None Of This Is True...#DCBlackOut

[iceberg]

Was that in the OP or the article? If so, please show it to me.

I asked, because that seemed to be what you were asserting.

The fact is, leftist bed wetters have been destroying shit across the country. There is nothing false about that statement. Some twittertwat posting a picture has nothing to do with the fact most of the media is BULLSHIT. I'm not singling any of it out. It's ALL DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE OPINIONS.

Pretending as if NPR, PBS, CBS, NBS or CNNBS is fully credible makes you look like just as big a retard as those who hang on every word Hannity speaks and act as if he has no agenda.

.

I am asserting what is in the OP.

If any of that is wrong (per your claim of NPR credibility) - point it out.

On sources and media - there those that are good, better, average, and largely laughable. I rate NPR as good. CNN average. Hannity is opinion - talk show.

Edited to add - we all have to trust sources to some degree because for the most part we don't have first hand info.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

With all due respect, Coyote? If you attempt to claim that CNN is average when it come to trustworthiness then why would anyone take you seriously? CNN is what it is. They have a pronounced "slant" to their news...and that's being generous. Claiming otherwise borders on farce!

Having a "slant" or a "bias" does not mean not credible - it means it has a bias. You read it with that in mind. They all have some form of bias. Not credible in my view is a source that repeatedly provably false material, does not correct errors, and uses certain types of red flag language.

And, I would ask the same of you - why would anyone take any source of yours as "credible"?

opinions and editorials have slants and biases and are, or were, clearly marked. the fact that our regular news has evolved into editorials is quite telling in why no one knows what the hell is going on anymore. we're following opinions of the writers who are too lazy to get the facts like they should.

The news sources I tend to like offer a pretty clear distinction between editorial and opinion, and news. I really do not like the blurring of opinion and news, or for that matter, entertainment and news. Remember the old Walter Conkrite days?

heh - how about AND YOU WERE THERE movies in grade school. well, depending on how old you are.

the trouble is, salon, vox, slate and many "news" sites are nothing more than glorified opinions and editorials. that line has been hammered to death and all the time i think we're all guilty of hauling an opinion piece in here to back up how we feel. but when i see in a story adjectives that tell me how to feel - i stop. when i see "sources say" - i stop. when i see words that degrade any party in the story, i stop.

that isn't news. that's venting.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

we had riots here in town that resulted in the burning of a building that housed 4 businesses. I have seen the results with my own eyes.

I trust my own eyes over the propaganda posted by a lying Islamist operative, any day.

 

[DOTR]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

A lot of people here over the weekend were definitely buying into it. I don't know that anyone was deliberately lying, but the lies, exaggerations and misinformation were swallowed hook, line and sinker. It did its work. We all condemn the destruction and the looting, the fires, the chucking bricks at the police. But it had people screaming for blood, for shooting on sight, etc. etc.

It was worrisome.

Thank you for the article, Coyote. I knew there was a Set Your Hair On Fire campaign going on, but how do you prove it? Harder still, how do you stop people from buying it?

Speaking of disinformation...aren’t you the one who said “the church is not on fire”?

 

[Coyote]

we had riots here in town that resulted in the burning of a building that housed 4 businesses. I have seen the results with my own eyes.

I trust my own eyes over the propaganda posted by a lying Islamist operative, any day.

And clearly you, again, did not read the OP or article. But thanks for your unrelated and forgettable input

 

[Dogmaphobe]

we had riots here in town that resulted in the burning of a building that housed 4 businesses. I have seen the results with my own eyes.

I trust my own eyes over the propaganda posted by a lying Islamist operative, any day.

And clearly you, again, did not read the OP or article. But thanks for your unrelated and forgettable input

and thank YOU for identifying yourself as the lying Islamist in question.

 

[Coyote]

Was that in the OP or the article? If so, please show it to me.

I asked, because that seemed to be what you were asserting.

The fact is, leftist bed wetters have been destroying shit across the country. There is nothing false about that statement. Some twittertwat posting a picture has nothing to do with the fact most of the media is BULLSHIT. I'm not singling any of it out. It's ALL DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE OPINIONS.

