Robert Parry Warns – The New York Times is Cheering on Censorship Algorithms


Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
May 3, 2017

The 2016 Presidential election was a gigantic wakeup call for the corporate press in the U.S. not so much because Hillary Clinton lost, but because it represented the end of mainstream media’s ability to seamlessly force feed narratives down the throats of a gullible and pliant American public. The marketplace of ideas had been flooded by the internet and the people made a decision. The media wars came and went, and the corporate press lost, badly.

The election of Donald Trump was as much a middle finger to the U.S. corporate press as anything else, and the corporate media didn’t take too kindly to that. Rather than admit failure, refocus and compete within the freewheeling information age, the corporate media has resorted to endless whining and support for tech-overlord censorship. It simply knows it can’t win a fair fight, so it has decided to cheat.

As Robert Parry of Consortium News explains in his recent post, NYT Cheers the Rise of Censorship Algorithms:

Just days after sporting First Amendment pins at the White House Correspondents Dinner – to celebrate freedom of the press – the mainstream U.S. media is back to celebrating a very different idea: how to use algorithms to purge the Internet of what is deemed “fake news,” i.e. what the mainstream judges to be “misinformation.”

The New York Times, one of the top promoters of this new Orwellian model for censorship, devoted two-thirds of a page in its Tuesday editions to a laudatory pieceabout high-tech entrepreneurs refining artificial intelligence that can hunt down and eradicate supposedly “fake news.”

Since the Times is a member of the Google-funded First Draft Coalition – along with other mainstream outlets such as The Washington Post and the pro-NATO propaganda site Bellingcat – this idea of eliminating information that counters what the group asserts is true may seem quite appealing to the Times and the other insiders. After all, it might seem cool to have some high-tech tool that silences your critics automatically?

But you don’t need a huge amount of imagination to see how this combination of mainstream groupthink and artificial intelligence could create an Orwellian future in which only one side of a story gets told and the other side simply disappears from view.

As much as the Times, the Post, Bellingcat and the others see themselves as the fount of all wisdom, the reality is that they have all made significant journalistic errors, sometimes contributing to horrific international crises.

For instance, in 2002, the Times reported that Iraq’s purchase of aluminum tubes revealed a secret nuclear weapons program (when the tubes were really for artillery); the Post wrote as flat-fact that Saddam Hussein was hiding stockpiles of WMD (which in reality didn’t exist); Bellingcat misrepresented the range of a Syrian rocket that delivered sarin on a neighborhood near Damascus in 2013 (creating the impression that the Syrian government was at fault when the rocket apparently came from rebel-controlled territory).

These false accounts – and many others from the mainstream media – were countered in real time by experts who published contrary information on the Internet. But if the First Draft Coalition and these algorithms were in control, the information scrubbers might have purged the dissident assessments as “fake news” or “misinformation.”

The Times quotes the promoters of this high-tech censorship effort without any skepticism:

“‘Algorithms will have to do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to fighting misinformation,’ said Claire Wardle, head of strategy and research at First Draft News, a nonprofit organization that has teamed up with tech companies and newsrooms to debunk fake reports about elections in the United States and Europe. ‘It’s impossible to do all of this by hand.’”

The article continues: “So far, outright fake news stories have been relatively rare [in Europe]. Instead, false reports have more often come from Europeans on social media taking real news out of context, as well as from fake claims spread by state-backed groups like Sputnik, the Russian news organization.”

Beyond failing to offer any evidence of Russian guilt in these “fake news” operations, Tuesday’s Times story turns to the NATO propaganda and psychological warfare operation in Latvia, the Strategic Communications Center of Excellence, with its director Janis Sarts warning about “an increased amount of misinformation out there.”

The Stratcom center, which oversees information warfare against NATO’s perceived adversaries, is conducting “a hackathon” this month in search of coders who can develop technology to hunt down news that NATO considers “fake.”

Sarts, however, makes clear that Stratcom’s goal is not only to expunge contradictory information but to eliminate deviant viewpoints before too many people can get to see and hear them. “State-based actors have been trying to amplify specific views to bring them into the mainstream,” Sarts told the Times.

