US Officially Blames Russia

[Biscuit]

More money, less oversight, broader scope of operations, etc.

OK let me rephrase. I can think of any rational/logic reason for the intelligence agencies to lie about this.

Sure we can come up with all sorts wild speculation but that's not very useful.

 

[Childlike Empress]

OK let me rephrase. I can think of any rational/logic reason for the intelligence agencies to lie about this.

Sure we can come up with all sorts wild speculation but that's not very useful.

"The Intelligence agencies"? At best nameless "officials". What are their names, given they exist? Maybe the liar Clapper, the liar Brennan and that Homeland Security guy? You're fired, you're fired and you're fired as well, they hear in their ears all day and all night. And then? Let me Google this for you.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

OK let me rephrase. I can think of any rational/logic reason for the intelligence agencies to lie about this.

Sure we can come up with all sorts wild speculation but that's not very useful.

Intelligence agencies wanting more unhindered operational mandate is a 'wild speculation' now? I mean I guess we can argue about whether increasing an agencies powers and resources is rational or not in various contexts, but the idea that they often do want it isn't exactly a leap.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can't think of any reason for American intelligence agencies to lie about this.

People don't have to lie to convince themselves of things that are in their own interest to believe.

 

[Ziggurat]

How was that fake news?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...ssian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#71783c29291e

 

[BobTheCoward]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...ssian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#71783c29291e

The article repeatedly calls it false news.

The story was false. If it was fake or not is unclear.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

False news or fake news? Seems like a distinction without a difference.

In both instances, an outlet is knowingly publishing a story of dubious veracity with the intention of generating page views and thus revenue. In both instances, the public are exposed to inaccurate information from which conclusions are drawn about what policies to pursue.

 

[BobTheCoward]

False news or fake news? Seems like a distinction without a difference.

In both instances, an outlet is knowingly publishing a story of dubious veracity with the intention of generating page views and thus revenue. In both instances, the public are exposed to inaccurate information from which conclusions are drawn about what policies to pursue.

There is a huge difference between dubious veracity and a story with no truth to it because you knowingly wrote a work of fiction.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is a huge difference between dubious veracity and a story with no truth to it because you knowingly wrote a work of fiction.

Why is there a huge difference? The problem (presumably) with fake news is not that someone makes it up. The Onion does that all the time, and nobody minds. The problem is when it causes people to make bad decisions based on that bad information. But that can happen with any bad information, regardless of the motive behind its creation.

Given the deference granted to nominally respectable sources like the Washington Post, I'd say that when they screw up a story this badly (and do that bad a job at correcting it), the consequences can be worse than with many of these fringe sources that deliberately forge news.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why is there a huge difference? The problem (presumably) with fake news is not that someone makes it up. The Onion does that all the time, and nobody minds. The problem is when it causes people to make bad decisions based on that bad information. But that can happen with any bad information, regardless of the motive behind its creation.

Given the deference granted to nominally respectable sources like the Washington Post, I'd say that when they screw up a story this badly (and do that bad a job at correcting it), the consequences can be worse than with many of these fringe sources that deliberately forge news.

I'm indifferent to the issue of consequence. This is solely an issue of classification and there being a clear line of demarcation.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

There is a huge difference between dubious veracity and a story with no truth to it because you knowingly wrote a work of fiction.

So one can escape the 'fake news' label and thus avoid criticism if they merely claim the work of fiction was relayed to them by 'anonymous sources'?

 

[BobTheCoward]

So one can escape the 'fake news' label and thus avoid criticism if they merely claim the work of fiction was relayed to them by 'anonymous sources'?

I gave no opinion on what type or level of criticism should be leveled at either case. Nothing I wrote should be construed as arguing one is worse than the other.

 

[Childlike Empress]

It was sooo predictable that this "fake news" thing will come around and bite them in their own rear ends, which is why I predicted it.

Interesting article about Steve Bannon.

"The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what's wrong with this country," he continues. "It's just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no ******* idea what's going on. If The New York Times didn't exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. The Huffington Post and everything else is predicated on The New York Times. It's a closed circle of information from which Hillary Clinton got all her information — and her confidence. That was our opening."

And now the same closed-circuit morons come up with this "fake news" thing, which of course will backfire as well. The meme is already occupied.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm indifferent to the issue of consequence. This is solely an issue of classification and there being a clear line of demarcation.

Then you're just arguing semantics, and those are the most boring arguments possible. Consequences are what matters, they're why the topic is of any interest to begin with.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then you're just arguing semantics, and those are the most boring arguments possible. Consequences are what matters, they're why the topic is of any interest to begin with.

I have the exact opposite opinion. Semantics are the most interesting arguments on this forum.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Here's McAfee, obviously bought by Putin with a jar of "caviar", but rumour has it that Trump is already one tweet ahead again.

 

[Childlike Empress]

btw for the Yankistani victims, since the NDAA 2013 it is legal to bother you with this crap.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It needed to be said.

US Vice-President Joe Biden has told President-elect Donald Trump to "grow up" and criticised his attacks on the intelligence community.

On Friday, Mr Trump will be briefed on allegations Russia meddled in the US presidential election - claims he has cast doubt on.

Mr Biden said it was "absolutely mindless" for the president-elect not to have faith in intelligence agencies.

For a president not to have confidence in, not to be prepared to listen to, the myriad intelligence agencies, from defence intelligence to the CIA, is absolutely mindless," he said*in an interviewwith the PBS network.

"The idea that you may know more than the intelligence community knows - it's like saying I know more about physics than my professor. I didn't read the book, I just know I know more."

When asked what he thought of Mr Trump's regular attacks on Twitter, Mr Biden said: "Grow up Donald, grow up, time to be an adult, you're president. Time to do something. Show us what you have."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38526570

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I didn't see this covered anywhere yet, so could someone tell me how they know the Russians hacked the DNC when they've never even looked at the DNC servers? I'd really like to understand this because I am certainly confused about it. I thought to determine if something had been hacked you had to examine the files on a server for the malware? Anybody?
Chris B.

 

[Arcade22]

It needed to be said.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38526570

Unfortunately the American political class are the ones who allowed someone like Trump to behave like this. Relentless and sustained attacks against impartial and objective science by climate change deniers and creationists alike, among others, have seriously damaged Americans trust in authoritative sources and by extension their trust in government and the state itself.

This is one of the reason why dishonest and deceptive demagogues like Trump are able to get away with bold faced lies: his behavior isn't all that out of the ordinary. It's not like he sprung out of nowhere.