Pretending as if NPR, PBS, CBS, NBS or CNNBS is fully credible makes you look like just as big a retard as those who hang on every word Hannity speaks and act as if he has no agenda.

.

I am asserting what is in the OP.

If any of that is wrong (per your claim of NPR credibility) - point it out.

On sources and media - there those that are good, better, average, and largely laughable. I rate NPR as good. CNN average. Hannity is opinion - talk show.

Edited to add - we all have to trust sources to some degree because for the most part we don't have first hand info.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

With all due respect, Coyote? If you attempt to claim that CNN is average when it come to trustworthiness then why would anyone take you seriously? CNN is what it is. They have a pronounced "slant" to their news...and that's being generous. Claiming otherwise borders on farce!

Having a "slant" or a "bias" does not mean not credible - it means it has a bias. You read it with that in mind. They all have some form of bias. Not credible in my view is a source that repeatedly provably false material, does not correct errors, and uses certain types of red flag language.

And, I would ask the same of you - why would anyone take any source of yours as "credible"?

opinions and editorials have slants and biases and are, or were, clearly marked. the fact that our regular news has evolved into editorials is quite telling in why no one knows what the hell is going on anymore. we're following opinions of the writers who are too lazy to get the facts like they should.

The news sources I tend to like offer a pretty clear distinction between editorial and opinion, and news. I really do not like the blurring of opinion and news, or for that matter, entertainment and news. Remember the old Walter Conkrite days?

heh - how about AND YOU WERE THERE movies in grade school. well, depending on how old you are.

the trouble is, salon, vox, slate and many "news" sites are nothing more than glorified opinions and editorials. that line has been hammered to death and all the time i think we're all guilty of hauling an opinion piece in here to back up how we feel. but when i see in a story adjectives that tell me how to feel - i stop. when i see "sources say" - i stop. when i see words that degrade any party in the story, i stop.

that isn't news. that's venting.

I kind of look at some of that as "red flag language" - particularly the language of demonization. But, I wouldn't relegate all of their article to that. I think you have to view it article by article and if a preponderance of them seem unsourced, full of questionable language, then relegate it to the dustbin or choose to read it very critically. For me, personally, I like to see all sides heard, with respect, on issues. I get annoyed when someone claims to present all sides - but populates one side with only the whackos. I said this before, and I'll say it again but NPR did great coverage on the last election. They talked with people across the nation, and followed up on them through out the process and even after the election to get their evolving views. They weren't whackos - they were ordinary real people, who voted for whom they voted for reasons that made sense. It was informative, dispelled stereotypes and informed. They've got a lot of this kind of reporting, so I'll stand by my support of them as a "excellent" rated source. My opinion of course.

 

[iceberg]

Was that in the OP or the article? If so, please show it to me.

I asked, because that seemed to be what you were asserting.

The fact is, leftist bed wetters have been destroying shit across the country. There is nothing false about that statement. Some twittertwat posting a picture has nothing to do with the fact most of the media is BULLSHIT. I'm not singling any of it out. It's ALL DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE OPINIONS.

Pretending as if NPR, PBS, CBS, NBS or CNNBS is fully credible makes you look like just as big a retard as those who hang on every word Hannity speaks and act as if he has no agenda.

.

I am asserting what is in the OP.

If any of that is wrong (per your claim of NPR credibility) - point it out.

On sources and media - there those that are good, better, average, and largely laughable. I rate NPR as good. CNN average. Hannity is opinion - talk show.

Edited to add - we all have to trust sources to some degree because for the most part we don't have first hand info.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

With all due respect, Coyote? If you attempt to claim that CNN is average when it come to trustworthiness then why would anyone take you seriously? CNN is what it is. They have a pronounced "slant" to their news...and that's being generous. Claiming otherwise borders on farce!

Having a "slant" or a "bias" does not mean not credible - it means it has a bias. You read it with that in mind. They all have some form of bias. Not credible in my view is a source that repeatedly provably false material, does not correct errors, and uses certain types of red flag language.