 The key thing to understand about this push, is that it has nothing to do with fighting back against actual fake news, i.e. stories that promote total fabrications. The existence of truly fake articles is simply being used as a smokescreen to disappear alternative opinions from the public debate. That is the real intent of the “fake news” meme.

With the myth of the “American dream” rapidly being exposed as a sham, the corporate press needs to be able to efficiently propagandize the public in increasingly absurd ways, but the problem is much of the public no longer believes its nonsense. How can corporate media push Americans to support things against their interests and better judgement such more war, billionaire worship, and the surveillance state without silencing the opposition? It can’t, which is why it needs to marginalize intelligent and thoughtful people espousing a different perspective.

I know for a fact that the corporate press doesn’t care in the least about “truth” or “fairness” in reporting following my own personal experience with The Washington Post. Recall that last November, in the aftermath of the media’s panic at Hillary’s loss, the paper pushed forth slanderous accusations against 200 alternative websites including Liberty Blitzkrieg. For more on that truly deplorable episode, see: Liberty Blitzkrieg Included on Washington Post Highlighted Hit List of “Russian Propaganda” Websites.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice…

Continue Reading At: LibertyBliztkrieg.com

WaPo begs people to stop saying ‘fake news’ after they started it all

Source: RTAmerica
January 14, 2017

Only a few weeks after telling everyone to be wary of ‘fake news’ – and then being caught propagating fake news egregiously themselves – the Washington Post is now telling people to stop using the term, fake news! The Resident cannot even believe this is happening, for real.

Why Fake News Matters

fakenews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 12, 2017

For the past 34 years, I’ve been working as a reporter, in order to expose fake news. My target: major media. Right from the beginning; and always.

The premise is simple: these liars are in the business of putting people into a false reality and keeping them there. How does that audience move out into truth if they’re basing their own ideas on a synthetically created artifact called The News?

Now we have a president-elect who, as I write this, is holding a press conference and calling CNN fake news. Regardless of who Trump is, that is a moment people should understand as a wild departure from what happens in politics. It never happens. But it is happening.

This is shaking the egg until it cracks.

It’s called an opportunity.

—An opportunity for all of us to keep shaking the egg and exposing the liars, until there is no more egg.

Some of my joy comes from knowing reporters and editors in the mainstream who have been parading around, for decades, believing they are untouchable and vital and necessary and beyond reproach. They never thought this day would come. But it is here.

And they know it now. That’s what makes them so crazy.

Out of view, “their children” (audience) have grown up, and aren’t buying what “the adults” are selling. Trump has simply brought all that to a head. He went over the edge with it. He didn’t care. You tell me that some other candidate, who presented himself as more balanced, more measured, more mature, could have pulled this off, and I’ll tell you you’re wrong. A wild cowboy was necessary, and he showed up. Hate him, love him, he showed up.

Don’t let this moment be wasted.

Part of the reason the major media are pulling out all the stops in attacking Trump and blasting him? They want to paint a portrait of a man who isn’t really president. “See, the guy who has been defaming us isn’t a president at all. He’s just a nut. Therefore, don’t take his assault on us seriously. It means nothing.”

Good luck with that strategy. It’s another fail. It’s another goof in a long history of media goofs. The media are saying: “Don’t look at us. We’re fine. We’ve always been fine. Instead, look at Trump. He’s the villain. He’s the loon.”

Yesterday, he was a Russian agent. Today, he’s a John with hookers he paid to desecrate a hotel bed Obamas slept in. Tomorrow, he’ll be an alien from the Orion Belt who arrived in a space ship.

“His flying saucer landed on the US-Mexico border. Why wasn’t he vetted by Customs&Immigration? Why was he allowed into the US?”

Well, why is the NY Times in such bad shape that Carlos Slim has to be its largest investor? And why is Jeff Bezos, whose parent company, Amazon, has a $600 million contract with CIA to provide computing services, the sole owner of the Washington Post?

Because those two venerable papers were going down the toilet.

For that matter, why does David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, have a brother, Ben Rhodes, who is Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication?

Almost without exception, major media are liberal. This means, among other things, they are staunch (covert) supporters of Globalism, which means: a new planetary economic and political order, in which sovereign nations cease to exist—having being supplanted by mega-corporations and mega-banks.

