Report: Russia spread fake news and disinformation in Sweden - Russia has coordinated a campaign over the past 2years to influence Sweden’s decision making by using disinformation, propaganda and false documents, according to a report by researchers at The Swedish Institute of International Affairs.

Report: Russia spread fake news and disinformation in Sweden - Russia has coordinated a campaign over the past 2years to influence Sweden’s decision making by using disinformation, propaganda and false documents, according to a report by researchers at The Swedish Institute of International Affairs.
Report: Russia spread fake news and disinformation in Sweden - Russia has coordinated a campaign ...

what if we invented a profession that made a point of fact-checking and requiring two sources before publishing a story....oh wait ....

How do we know that all these stories of Russia spreading fake news aren't fake news? Checkmate, Athiests.

The original report is actually pretty eye opening.  

For example  


Although Sweden is referenced on several occasions (303 articles dealing mostly with migration), other countries such as Germany (390), France (360) and Finland (332) actually receive more mentions...Why the Swedish language Sputnik did not actually concern itself so much with Sweden per se might have different reasonable explanations. First, Sweden was simply not a priority, or the editorial team did not possess sufficient resources to cover its domestic affairs. Second, criticism of the EU and NATO – constituting circa 60% of all articles – could actually be the dominant narrative which Russia wants to communicate also to the Swedish target audience.  


The "dominant narrative" they're talking about can be seen here. So Russia is spreading propaganda in Sweden about how the EU is a big failure? Why am I not surprised? Is this gaslighting? It sounds like gaslighting to me.  

Also,  


Like Soviet propaganda, Russian public diplomacy today can also be wildly inconsistent. The West is portrayed as weak, but at the same a near existential threat to Russia. Europe is described as both xenophobic towards refugees, and foolish for allowing so many of them to seek asylum.   


Sounds like the all too familiar confused train of thought that I've seen on parts of reddit.  

The report also talks about Israel Shamir, a Wikileaks representative in Sweden who supposedly passed sensitive information to Belarus' President, leading to persecution of political opponents in Europe's last dictatorship. This Guardian article talks about how supposedly close Assange and Shamir are, and how Assange refused to investigate Shamir.   

All this leads me to think that disinformation campaigns in the age of the internet will lead to political discourse being worse than they used to be earlier.

The original report is actually pretty eye opening.

For example

Although Sweden is referenced on several occasions (303 articles dealing mostly with migration), other countries such as Germany (390), France (360) and Finland (332) actually receive more mentions...Why the Swedish language Sputnik did not actually concern itself so much with Sweden per se might have different reasonable explanations. First, Sweden was simply not a priority, or the editorial team did not possess sufficient resources to cover its domestic affairs. Second, criticism of the EU and NATO – constituting circa 60% of all articles – could actually be the dominant narrative which Russia wants to communicate also to the Swedish target audience.

The "dominant narrative" they're talking about . So Russia is spreading propaganda in Sweden about how the EU is a big failure? Why am I not surprised? Is this gaslighting? It sounds like gaslighting to me.

Also,

Like Soviet propaganda, Russian public diplomacy today can also be wildly inconsistent. The West is portrayed as weak, but at the same a near existential threat to Russia. Europe is described as both xenophobic towards refugees, and foolish for allowing so many of them to seek asylum.

Sounds like the all too familiar confused train of thought that I've seen on parts of reddit.

The report also talks about Israel Shamir, a Wikileaks representative in Sweden who supposedly passed sensitive information to Belarus' President, leading to persecution of political opponents in Europe's last dictatorship. This Guardian article talks about how supposedly close Assange and Shamir are, and how Assange refused to investigate Shamir.

All this leads me to think that disinformation campaigns in the age of the internet will lead to political discourse being worse than they used to be earlier.

What if we stopped using Facebook to get ''news''.

The Russian hacking narrative has shifted. With high ranking reports out in the open, it's more difficult to just call "Russophobia", and they can't deny that it doesn't happen. So they're all into deflection mode.

