Kit, latest, media watch, Russia, USA

The problem with modern “journalism” summed up in one story

by Kit

That a protest Facebook/twitter account focusing on the mistreatment of black people by American police was actually a fake account run by Russians to make the US look bad and spread division in the West…is one hell of a claim. If you were to make it, you’d probably be expected to supply evidence to back up your accusation. That’s only reasonable.

Well, CNN don’t feel the need. Two days ago they reported this story verbatim, here. Under the headline:

Exclusive: Fake black activist accounts linked to Russian government

Now, the headline doesn’t say HOW these accounts were linked to Russia, or indeed who linked them. But that’s OK, because neither does the body of the text. There’s not a single link, source or piece of evidence cited at all. The only basis for the claim is:

two sources with knowledge of the matter told CNN

That’s it. In total. They never say who these two sources are (leaving the very real possibility they don’t even exist), they never say what their supposed “knowledge of the situation” is. They tell us nothing of any note, and have the gall to put “exclusive” in the headline.

“Some guy said so” is NOT an exclusive.

The Guardian then took this one step further down the path of insanity – they reported that CNN had reported, that 2 guys told them something. Their headline…

Did Russia fake black activism on Facebook to sow division in the US?

…at least has the decency to use a question-mark, although none of that implied doubt makes into the body of the article. They don’t mention that CNN never provided any evidence of this claim, or CNN’s anonymous sources. Instead they choose to focus on whether or not it sounds plausible. After providing soundbites from professors who study “Russian interference in elections”, and referencing the Soviet Union’s supposed support of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, they decide that it does sound plausible. And since it’s plausible…it’s probably true. Right?

No reference to the keystone questions of journalism – who, when, where, why, how. No reference to evidence or sources, or agendas. Just a vague analysis of the plausibility of a rumor started by CNN on the basis of two anonymous sources with “knowledge of the situation”. This is the modern method of spreading propaganda – through a concerted effort of repetition without evidence, you can turn a lie into a “fact”.

That is the cancerous absurdity of today’s “journalism” in a nutshell.


  1. Alan says

    I don’t believe it follows that a few ‘story telling’ outlets are reflective of the state of modern journalism. I imagine it’s dependent upon what is meant by modern journalism within the article.

  2. rtj1211 says

    The standard rules of journalism require independent verification of a source’s assertions.

    What is ‘verification’ in the digital world?

    Is it an account opened on Facebook from a Russian IP address? Absolutely not, any CIA newbie can route cybertraffic via anywhere they like. The Russians could do the same in the US. And MI6 could cause trouble in the Middle East without any trouble.
    Is it an email from Putin or an FSB acolyte? Well, those can be forged too. But it would give you a bit more traction.

    More reliable would be cybergeeks inside Russian Security copying the codes written into malware bots and supplying as evidence. But even that you have to prove came from Russia and some cybergeek playing juvenile games in Silicon Valley….

    I have to say I no longer consider either US or UK MSM to be trusted sources any more. I assume they are Establishment troublemakers working for the people they were supposed to hold to account. They are little boys crying wolf. And I worry that if they actually told the truth in future, a lot of people would stilll not believe them….

    • George says

      “And I worry that if they actually told the truth in future, a lot of people would stilll not believe them….”

      I wouldn’t worry about that. The people who don’t believe them have already moved on to more reliable sources.

  3. True and absurd and utterly thin gruel, yet the targeted audience seems to lap it up….yet…yet….this is difficult to discern too.

    This trickle of small absurdities punctuated by manipulated events like Charlottesville that constitute news today are really just distractions from the big manipulations. At risk of being shouted down in the wake of civilian beatings I suggest a cooler, closer look at Catalunya secession is needed. Cui Bono?

    • The break-up or destruction of ALL nations, including the mad U$Asylum Empire & Israel, & the establishment of a totalitarian world govt is part of the 1%s/Banksters NWO plans.

      John Doran.

  4. Kit, Tubularsock knows a Russian that had a friend who had a cousin that told his brother that this story was true.

    So 4 + the 2 sources with knowledge of the matter makes 6.

    Now were talking solid indisputable evidence!

    Feel better?

  5. summitflyer says

    It is certainly amusing to see the slick operation of propaganda and how it is used to hypnotize the sheeple .
    Just keep it up is what I say as the more ridiculous it gets , the more people will eventually figure it out for themselves and realize that the emperor really has no clothes thus destroying their program . It is getting truly ludicrous .

  6. Sav says

    So was Black Lives Matter funded by Russia?

    Do the Russians pay US media to go to town reporting any incident that involves a black man being beaten or killed by a white man (even if the white man isn’t really white but his name sounds it!)?

    Did they pay the media and every Hillary/DNC shill to accuse anyone of voting Trump as being raging nazi? Or a deplorable as Hillary called them. To the point of even portraying ANTIFA as great people now and pretending neo-nazi groups just turned up out of nowhere.

    So….in fact all these people want is all Americans to strum a guitar and drink a Coke together….but those evil Russians strike again. Oh, what fools we are.

  7. Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:

    I honestly don’t know why the Guardian is given the honourable title of journalism – it lost that claim to fame and into defamatory a long time ago. As for CNN, did it ever have any credibility since it’s inception?

  8. sabelmouse says

    of course the guardian runs with it. because it’s a LIBERAL anti racist, anti war, feminist ”newspaper. LOL!

  9. bevin says

    CNN is based in Atlanta. And the story is an archetype of Jim Crow journalism in which any uprising among the ‘darkies’ was always attributed to foreign, or Yankee, agitators amongst whom the favourite villains were always agents of the Comintern.
    The difference is that there was a thin tissue of credibility in the original claims- to its eternal credit the Communist Party did assist civil rights and trade union attempts to battle the Democratic Party’s totalitarian rule of the Solid South. The current recycling of a founding myth from the UnAmerican activities school of crypto fascism falls somewhere between warmongering and farce.

  10. sabelmouse says

    so demeaning too. poc couldn’t have build pyramids, aliens did it. they can’t to their own activism either.

Comments are closed.