The stories that major media spin have two basic aims: conceal the advances of Globalism, and support those advances under different names.

Working for these media outlets is a snap: aid in the cause and pick up a paycheck, while selling your soul.

No one will ever know what you’re really doing.

But that has changed. The operation has been exposed.

The egg has cracked.

And as in one of those remarkable Hieronymus Bosch paintings, all manner of strange and grotesque creatures are spilling out of the egg and showing their true colors.

Here is a quick quiz. All the following items are part and parcel of the Globalist agenda, because they imply far-reaching measures that…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.woredpress.com

Here’s the Best Summary of The Washington Post’s Latest ‘Fake News’ Fiasco

washingtonpostSource: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
January 3, 2017

It’s quite ironic that the one newspaper most hysterical in warning the American public about the dangers of “fake news,” has become the most prolific publisher of it. The most recent example, of course, relates to the entirely made up story that those dastardly Russians had hacked into the U.S. power grid through a Vermont utility. The paper’s source for the story? Anonymous government officials. Unsurprisingly, the entire thing was a fairytale.

Most of you will already be aware of the story, but this is such a monumental example of journalistic malpractice, it deserve far more attention and scrutiny.

In that regard, Forbes contributor Kalev Leetaru, has done an excellent job of shining further light on how it all went down in his piece, “Fake News” And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid. Here are some key excerpts:

Continue Reading At: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com

WaPo’s anti-Russian narrative is to ‘justify the loss’ to Donald Trump – professor

Source: RT
January 4, 2017

The Washington Post recently published a story claiming that Russia had hacked a Vermont utility and penetrated the US power grid – which has since been debunked and retracted. Robin Anderson, a communications and media studies professor at Fordham University, discusses the bogus article with RT America’s Manila Chan.

World’s Largest Hedge Fund Manager Slams Mainstream Media’s Fake & Distorted News Epidemic

duplicity
Source: Zerohedge.com
January 3, 2017

Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater – the world’s largest hedge fund, has “been reflecting for quite a while on the destructive effects that fake and distorted media are having on our society’s well-being,” but it appears a recent Wall Street Journal article about his fund – full of intentional distortions, appears to have pushed the billionaire over the edge at just “how destructive and widespread these ‘fake’ and ‘distorted’ agendas are.”

Ironically, by slamming the WSJ, a shining beacon of the supposedly “non-fake news”, as a representative of just that (for his personal reasons), Dalio has effectively discovered what many who have dealt with “professional journalists” have learned over time: agenda-driven, “real news” is just as bad, if not worse, than “fake news.”

Dalio’s full takedown of the WSJ:

The Fake and Distorted News Epidemic and Bridgewater’s Recent Experience With The Wall Street Journal

Via LinkedIn.com

To me, fake and distorted media are essentially the same problem in different degrees. My own experience, which I will share later in this piece, is just one small case within an epidemic. While Bridgewater will survive this case—and even if we didn’t, the world would be just fine—it is questionable whether the world will be just fine if this fake and distorted media epidemic is not arrested. As Martin Baron, the Washington Post’s Executive Editor, said in reflecting on the problem, “If you have a society where people can’t agree on the basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?”

Distorted pictures lead us to make bad decisions. In my opinion, if people don’t correct such inaccuracies and don’t fight against this problem, continued distortions in the media will prevent the public’s accurate understanding of what is happening, which will threaten our society’s well-being. We in the financial community now openly talk about fake or distorted media being used to manipulate market prices to the harm of many, and similar conversations are taking place in most areas.

This is not just a fringe media problem; it is a mainstream media problem. And while it is widely recognized, there is no discussion underway about how to rectify it. The Associated Press said that only 6 percent of Americans surveyed have “a lot of trust” in the media. A recent Gallup study showed that Americans’ trust in the media has dropped to an all-time low, with only 32 percent of those surveyed saying that they have either a “fair” or “great deal” of trust in the media. That compares with 55 percent having such confidence in 1999 and 72 percent in 1976. The dramatically decreased trustworthiness has even plagued icons of journalistic trust such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, as sensationalism and commercialism have superseded accuracy and journalistic integrity as primary objectives.‎ Many, if not most, “journalists” are trying to write the story that they want to write and fit the facts to it rather than accumulating facts to accurately report pictures of what is true. To be clear, I am not saying that this is the case for all people in the news media as there are a number of true journalists who do seek to convey accurate information; I’m just saying that they are a rapidly shrinking percentage of the total and the poll numbers reflect that.

