|
In Which Reporting About “Fake News” Turns Out To Be Such
Another rather amusing piece about fake news is published in today's New York Times.
The headline:
Fake News, Fake Ukrainians: How a Group of Russians Tilted a Dutch Vote
It is amusing because no fact in the piece agrees with the headline. The piece itself turns out to be fake news. It is about old stuff, not news at all, and the content does not support the theses.
Some Ukrainian expats lobbied in the Netherlands against a vote for a EU-Ukrainian association agreement. Some Dutch people of Russian heritage also lobbied that way. The Dutch eventually rejected the agreement with 61.1% of votes against it and 38.1% in favor.
That vote took place in April 2016. I am not aware of any reason why that poll would now deserve a piece. Its purpose is certainly not to report current news or the vote itself. It does no explain what the vote was really about nor does it mention the numeric results.
A few expats in the Netherlands took part in public discussions and argued for the side of the vote that eventually won. They did so without hiding their identity, fairly and completely within the bounds of all laws. There is no sign at all that they had any influence on the vote.
But that is not good enough for the NYT. "Putin did it" is a standing order. Indeed the lobbying Ukrainians must have been "fake Ukrainians" and secretly Russians because somehow no Ukrainian would ever argue against the violent Maidan putsch and its consequences:
They attended public meetings, appeared on television and used social media to denounce Ukraine’s pro-Western government as a bloodthirsty kleptocracy, unworthy of Dutch support.
…
The most active members of the Ukrainian team were actually from Russia, or from Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, and parroted the Kremlin line.
The author seems to express that people "from Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine" (which include at least a third of the country) are "fake Ukrainians"? That they have no agency as Ukrainians but are only capable to "parrot the Kremlin line"? Are these Russian speaking Ukrainians of less value? Is there something wrong with having an opinion that does not parrot the Washington/Brussels line?
Then comes a caveat that takes the intended blow out of the whole buildup of the piece:
It is unclear whether the Ukrainian team was directed by Russia or if it was acting out of shared sympathies …
Could it be that it is neither-nor? That there is third reason why they acted that way? Maybe because they are convinced that the EU-Ukraine agreement is not in the best interest for either country? (Not said in the piece: The agreement in questions is way more than an trade or economic agreement. It includes binding defense and political alignment clauses.)
Let us look at the "Fake Ukrainians" and "Group of Russians":
One such [Russian] contact is Vladimir Kornilov, a Russian-born historian and political analyst who grew up in eastern Ukraine and now lives in The Hague, where he runs a one-man research outfit called the Center for Eurasian Studies.
Before the Dutch referendum last year, Mr. Kornilov campaigned against the Ukraine trade deal, describing himself benignly as “a Ukrainian expat in The Hague” who was “stunned by the seemingly endless stream of lies and propaganda” about Russia and felt obliged to respond.
Vladimir Kornilov looks around 40 years old. When he was born there was no "Russia" or "Ukraine" as we understand them today. The historic Russia included the Ukraine. When Kornilov was born there was the Soviet Union with many federal entities. "Russian-born" and "grew up in eastern Ukraine" is a national categorization that no one made before the USSR fell apart. People would have said "born in Moscow" and "grew up in Donetsk" or something of that kind.
Kornilov strongly disagrees with the NYT piece and especially the "fake Ukrainians" headline:
Vladimir Kornilov @Kornilov1968
@nytimesworld Dear editors! What does it mean "Fake Ukrainians"? Your author know that I'm an Ukrainian citizen and don't have another pass
4:07 AM – 16 Feb 2017
The only "Russian" with which the piece comes up with is a young student who came to the Netherlands as a child:
A particularly active member of the Ukrainian team was Nikita Ananjev, a 26-year-old student born in Moscow who moved with his mother to the Netherlands, where he is now chairman of the Russian Student Association.
Ananjev describes himself publicly as "Dutch raised but still 80% Russian".
