Promoting Falsehoods and Marginalizing Truth-Tellers | Scheerpost

[Phoenyx]

Found an article with the same name as this thread published earlier this month, thought it brought up some good points perhaps worthy of a discussion. I decided to post this article in large part because of the accusations made of me and others in the past that dare disagree with various mainstream dogmas. In an effort to avoid the usual mud slinging that this type of thread might bring, I decided to post it here in APP. Quoting the introduction:

**
January 20, 2023

WaPo’s Revelations About Russiagate Reporting Failures Typify Legacy Media Failures.

By Nolan Higdon and Mickey Huff / Project Censored

The Washington Post’s coverage of a January 2023 study arguing that the post-2016 coverage of Russia election meddling may have been overblown, reveals a corrosive trend in legacy news media where the personalities and outlets that perpetuate inaccurate or false news are rewarded, and the truth-tellers who expose legacy media lies are marginalized and ostracized.

The Washington Post cited a newly published academic study from the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics that concluded there was no evidence that the content suspected of being generated from Russia meaningfully impacted voters in the 2016 election. The authors wrote “we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes.” However, the Post was quick to point out that the study focused on Twitter and there was still the possibility that Russian content on other platforms such as Facebook (now Meta) could have tilted the election. However, there is no solid evidence to confirm such a claim and other previous studies by media scholars Emil Marmol and Lee Major, as well as Nolan Higdon of Project Censored, found Facebook’s reach was also minimal. They were not alone.

The study the Post referenced was hardly revelatory as even more researchers had drawn the same conclusion as early as 2016. Harvard University’s Yochai Benkler and his colleagues pointed out there was no empirical evidence that online content shifted electoral votes in 2016 and noted that cable news proved to be arguably far more influential. All of these studies found that the content from Russia was minimal in scope and influence when compared to the digital content disseminated by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s multi-million dollar presidential campaigns, which were further boosted by billions of dollars in free coverage from legacy media. Meanwhile, seasoned journalists such as Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Aaron Maté noted the flimsy sources and baseless claims so-called “mainstream” media were relying on to convince audiences that Russia tilted the election. Rather than analyze these arguments, corporate media outlets just shot at the messengers.
**

Full article:
Promoting Falsehoods and Marginalizing Truth-Tellers | Scheerpost

[anonymoose]

Found an article with the same name as this thread published earlier this month, thought it brought up some good points perhaps worthy of a discussion. I decided to post this article in large part because of the accusations made of me and others in the past that dare disagree with various mainstream dogmas. In an effort to avoid the usual mud slinging that this type of thread might bring, I decided to post it here in APP. Quoting the introduction:

**
January 20, 2023

WaPo’s Revelations About Russiagate Reporting Failures Typify Legacy Media Failures.

By Nolan Higdon and Mickey Huff / Project Censored

The Washington Post’s coverage of a January 2023 study arguing that the post-2016 coverage of Russia election meddling may have been overblown, reveals a corrosive trend in legacy news media where the personalities and outlets that perpetuate inaccurate or false news are rewarded, and the truth-tellers who expose legacy media lies are marginalized and ostracized.

The Washington Post cited a newly published academic study from the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics that concluded there was no evidence that the content suspected of being generated from Russia meaningfully impacted voters in the 2016 election. The authors wrote “we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes.” However, the Post was quick to point out that the study focused on Twitter and there was still the possibility that Russian content on other platforms such as Facebook (now Meta) could have tilted the election. However, there is no solid evidence to confirm such a claim and other previous studies by media scholars Emil Marmol and Lee Major, as well as Nolan Higdon of Project Censored, found Facebook’s reach was also minimal. They were not alone.

The study the Post referenced was hardly revelatory as even more researchers had drawn the same conclusion as early as 2016. Harvard University’s Yochai Benkler and his colleagues pointed out there was no empirical evidence that online content shifted electoral votes in 2016 and noted that cable news proved to be arguably far more influential. All of these studies found that the content from Russia was minimal in scope and influence when compared to the digital content disseminated by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s multi-million dollar presidential campaigns, which were further boosted by billions of dollars in free coverage from legacy media. Meanwhile, seasoned journalists such as Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Aaron Maté noted the flimsy sources and baseless claims so-called “mainstream” media were relying on to convince audiences that Russia tilted the election. Rather than analyze these arguments, corporate media outlets just shot at the messengers.
**

Full article:
Promoting Falsehoods and Marginalizing Truth-Tellers | Scheerpost

Wow. One of the perpetrators of fake news (WaPo) admits that it was fake news.
But we already knew that, except that the Revolution will never accept it.

[Tinkerpeach]

The idea that social media has no influence on people is absurd.

That is like saying the way you were raised has no influence on how you turn out.

Before social media your circle of friends influenced you into doing certain things and it’s no different now.

While it’s impossible to prove that social media tilted an election it certainly could have.

This is why the media is so powerful today.