And, I would ask the same of you - why would anyone take any source of yours as "credible"?

opinions and editorials have slants and biases and are, or were, clearly marked. the fact that our regular news has evolved into editorials is quite telling in why no one knows what the hell is going on anymore. we're following opinions of the writers who are too lazy to get the facts like they should.

The news sources I tend to like offer a pretty clear distinction between editorial and opinion, and news. I really do not like the blurring of opinion and news, or for that matter, entertainment and news. Remember the old Walter Conkrite days?

heh - how about AND YOU WERE THERE movies in grade school. well, depending on how old you are.

the trouble is, salon, vox, slate and many "news" sites are nothing more than glorified opinions and editorials. that line has been hammered to death and all the time i think we're all guilty of hauling an opinion piece in here to back up how we feel. but when i see in a story adjectives that tell me how to feel - i stop. when i see "sources say" - i stop. when i see words that degrade any party in the story, i stop.

that isn't news. that's venting.

I kind of look at some of that as "red flag language" - particularly the language of demonization. But, I wouldn't relegate all of their article to that. I think you have to view it article by article and if a preponderance of them seem unsourced, full of questionable language, then relegate it to the dustbin or choose to read it very critically. For me, personally, I like to see all sides heard, with respect, on issues. I get annoyed when someone claims to present all sides - but populates one side with only the whackos. I said this before, and I'll say it again but NPR did great coverage on the last election. They talked with people across the nation, and followed up on them through out the process and even after the election to get their evolving views. They weren't whackos - they were ordinary real people, who voted for whom they voted for reasons that made sense. It was informative, dispelled stereotypes and informed. They've got a lot of this kind of reporting, so I'll stand by my support of them as a "excellent" rated source. My opinion of course.

NPR usually does. there simply isn't a way to eliminate all bias out of what we do, best we can hope for is realize we are doing it and work to stop. well unless you're doing you're opinion - then let it fly.

i got my minor in journalism and i so miss the days where people wrote about the news and doing then what is done today would have flunked you right out of college and the profession.

strange how much things can shift in a single lifetime.

 

[Coyote]

Was that in the OP or the article? If so, please show it to me.

I asked, because that seemed to be what you were asserting.

The fact is, leftist bed wetters have been destroying shit across the country. There is nothing false about that statement. Some twittertwat posting a picture has nothing to do with the fact most of the media is BULLSHIT. I'm not singling any of it out. It's ALL DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE OPINIONS.

Pretending as if NPR, PBS, CBS, NBS or CNNBS is fully credible makes you look like just as big a retard as those who hang on every word Hannity speaks and act as if he has no agenda.

.

I am asserting what is in the OP.

If any of that is wrong (per your claim of NPR credibility) - point it out.

On sources and media - there those that are good, better, average, and largely laughable. I rate NPR as good. CNN average. Hannity is opinion - talk show.

Edited to add - we all have to trust sources to some degree because for the most part we don't have first hand info.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

With all due respect, Coyote? If you attempt to claim that CNN is average when it come to trustworthiness then why would anyone take you seriously? CNN is what it is. They have a pronounced "slant" to their news...and that's being generous. Claiming otherwise borders on farce!

Having a "slant" or a "bias" does not mean not credible - it means it has a bias. You read it with that in mind. They all have some form of bias. Not credible in my view is a source that repeatedly provably false material, does not correct errors, and uses certain types of red flag language.

And, I would ask the same of you - why would anyone take any source of yours as "credible"?

opinions and editorials have slants and biases and are, or were, clearly marked. the fact that our regular news has evolved into editorials is quite telling in why no one knows what the hell is going on anymore. we're following opinions of the writers who are too lazy to get the facts like they should.