The failure to rectify this problem is due to there not being any systemic checks on the news media’s quality. The news media is unique in being the only industry that operates without quality controls or checks on its power. It has so much unchecked power that even the most powerful people and companies are afraid to speak out against it for fear of recrimination. In fact, I presume that I will be widely attacked in the media for what I am saying here. Nonetheless I am compelled to say what many people express privately, which is that 1) the quality of news media is declining in general, 2) those in the news media have an enormous amount of power, 3) the news industry is unique in not having its standards of behavior specified and overseen, and 4) this confluence of realities is dangerous.   

While we all treasure our free press which is the reason that those in this industry are not overseen, the accelerating loss of faith in the media appears to be coming to a head and will probably lead to a backlash. I worry that if the industry doesn’t fix its problems, other forces will cause the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction, which will lead to some of the cherished press freedoms being lost. That too could undermine the public’s ability to know what is true. There is no getting around the fact that we need a responsible news media, and the powers that be need to start talking about how to bring that about. Personally, I hope that prominent media organizations will explore ways of self-regulating the quality of what they are producing, or at least create ratings in the way the Motion Picture Association of America provides its movie ratings. If the industry created a self-regulatory organization that set standards and conveyed assessments of quality as is done in a number of other industries, it would be much better than most of the other alternatives. In any case, it’s not my place to determine how this problem is resolved as much as to speak up about the problem and encourage discussion of it.

*  *  *

A Case in Point

I have mixed feelings about describing our most recent experience with The Wall Street Journal because many people might misconstrue my doing this as me simply complaining about an article that I didn’t like. While I certainly don’t want to let the inaccuracies about Bridgewater stand, my more pressing motivation is to give you a window into how media is often made because I believe that those of you who haven’t seen it from the inside will find it eye-opening. It probably will be a little bit like watching sausage being made for the first time.

 

About six weeks before the Wall Street Journal story by Rob Copeland and Bradley Hope came out, we were contacted by Copeland, who was “fact-checking” and seeking information about Bridgewater. Many of the things he was asking about were downright wrong, so we were presented with the choice of either cooperating with him or allowing the incorrect information to go out. Because we’ve had a history of Copeland and Hope writing misleading stories about Bridgewater even when we cooperated with them, we were inclined to not engage with them because we expected that they might again distort whatever we said. Copeland however insisted that they wanted to “reset the relationship” to present an accurate picture of the firm. He offered to enter into an agreement in which we would provide him with information that he didn’t already have in order to give him a fuller picture but only on the condition that he would not use that information unless we mutually agreed that his presentation of it in the article was accurate. We understand that the culture behind our exceptional success over the last 40 years is both unusual and commonly misunderstood, so we decided to enter into that agreement with him. As explained below, he broke the agreement by presenting distorted pictures of what we told him even after he asked us to “fact check” his assertions and we replied in writing that they were inaccurate.

 

Copeland and Hope allege that Bridgewater is an oppressive environment based on very few conversations—as they put it, on interviews with “more than a dozen past and present Bridgewater employees and others close to the firm.” We have about 1,500 people who work at Bridgewater, most of whom love it rather than feel oppressed, so the picture they gleaned from these dozen people was clearly not representative. Bridgewater obviously could not have been as successful for as long as it has been without a culture that values its employees and fosters excellence; Copeland wasn’t seeking to understand that. We explained to him in writing that “You are painting a one-sided negative picture of the work environment. The problem is that people who are happy with their experience and respecting our rules are not allowed to speak with the media so you end up hearing disproportionately from disgruntled people. It becomes a gross exaggeration and none of the joy of the Bridgewater experience gets represented.” We offered to provide Copeland an extensive list of employees and former employees who could freely speak with him. He did not take us up on that offer.

