.
Only after numerous outlets called out the Post’s changes did the newspaper finally append an editorial note at the very bottom of the article more than half a day later saying “An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.”
Yet, even this correction is not a true reflection of public facts as known. The utility indicated only that a laptop was found to contain malware that has previously been associated with Russian hackers. As many pointed out, the malware in question is actually available for purchase online, meaning anyone could have used it and its mere presence is not a guarantee of Russian government involvement.
Moreover, a malware infection can come from many sources, including visiting malicious websites and thus the mere presence of malware on a laptop computer does not necessarily indicate that Russian government hackers launched a coordinated hacking campaign to penetrate that machine – the infection could have come from something as simple as an employee visiting an infected website on a work computer.
Moreover, just as with the Santa Claus and the dying child story, the Post story went viral and was widely reshared, leading to embarrassing situations like CNBC tweeting out the story and then having to go back and retract the story.
Particularly fascinating that the original Post story mentioned that there were only two major power utilities in Vermont and that Burlington Electric was one of them, meaning it would have been easy to call both companies for comment.
However, while the article mentions contacting DHS for comment, there is no mention of any kind that the Post reached out to either of the two utilities for comment. Given that Burlington issued its formal statement denying the Post’s claims just an hour and a half later, this would suggest that had the Post reached out to the company it likely could have corrected its story prior to publication.
For the entire story, go to: http://bit.ly/2jCAIam