The news sources I tend to like offer a pretty clear distinction between editorial and opinion, and news. I really do not like the blurring of opinion and news, or for that matter, entertainment and news. Remember the old Walter Conkrite days?

heh - how about AND YOU WERE THERE movies in grade school. well, depending on how old you are.

the trouble is, salon, vox, slate and many "news" sites are nothing more than glorified opinions and editorials. that line has been hammered to death and all the time i think we're all guilty of hauling an opinion piece in here to back up how we feel. but when i see in a story adjectives that tell me how to feel - i stop. when i see "sources say" - i stop. when i see words that degrade any party in the story, i stop.

that isn't news. that's venting.

I kind of look at some of that as "red flag language" - particularly the language of demonization. But, I wouldn't relegate all of their article to that. I think you have to view it article by article and if a preponderance of them seem unsourced, full of questionable language, then relegate it to the dustbin or choose to read it very critically. For me, personally, I like to see all sides heard, with respect, on issues. I get annoyed when someone claims to present all sides - but populates one side with only the whackos. I said this before, and I'll say it again but NPR did great coverage on the last election. They talked with people across the nation, and followed up on them through out the process and even after the election to get their evolving views. They weren't whackos - they were ordinary real people, who voted for whom they voted for reasons that made sense. It was informative, dispelled stereotypes and informed. They've got a lot of this kind of reporting, so I'll stand by my support of them as a "excellent" rated source. My opinion of course.

NPR usually does. there simply isn't a way to eliminate all bias out of what we do, best we can hope for is realize we are doing it and work to stop. well unless you're doing you're opinion - then let it fly.

i got my minor in journalism and i so miss the days where people wrote about the news and doing then what is done today would have flunked you right out of college and the profession.

strange how much things can shift in a single lifetime.

It's interesting - there is another poster here that was in journalism, and I can tell by their content and way of presenting things. That person's OP's whether you agree or not are worth discussion (in an environment where discussion is almost impossible to achieve...).

I'm worried though, not on "bias" so much - I think we can read and weed there but on the dissemination of outright fakery such as in the OP, for purposes that could be fomenting unrest, violence, even insurrection. Fanning these protests into being much larger and much worse than they thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy. That worries me.

 

[iceberg]

Was that in the OP or the article? If so, please show it to me.

I asked, because that seemed to be what you were asserting.

The fact is, leftist bed wetters have been destroying shit across the country. There is nothing false about that statement. Some twittertwat posting a picture has nothing to do with the fact most of the media is BULLSHIT. I'm not singling any of it out. It's ALL DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE OPINIONS.

Pretending as if NPR, PBS, CBS, NBS or CNNBS is fully credible makes you look like just as big a retard as those who hang on every word Hannity speaks and act as if he has no agenda.

.

I am asserting what is in the OP.

If any of that is wrong (per your claim of NPR credibility) - point it out.

On sources and media - there those that are good, better, average, and largely laughable. I rate NPR as good. CNN average. Hannity is opinion - talk show.

Edited to add - we all have to trust sources to some degree because for the most part we don't have first hand info.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

With all due respect, Coyote? If you attempt to claim that CNN is average when it come to trustworthiness then why would anyone take you seriously? CNN is what it is. They have a pronounced "slant" to their news...and that's being generous. Claiming otherwise borders on farce!

Having a "slant" or a "bias" does not mean not credible - it means it has a bias. You read it with that in mind. They all have some form of bias. Not credible in my view is a source that repeatedly provably false material, does not correct errors, and uses certain types of red flag language.

And, I would ask the same of you - why would anyone take any source of yours as "credible"?

opinions and editorials have slants and biases and are, or were, clearly marked. the fact that our regular news has evolved into editorials is quite telling in why no one knows what the hell is going on anymore. we're following opinions of the writers who are too lazy to get the facts like they should.

The news sources I tend to like offer a pretty clear distinction between editorial and opinion, and news. I really do not like the blurring of opinion and news, or for that matter, entertainment and news. Remember the old Walter Conkrite days?

heh - how about AND YOU WERE THERE movies in grade school. well, depending on how old you are.

the trouble is, salon, vox, slate and many "news" sites are nothing more than glorified opinions and editorials. that line has been hammered to death and all the time i think we're all guilty of hauling an opinion piece in here to back up how we feel. but when i see in a story adjectives that tell me how to feel - i stop. when i see "sources say" - i stop. when i see words that degrade any party in the story, i stop.

that isn't news. that's venting.