 

We also offered to put Copeland in contact with three prominent organizational psychologists and researchers who, out of their own curiosity, had studied our culture in depth and conveyed their highly-regarded analyses in three different books. These researchers were on site at Bridgewater and had access to anyone they wanted to speak with when they did their studies. Copeland and Hope never even walked though Bridgewater speaking to its people, yet they also chose not to speak with these experts. If you are interested in reading a few much more informed assessments of Bridgewater, we suggest that you read An Everyone Culture by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey, Originals by Adam Grant, and/or Learn or Die by Edward Hess or read the quotations from these books that are included here.

 

Copeland asked us about our culture of radical transparency, so we explained the logic behind it. We directed him to Principles, which describes it in depth. We agreed that Bridgewater is a challenging place to work, that the characterization of the firm being like “an intellectual Navy Seals” is apt, and that it isn’t for everyone. We made clear that nobody doubts that our unique culture has worked remarkably well for 40 years, and that no company could produce the results we have without there being deep and meaningful relationships among the people who work there. We tried to explain how the culture works and how it has produced our unique results, and we tried to provide him with facts that substantiated that assertion. For example, in our most recent anonymous annual survey, 89 percent of employees agreed that “running Bridgewater according to the culture and principles is key to Bridgewater’s success” and 94 percent agreed that “the culture helps my personal evolution.” Similarly, 89 percent of our clients said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with Bridgewater, 95 percent said that “Bridgewater’s investment insights are uniquely valuable,” and 95 percent said that “Bridgewater’s personnel are honest and direct with me, even when we disagree.”

 

We also explained the logic behind radical transparency in conversations and in the following written statement: “If you agree that a real idea-meritocracy is an extremely powerful thing, it should not be a great leap for you to see that giving people the right to see things for themselves is better than forcing them to rely on information that is processed for them by others. Radical transparency forces issues to the surface—most importantly (and most uncomfortably) the problems that people are dealing with and how they’re dealing with them—and it allows the organization to draw on the talents and insights of all of its members to solve them. Eventually, for people who get used to it, living in a culture of radical transparency is more comfortable than living in the fog of not knowing what’s going on. And it is incredibly effective. But, to be clear, like most great things it also has drawbacks. Its biggest drawback is that it is initially very difficult for most people to deal with uncomfortable realities.” Copeland and Hope chose to not use any of that. Rather than seeking to understand how the culture and radical transparency work or referring to such facts in their article, they chose instead to push the story that they wanted to write.

 

We discussed turnover rates at Bridgewater and showed them the statistics that make clear that in the first year or two turnover is unusually high and in subsequent years it is unusually low. This pattern is a result of Bridgewater’s culture and its having tough and unique standards. The company is not for everyone but for those who it is for, there is nothing like it. The numbers substantiate this—21 percent leave in the first year and another 10 percent leave in the second year, but the turnover rates of those in years three, four, and five are exceptionally low, at only six percent, four percent, and three percent respectively. Copeland and Hope chose to focus only on the relatively high early turnover saying “Bridgewater says about one-fifth of new hires leave. The pressure is such that those who stay are seen crying in bathrooms.” They omitted the longer-term high retention rates and the satisfaction levels behind them.

 

When Copeland asked about how radical transparency works, he suggested that we were disingenuous because we didn’t pursue it totally. We explained our approach: “Don’t get me wrong: radical transparency isn’t the same as total transparency. It just means much more transparency than is typical. We do keep some things confidential, such as illnesses or deeply personal problems, sensitive details about intellectual property or security issues, the timing of a major trade, and at least for the short term, matters that are likely to be distorted, sensationalized, and harmfully misunderstood if leaked to the press.” And we pointed him to the relevant principles. Copeland and Hope chose to ignore those explanations and write “he decided to let only 10 percent have the full measure of what he calls radical transparency.” After he passed that by us, we replied that “It is incorrect that only 10 percent get radical transparency. Here’s the fact. Everyone can see most everything, but only the top 150 or so people get to see the most sensitive type of stuff which, in most companies would be limited to only the top 5 or 10 people.” The authors chose to go with their mischaracterizations, even though doing so was misleading.

