Thanks so much to the generous response to readers to our special appeal for help to mount a counter-attack against a McCarthyite effort to censor independent websites that are willing to challenge orthodox thinking. We got over 475 donations, not only including many individuals that I recognize as having given in our recent annual fundraiser, but also new contributors, some of whom wrote who to say that this was the first time they’d given to this type of campaign. They recognized the seriousness that the threat that the Washington Post’s attack and related efforts to brand legitimate sites as purveyors of “fake news” represents to freedom of speech and an open Internet.
In keeping with the speed and the generosity of your support, we are moving forward as quickly as we can. As promised, Outis Philalithopoulos will start helping moderate comments. He has already contributing by helping us complete some important new efforts that will launch early Monday morning. Please check back tomorrow to see how your contributions have helped us fight back!
13 comments
Comments are closed.
Yay!
Excellent.
NC labelled fake news? WTF?
@Aaron – More accurately, NC has been labeled a Russian propagandist, along with about 200 other sites that include some of the best of progressive thinking and analysis on the Internet, e.g., Truthout, Truth-dig, Counterpunch, and Black Agenda Report, as well as libertarian sites like Ron Paul’s Institute. I won’t link to the original site that put this list together, but if you read Yves original post on this attack against NC and the others, it gives a full rundown of what’s going on.
Thanks. I’m a bit behind on this whole fake news BS.
Missing so far from the discussion of this absurd claim is a treatment of the rationale. A reasonable explanation is that this claim was a desperate effort of the establishment media to regain their position as controllers of the news. It is inobvious that discrediting the competition via the late Senator McCarthy’s approach would work, but in some other countries the attack could have been a first step toward licensing and then closing down alternative news sources.
As an alternative, consider the possibility that the target is not the alternative news sources but instead President-elect Trump, as part of an effort to claim that he is a Russian puppet installed by President Putin. The objective of the claim would not be to prove that Trump is a Russian puppet, but to destroy the legitimacy of Trump’s administration in the minds of the electorate. The obvious parallel would be all the people claiming that President Obama was born in Jakarta, Kenya [1], which led some number of negative information voters to reject the legitimacy of his administration and its acts. One might then propose either that the original authors think that this approach would work, or alternatively are advancing the claim as retaliation for the claims of the birther characters.
[1] Geographically inclined readers may note a minor technical obstacle to the possible validity of this claim.
Cui bono? Pam and Russ Martens report at their excellent Wall Street on Parade that Timberg was Deputy Editor for National Security at the Post before being re-branded as a “Technology” reporter. As I suggested might be the case in an earlier comment, Timberg’s libelous bit of “truthiness” appears to have been a plant in in support of Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-Ohio) insertion of a $160M propaganda appropriation into the National Defense Authorization Act headed to Barack Hussein’s desk later this month.
Timberg’s follow-up piece was then cited with approval by the likely beneficiary of this Deep State largesse, the Voice of America http://www.voanews.com/a/online-propaganda-congress-national-defense-authorization-act/3619241.html
I just wonder who at PropOrNot might get a little piece of that $160M action? Nah…
You need to demand a retraction as quickly as possible from The Washington Post, and arguably, The New York Times, as well (even though NYT did not publish story that Washington Post did, they arguably linked to and legitimized it).
Obviously, you need to demand retraction and published apology from PropOrNot, but they’re almost certainly uncollectable for any monetary damages ever awarded as a result of a successful defamation lawsuit (unlike The Washington Post or The New York Times).
Come back Monday AM as suggested. But you don’t get meaningful damages in defamation cases. The point is to make the point.
Good luck!
The other interpretation, of course, is revealed by the other hyphenization of prop-or-not, the hyphenization that reveals that the site is a hoax that had no idea that anyone much would fall for their joke.
Other hyphenization?
Pro-Porn-O-T.
If true, and I do not have inside information, it was an absolutely brilliant hoax that went a bit too far and damaged some people’s good names.
Nothing turns me on faster than a little red-baiting. Oh yeah, call me a naughty Russian plant, baby…
They’ve kept adding “material” to their site, far more than necessary for a joke. Sadly these guys are not a spoof but are grown ups who lack the perspective to see how inept they are.