I kind of look at some of that as "red flag language" - particularly the language of demonization. But, I wouldn't relegate all of their article to that. I think you have to view it article by article and if a preponderance of them seem unsourced, full of questionable language, then relegate it to the dustbin or choose to read it very critically. For me, personally, I like to see all sides heard, with respect, on issues. I get annoyed when someone claims to present all sides - but populates one side with only the whackos. I said this before, and I'll say it again but NPR did great coverage on the last election. They talked with people across the nation, and followed up on them through out the process and even after the election to get their evolving views. They weren't whackos - they were ordinary real people, who voted for whom they voted for reasons that made sense. It was informative, dispelled stereotypes and informed. They've got a lot of this kind of reporting, so I'll stand by my support of them as a "excellent" rated source. My opinion of course.

NPR usually does. there simply isn't a way to eliminate all bias out of what we do, best we can hope for is realize we are doing it and work to stop. well unless you're doing you're opinion - then let it fly.

i got my minor in journalism and i so miss the days where people wrote about the news and doing then what is done today would have flunked you right out of college and the profession.

strange how much things can shift in a single lifetime.

It's interesting - there is another poster here that was in journalism, and I can tell by their content and way of presenting things. That person's OP's whether you agree or not are worth discussion (in an environment where discussion is almost impossible to achieve...).

I'm worried though, not on "bias" so much - I think we can read and weed there but on the dissemination of outright fakery such as in the OP, for purposes that could be fomenting unrest, violence, even insurrection. Fanning these protests into being much larger and much worse than they thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy. That worries me.

well the bias of anyone writing is only 1 bias at work.

when we go into a story expecting it to PROVE we're right or DISPROVE it, we're biased going in. but people want validation moreso than discussion anymore. they want to be right, not correct.

the hole we're digging is going to be a bitch to get out of and our own tendencies to extremify everything is killing us.

 

[Coyote]

And here - again, back to the "what is true what is false dilemma" and the mindset that seems to think if it's on twitter it must be true. Who's behind a tweet, or an FB identity? Pulling strings?

Lots of divergent interests, other nations, or just individuals interested in creating chaos.

THIS tweet, in fact - led to a mass of threads advocating self defense, or violence towards whomever, people in real life suburban/small town areas arming themselves and standing watch ready for...who ever gets shot.

White supremacists pose as Antifa online, call for violence in post Trump Jr. drew attention to: Twitter

A Twitter account that tweeted a call to violence and claimed to be representing the position of “Antifa” was in fact created by a known white supremacist group, Twitter said …

ktla.com

A Twitter account that tweeted a call to violence and claimed to be representing the position of “Antifa” was in fact created by a known white supremacist group, Twitter said Monday. The company removed the account.

The fake account, @ANTIFA_US, tweeted Sunday, “ALERT Tonight’s the night, Comrades Tonight we say “F**k The City” and we move into the residential areas… the white hoods…. and we take what’s ours #BlacklivesMaters #F**kAmerica.”

 

[theHawk]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Is this linked to the whole #BlackOutTuesday shit all over social media today? It seems to be based on lies as well.

#WeDontCare

 

[Coyote]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Is this linked to the whole #BlackOutTuesday shit all over social media today? It seems to be based on lies as well.

#WeDontCare

Yes I think so - it's all fake crap.

 

[DOTR]

And here - again, back to the "what is true what is false dilemma" and the mindset that seems to think if it's on twitter it must be true. Who's behind a tweet, or an FB identity? Pulling strings?

Lots of divergent interests, other nations, or just individuals interested in creating chaos.

THIS tweet, in fact - led to a mass of threads advocating self defense, or violence towards whomever, people in real life suburban/small town areas arming themselves and standing watch ready for...who ever gets shot.