 

Similarly, their representations regarding our “secret project” to systemize our criteria for management decision making were both sensationalistic and misleading. We explained that what we are doing in systemizing management decision making is the same thing we have been doing for 30 years in systemizing our investment decision making, which is to collectively agree on good principles for making decisions and to express them in computer code. This allows us to input the relevant data and for the computer to process it according to our mutually agreed-upon criteria. We explained that we are doing this because we have learned that this principled and systemized decision making process allows us to get above our emotional attachments to our own conclusions and focus instead on deciding what our decision making criteria should be, which ultimately leads to better decisions because computers can process these criteria in much better ways than humans can. For example, by collecting data on people, we can learn what they are like, what jobs they are best suited for, and how they would most effectively work together. People also learn a lot about themselves, which helps them and their personal development. We are collecting and building these criteria collectively, yet the writers chose to characterize all this as being “like trying to make Ray’s brain into a computer” because that fit better with their desire to paint a picture of Bridgewater being a crazy, oppressive place run by a Dr. Frankenstein type character — even though the evidence shows it to be an idea-meritocracy which has, for several decades, succeeded in producing meaningful work, meaningful relationships, and unparalleled results through its radical truthfulness and radical transparency.

 

Copeland and Hope mischaracterized several other things (e.g., my thinking on Jim Comey, a man whom I admire). In each case, I explained to them that they were mischaracterizing and they chose not to convey anything that didn’t fit with the story they wanted to write. I won’t delve into more examples because we are past the point of diminishing returns.

So there you are. You now have a window into how some media is being made, and you’re left facing the dilemma I described in the first part of this piece. There is no established party to assess the accuracies of what is being said, and you are left to wrestle with questions of what is true based on the scant evidence you have in front of you. I suggest that rather than worry about what’s true about Bridgewater, which probably won’t have an effect on your life, you worry instead about the systemic risks arising from fake and distorted media.

Read More At: ZeroHedge.com

Washington Post can’t stop faking the news: U.S. electrical grid “penetration” story a complete fabrication

Image: Washington Post can’t stop faking the news: U.S. electrical grid “penetration” story a complete fabrication

Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
January 1, 2017

In a desperate effort to discredit Donald Trump and create mass hysteria across America’s gullible left, the Washington Post has, for the last several months, deliberately engaged in a shameless campaign of fabricating fake news stories.

Even as each story is proven to be based on pure fiction, the Washington Post rolls out yet more fake stories to try to justify their previous fake stories. The latest example of that came on Friday, when the WashPost completely fabricated another delusional paranoia episode in a story that claimed “Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermonth, officials say.” Click here for the current version of that story (which has already been radically altered from the original story).

Fanning the flames of delusional paranoia even higher, Vermonth Sen. Patrick Leahy “…took the rhetoric to a whole new level by asserting a diabolical Russian plot to shut down the U.S. electrical grid in the middle of winter…a move that would most certainly kill off half the state’s population in an instant,” reports Zero Hedge.

Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept adds this observation:

The article went on and on in that vein, with all the standard tactics used by the U.S. media for such stories: quoting anonymous national security officials, reviewing past acts of Russian treachery, and drawing the scariest possible conclusions (“’The question remains: Are they in other systems and what was the intent?’ a U.S. official said”).

The media reactions, as Alex Pfeiffer documents, were exactly what one would expect: hysterical, alarmist proclamations of Putin’s menacing evil.

Reuters even picked up on the story, reporting the same false narrative the Washington Post fabricated, claiming: “A malware code associated with Russian hackers has reportedly been detected within the system of a Vermont electric utility.”

The problem with all this? The Washington Post’s original story was completely fabricated.

The Washington Post made it all up

They made it up. This is how the Washington Post now engages in “journalism.” As Zero Hedge explains:

Alas, there was just one minor problem, namely that the entire article was completely fabricated.  Apparently the esteemed “journalists” of the Washington Post didn’t even bother to contact the Burlington Electric Department to confirm their bogus story…and why should they…it fit the “Russian hacking” narrative so perfectly therefore it must be true, right?

Well, apparently not.  The quick spread of WaPo’s “fake news” story forced the Burlington Electric Department to issue a clarifying statement assuring worried residents that, indeed, their electricity grid had not been hacked, but rather a single “laptop not connected” to the grid had been found to have a malware virus.

In other words, the electric grid wasn’t “penetrated” by Russian hackers. What really happened is that somebody found a virus on a laptop.