Kornilov and Ananjev are the only two relevant persons the NYT piece identifies. They are the "Fake Ukrainians" and "Group of Russians" the headline describes.
The "fake Ukrainian" is not "fake" at all but a real Ukrainian. The "Group of Russians" is a Dutch raised student in Rotterdam. The NYT has found no sign of any actual Russian influence on their public arguments or opinions. There is zero evidence in the piece, none at all, that these people "tilted a Dutch vote". There is not even one attempt made to show that this was the case.
The people of the Netherlands, Dutch people, voted against the preference of the NYT editors by a quite large margin. That this might have to do with the rather bad agreement the vote was about, or with the illegality of the U.S. organized Maidan putsch, does not deserve any question or attention. Instead we get false assertions about foreign influence stated as facts with nothing to back that up.
The "fake news" in the headline makes sense only as a description of the piece itself.
There is no argument in it that actually supports the headline. There are no "fake Ukrainians", there is no "Group of Russians" and those few expats who were active did not "tilt the Dutch vote".
The piece is also fake news because it contains no news at all. The vote was 10 month ago. The expats lobbied openly before the vote took place. Nothing mentioned in the piece has since changed. There is no one new fact in it.
It is cooked up propaganda which does no include any facts to back up its message. A rather sorry attempt to stoke the anti-Russian campaign that was intensified by Hillary Clinton first to win the election and, when that had failed, to explain her loss. It fits the imperial illusion of the "sole superpower" the NYT generally peddles. But it does not really serve its purpose. It is completely unconvincing and easy to debunk. It is fake news.
Some lunatic parts of the US establishment would be prepared to start WW3 because someone leaked information on Democratic party leadership corruption detailing a bias against Sanders and in favour of Clinton, also Donna Brazile’s giving Clinton questions in advance of a debate and the contents of part of her speeches to the Wall st Banks. All information the US electorate have a right to know about. All blamed on Russian interference of the US electoral process. This excellent article by Stephen Lendman shows which country is complicit in most electoral manipulation in the World.
US Imperial Lawlessness
by Stephen Lendman
Oxford Dictionaries call rogue states “nation(s) or state(s) regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations.”
They ruthless pursue domestic and geopolitical aims, ignore rule of law principles, defile democratic values, and trample on the rights of others.
America is the world’s leading practitioner of policies causing more harm to more people than any other regime in world history.
In his books and articles, William Blum explained Washington’s sordid post-WW II history, saying it’s “worse than you imagine.”
“If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy (throughout) the past century, this is what crawls out:”
“invasions, bombings, (subversion), overthrowing governments, suppressing (popular) movements for social change, assassinating political leaders, perverting elections, manipulating labor unions, manufacturing ‘news,’ death squads, torture, (chemical), biological (and nuclear) warfare, (radiological contamination), drug trafficking, mercenaries,” and overall war on humanity at home and abroad.
“It is enough to give imperialism a bad name,” said Blum. US policy intimidates, threatens and otherwise pressures other nations to obey Washington rules or else.
It interferes in the internal affairs of virtually all other countries, including their elections, wanting US subservient ones in power, independent ones targeted for regime change by color revolutions, old-fashioned coups, assassinations or imperial wars.
Since WW II, it sought regime change successfully and unsuccessfully in over 50 countries, in most cases democratic ones.
It terror-bombed more than 30 nations, naked aggression against ones posing no threat to America. It assassinated or attempted to assassinate over four dozen foreign leaders.
It targeted populist or nationalist movements in 20 countries. According to political scientist Dov Levin, Washington tried influencing presidential election outcomes over 80 times between 1946 and 2000 – since then in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and elsewhere.
The number excludes military coups and regime change efforts in Iran, Guatemala, Chile and against other countries. Levin defines intervention to mean “costly act(s) designed to determine the election results” in favor of one side over others.
Actions most often are pursued covertly by disinformation or other type propaganda campaigns, directly aiding one side against others, making public pronouncements or threats against unwanted candidates, and using foreign aid as a political tool or weapon in cases where it’s withdrawn.