White supremacists pose as Antifa online, call for violence in post Trump Jr. drew attention to: Twitter

A Twitter account that tweeted a call to violence and claimed to be representing the position of “Antifa” was in fact created by a known white supremacist group, Twitter said …

ktla.com

A Twitter account that tweeted a call to violence and claimed to be representing the position of “Antifa” was in fact created by a known white supremacist group, Twitter said Monday. The company removed the account.

The fake account, @ANTIFA_US, tweeted Sunday, “ALERT Tonight’s the night, Comrades Tonight we say “F**k The City” and we move into the residential areas… the white hoods…. and we take what’s ours #BlacklivesMaters #F**kAmerica.”

Twitter lies.

 

[Olde Europe]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

Concerning the protests, my guess would be, close to none. Why would they be swayed by the likes of @yourAnonCentral?

Generally speaking, folks aren't being swayed by anything. They may be agitated by something they were bent on believing anyway. You see it here every hour of the day.

In the end, whoever has their thirteenth birthday behind them, and finds themselves on a rampage because, "I saw something on twitter!", is a lost case anyway.

 

[OldLady]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Thank you for the post. Also, as a matter of record, the media story that Trump had rioters tear gassed so he could go to the church in D.C. is also false. The Park Police said they had no idea Trump was coming. They asked the rioters three times to leave as they were violating curfew, destroying property, and attacking law enforcement. They did not leave so the Park service took the action they did.

Completely fake news the media keeps repeating.


Key quote from the story: "But on Tuesday morning, Park Police sources told WTOP that this was not the case, arguing that the protesters were not all peaceful, that tear gas was not used, and that officers did not know of Trump’s visit to the house of worship. The outlet went on to report that the crowd was pushed back when officers were being hit with water bottles and that protesters had climbed onto the top of a structure at the north end of Lafayette Square that had been attacked and burned a day earlier.”

Park Police say DC protesters cleared because they attacked cops, not because of Trump church visit: report

Park Police reportedly say protesters near the White House were pushed back by riot police on Monday evening because they were attacking police officers, not because of a visit by President Trump to a nearby church that had been set alight the night before.

www.foxnews.com

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Thank you for the post. Also, as a matter of record, the media story that Trump had rioters tear gassed so he could go to the church in D.C. is also false. The Park Police said they had no idea Trump was coming. They asked the rioters three times to leave as they were violating curfew, destroying property, and attacking law enforcement. They did not leave so the Park service took the action they did.

Completely fake news the media keeps repeating.


Key quote from the story: "But on Tuesday morning, Park Police sources told WTOP that this was not the case, arguing that the protesters were not all peaceful, that tear gas was not used, and that officers did not know of Trump’s visit to the house of worship. The outlet went on to report that the crowd was pushed back when officers were being hit with water bottles and that protesters had climbed onto the top of a structure at the north end of Lafayette Square that had been attacked and burned a day earlier.”

Park Police say DC protesters cleared because they attacked cops, not because of Trump church visit: report

Park Police reportedly say protesters near the White House were pushed back by riot police on Monday evening because they were attacking police officers, not because of a visit by President Trump to a nearby church that had been set alight the night before.

www.foxnews.com

At last. I hope the sources weren't anonymous, though. I knew they had to have told the crowd to move.

Just fyi, it wasn't after curfew though. Curfew was at 7 and you could hear the flash bangs while the Pres was speaking in the Rose Garden at 6:30.

 

[luchitociencia]

i got my minor in journalism...

... and you avoid using capital letter T when mentioning the name of the president of United States of America... plus you prefer listening and agreeing with the past century ideology of candidate Biden.

It is unavoidable to rate your secondary journalism academy reaching as "fake news" in progress.

 

[OldLady]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

A lot of people here over the weekend were definitely buying into it. I don't know that anyone was deliberately lying, but the lies, exaggerations and misinformation were swallowed hook, line and sinker. It did its work. We all condemn the destruction and the looting, the fires, the chucking bricks at the police. But it had people screaming for blood, for shooting on sight, etc. etc.