Yeah, that’s it. And the virus they found can be downloaded by anyone. It’s not a super secret Russian spy virus. It’s just a readily available off-the-shelf virus on a regular laptop that wasn’t even connected to the grid.

Washington Post alters headline, adds editor’s note admitting the entire story was bogus

Caught in yet another totally fabricated lie, the Washington Post began to backpedal on its original story. It also added this editor’s note:

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated 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.

In other words, the Washington Post just “made s##t up” and called it “news.”

Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept immediately ripped the WashPost for getting caught yet again completely fabricating false news:

There was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid.” The truth was undramatic and banal. Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all its computers and found the code in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.

Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic claims, so Burlington Electric had to issue its own statement to the Burlington Free Press, which debunked the Post’s central claim (emphasis in original): “We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization’s grid systems.”

So the key scary claim of the Post story — that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid — was false. All the alarmist tough-guy statements issued by political officials who believed the Post’s claim were based on fiction.

Even worse, there is zero evidence that Russian hackers were even responsible for the implanting of this malware on this single laptop. The fact that malware is “Russian-made” does not mean that only Russians can use it; indeed, like a lot of malware, it can be purchased (as Jeffrey Carr has pointed out in the DNC hacking context, assuming that Russian-made malware must have been used by Russians is as irrational as finding a Russian-made Kalishnikov AKM rifle at a crime scene and assuming the killer must be Russian).

As the actual truth emerged once the utility company issued its statement, the Post rushed to fix its embarrassment, beginning by dramatically changing its headline.

The Washington Post now exists as a propaganda fiction rag that routinely fabricates delusional scare stories as click bait

The Washington Post is now officially a “click bait” rag. The “journalism” conducted by the paper is laughable and insulting to any intelligent person. They didn’t even bother to call the Burlington power company to confirm anything before running their fabricated scare story that dredged up fictional “facts” out of thin air.

The WashPost did do us one big favor in all this, however: It demonstrated yet again how mainstream media publishers are the kings of “fake news.”

This isn’t a one-time thing, either: The WashPost keeps getting caught again and again, knowingly and deliberately fabricating false news to scare America half to death. I’ve dubbed this practice “journo-terrorism,” and in an article describing journo-terrorism, I explain the real agenda of the Washington Post, NYT and CNN:

Their job in the leftist ecosystem of psychological warfare is to unleash vast fields of mental landmines that innocent American stumble into, setting them off and blasting apart their cognitive constructs. Once the old belief systems are eliminated, new beliefs are inserted through “info-doctrination” — i.e. repeated, daily news streams consisting of fear and lies that create “trigger conditions” in the minds of those being hypnotized.

It’s fascinating that planting actual land mines on battlefields is often considered a “crime against humanity,” but when journo-terrorists plant cognitive land mines across the psychological battlefield of America, it’s all “fact checked” into reality by Politifact, Snopes or the Washington Post. Suddenly the land mines are perfectly acceptable to the leftists. It is these land minds that are right now responsible for the massive psychological trauma being experienced by the crying, wailing leftists whose brains have been shattered by journo-terrorism from MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, the LA Times and so on.

That’s why I continue to call for the prosecution of anti-American journo-terrorists who are deliberately working to subvert America through the spreading of bogus, fabricated propaganda that’s knowingly created to harm America’s interests and terrorize its citizens.

We must stop the psychological terrorism being carried out by radical left-wing journo-terrorists

Journo-terrorism is psychological warfare, and it is being deliberately carried out every single day at the Washington Post, NYT, CNN, MSNBC and other “fake news” media outlets. These acts of journo-terrorism pose a grave danger to the American psyche and are deliberately pursued to undermine our Republic through the spreading of false fear.

These acts of journo-terrorism by the Washington Post are not mistakes. They are deliberate. They are premeditated. They are scripted with an intended purpose… and that purpose is rooted in subversion and the ginning up of baseless hysteria for political aims.

Free speech aside, the Washington Post is now knowingly yelling “fire” in a crowded room… even when there’s no fire. They’ve gone far beyond anything resembling “free speech” and have solidly become subversive enemies of the American people. Let us hope the new administration will do something to stop them before they are able to carry out more damaging propaganda campaigns against the American psyche

Read More At: NaturalNews.com