WikiLeaks exposed US interference in France’s 2012 election. It released documents, revealing months of spying on all major French political party candidates.
It continued after Francois Hollande’s triumph. Edward Snowden connected the dots for millions about the NSA’s vast global spying operation.
It’s for political and economic advantage, to be one up on foreign competitors, and for information used advantageously in trade, geopolitical, and military relations.
It’s largely unrelated to protecting national security at a time when America’s only enemies are ones it invents – not Russia, China, Iran, other countries, or terrorist groups it created and supports.
Double-standard hypocrisy defines US policy, falsely accusing other nations of actions its imperial agenda pursues – including trying to influence the outcomes of elections in numerous countries, one of many high crimes it commits.
Posted by: harrylaw | Feb 17 2017 15:42 utc | 52
@83 Krollchem
Thanks. I do wish you had corrected me in your previous post; but I guess you didn’t know there was a Russian spy ship off the U.S. coast.
While I appreciate your explanation that includes Israel and the KSA, the following is the kind of candidness I’m looking for around here.:
…you have to realize that Trump’s Middle East policy is formulated in Israel with the concurrence of Saudi Arabia.
However, the logic in the rest of your explanation for why Trump shows bias towards Iran is flawed, but only because it flows from the hypocrisy exercised by the U.S., KSA and Israel that Trump is also exercising with this double standard. Here’s why it’s flawed. (and again, I’m not saying you’re at fault here).:
When you consider that many more European countries feel Russia is a threat as opposed to only Israel and KSA feeling threatened by Iran; your argument doesn’t justify Trump’s bias. Consider also, as Trump stated in his most recent presser, that the U.S. views Russia as an equal nuclear competitor. That is the reverse of the Iran vs KSA, Israel situation. Israel has a nuclear arsenal and the fourth global military capability, therefore, there is no excuse whatsoever to exercise this kind of double standard with Iran except if one is a hypocrite like Trump pandering to fake Zionist paranoia while many European countries consider a nuclear equal to the U.S., Russia, a threat, therefore continues with the dishonest hostile policy of his predecessors and is therefore a Neocon in disguise, no better than any of his predecessors and cannot be trusted.
Also, I have to take issue with this statement, more specifically the parts I hi-lighted in bold.:
As for Saudi Arabia, the house of Saud sees Iran as an economic competitor and its Shiite population as potential breakaway region –taking much of the oil resources with it. Likewise, the government of Yemen has oil reserves that the house of Saud wants to exploit.
Iran is not a potential breakaway region – Iran is a sovereign nation that is not even considered to be an Arab state and can do with it’s oil and gas reserves as it pleases. Secondly, Yemen is also a sovereign nation; therefore, if Saudis exploit its oil reserves; that would be theft, a breach of sovereignty; hence an act of war.
Finally, I do not see much difference in the US stance toward/against Russia, Iran or even China.
Yes, but many here are deluded into thinking Trump will exclude Russia from that axis.
At any case Russia doesn’t expect anything different:
Correct. I’ve seen several statements from Putin and also just today from Alexei Pushkov demonstrating skepticism in regards to any change in U.S. policy toward Russia. I only wish that kind of realistic skepticism were more prevalent here.
My question stands for everyone to answer, because it demonstrates Trump’s dishonesty. Russia has a spy ship off U.S. waters, Russia tested a cruise missile and Russian fighter jets buzzed a U.S. warship. Iran only tested a medium-range ballistic missile and right away Trump imposed sanctions and threatened putting Iran on notice also tweeting threats against Iran.
This kind of knee-jerk reaction and obsession with Iran exposes Trump as a Neocon except on Russia (although, I question his real intent in regards to Russia). Trump pretended a non-interventionist policy and then 3 weeks in office he’s sanctioning and threatening Iran.
Posted by: Circe | Feb 18 2017 0:21 utc | 93
|