It was worrisome.

Thank you for the article, Coyote. I knew there was a Set Your Hair On Fire campaign going on, but how do you prove it? Harder still, how do you stop people from buying it?

Speaking of disinformation...aren’t you the one who said “the church is not on fire”?

We've been through this and I'm sure you've read it. I was concerned and I was hunting every way I knew how to find out if it was. But until Hoss set me up with a news link, all anyone had was FB rumors. I read two or more writeups during that time that SAID a building across the street was on fire, and that a building near the church was on fire. Another article said it was the parish office, not the church. I was not trying to spread misinformation and I thanked Hoss for the heartbreaking vid.

 

[iceberg]

i got my minor in journalism...

... and you avoid using capital letter T when mentioning the name of the president of United States of America... plus you prefer listening and agreeing with the past century ideology of candidate Biden.

It is unavoidable to rate your secondary journalism academy reaching as "fake news" in progress.

i avoid using a capital letter when ever possible.

thank you for noticing.

as for the rest of what you wrote, my give a fuck was donated to science.

 

[iceberg]

And here - again, back to the "what is true what is false dilemma" and the mindset that seems to think if it's on twitter it must be true. Who's behind a tweet, or an FB identity? Pulling strings?

Lots of divergent interests, other nations, or just individuals interested in creating chaos.

THIS tweet, in fact - led to a mass of threads advocating self defense, or violence towards whomever, people in real life suburban/small town areas arming themselves and standing watch ready for...who ever gets shot.

White supremacists pose as Antifa online, call for violence in post Trump Jr. drew attention to: Twitter

A Twitter account that tweeted a call to violence and claimed to be representing the position of “Antifa” was in fact created by a known white supremacist group, Twitter said …

ktla.com

A Twitter account that tweeted a call to violence and claimed to be representing the position of “Antifa” was in fact created by a known white supremacist group, Twitter said Monday. The company removed the account.

The fake account, @ANTIFA_US, tweeted Sunday, “ALERT Tonight’s the night, Comrades Tonight we say “F**k The City” and we move into the residential areas… the white hoods…. and we take what’s ours #BlacklivesMaters #F**kAmerica.”

in all fairness, who knows anymore?

getting mad cause the info you find matches your rage simply makes you the most easy target to bait in order to get to said rage. not saying YOU IN PARTICULAR - just saying do we really have facts now on either side to say much of anything?

seen a lot of antifa passing out bricks. now they're supremacists passing out bricks looking like antifa?

we've lost our collective grip on anything that is real and without that, we're kinda making it up as we go. pretty dangerous.

 

[westwall]

Was that in the OP or the article? If so, please show it to me.

I asked, because that seemed to be what you were asserting.

The fact is, leftist bed wetters have been destroying shit across the country. There is nothing false about that statement. Some twittertwat posting a picture has nothing to do with the fact most of the media is BULLSHIT. I'm not singling any of it out. It's ALL DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE OPINIONS.

Pretending as if NPR, PBS, CBS, NBS or CNNBS is fully credible makes you look like just as big a retard as those who hang on every word Hannity speaks and act as if he has no agenda.

.

I am asserting what is in the OP.

If any of that is wrong (per your claim of NPR credibility) - point it out.

On sources and media - there those that are good, better, average, and largely laughable. I rate NPR as good. CNN average. Hannity is opinion - talk show.

Edited to add - we all have to trust sources to some degree because for the most part we don't have first hand info.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

With all due respect, Coyote? If you attempt to claim that CNN is average when it come to trustworthiness then why would anyone take you seriously? CNN is what it is. They have a pronounced "slant" to their news...and that's being generous. Claiming otherwise borders on farce!

Having a "slant" or a "bias" does not mean not credible - it means it has a bias. You read it with that in mind. They all have some form of bias. Not credible in my view is a source that repeatedly provably false material, does not correct errors, and uses certain types of red flag language.

And, I would ask the same of you - why would anyone take any source of yours as "credible"?

They have been caught outright lying as much as Trump has.