As in "Every country does propaganda", no matter that ours has a direct hand at the highest level of government and devotes orders of magnitude more resources into it than other countries, and ACTUALLY ACHIEVED THE GOAL OF DISRUPTING A US ELECTION. All countries do propaganda. Just get over it. "Do your own research" - of course using RT and Sputnik as the base for your own research... "Yeah,

The Propaganda About Russian Propaganda - The New Yorker

To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labelled a Russian propagandist. Indeed, the list of “propaganda outlets” has included respected left-leaning publications like CounterPunch and Truthdig, as well as the right-wing behemoth Drudge Report.

The list is so broad that it can reveal absolutely nothing about the structure or pervasiveness of Russian propaganda. “It’s so incredibly scattershot,” Higgins told me. “If you’ve ever posted a pro-Russian post on your site, ever, you’re Russian propaganda.” In a scathing takedown on The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote that PropOrNot “embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist.”

Um, yes it has.

Even OPs link is Swedish media.

Its a pretty idea, but we are still human. The editor can be corrupt and decide what is fact.

The most important thing to remember when reading anything is that the writer, owner, source, and everything in-between is made my humans.

Humans are known to have self-interests.

How do I know you are really my Prime Minister?

What if we changed human nature? Yeah we could do a lot.

PropOrNot has done nothing to uphold its own credibility. It's like a western version of Sdelanounas - mindless propaganda that doesn't bother to fact-check or use logic.

The immigrant crime stories may not be fake but drumming up ethnic hatred is totally Russia's MO for Western Europe. It's straight out of Aleksandr Dugin's playbook. When anti immigrant sentiment reaches crescendo, Right wing parties take power and push for leaving the EU, allowing Russia to realign Western Europe into its political and economic sphere. Not to say immigration isn't a problem, but Russian hegemony is worse IMO.

Edit- sp

They didn't mess with vote tallies, if that's what you're asking. But the way you phrased your question, with "just revealed the truth of the behaviour of the DNC," you need to understand that no government, party, or politician could actually survive the unearthing of all their private communications, because they've all done and said sketchy things. Such is the nature of politics.

You attempt to dismiss the argument that "by not releasing any similar documents regarding the RNC it is swaying opinions towards the RNC," but that is exactly it and was exactly their plan. Plus, did you forget the Podesta emails? They targeted the DNC right before the convention, then Hillary herself right before the election.

No vote tampering, but they definitely accomplished their goal, and it's despicable.

That is a misconception. One proof out of many turned out to be false, but that did not change the overall picture that it was a confirmed sub.

Also no nationality was ever mentioned, in fact it was explicitly stated that they could not determine nationality.

http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2015/09/utom-allt-rimligt-tvivel/

Fake news isn't having a bad source, it is outright lies. Like agent involved in Clinton emails found dead or pope endorses trump or trump said republicans are so stupid, they will vote for anyone.

All these are outright lies and actually occurred in this election cycle.

The post's story was not endorsing propornot, it was using them as a source. The post has other sources in their article. They used PropOrNot and didnt vet it completely it seems.

You see th difference one is all lies, the other is just shoddy journalism.

This is the article by the way: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

Interesting read.

The best way to ensure you are never tricked by disinformation is to just never read anything.

This whole "fake news" narrative is the most blatant propaganda I have ever witnessed by a media apparatus that has lost control of the citizens.

Thats how they work though, the target demographic is generally uneducated, poor, angry or just plain fucking gullible...they dont need to be precise they just need to cover their bases. And the fucked up thing is it works, people who say "oh you believe everything in the mainstream media" turn to sHites like RT/Sputnik and believe with some ferocity the vastly contradicting news article and literally brown nose the fuck out of the media outlet.its fucking GLARINGLY obvious to anyone with a brain cell what these news websites are doing and they of course deny it which AMAZINGLY also works for them because the complete retards that read those sites see it as them being attacked by mossad/cia/western agencies/trolls etc.

So much hypocrisy its sickening, imagine the UK started to fund a news agency in Russia (BBC is publicly funded so its not the same) with government funds and only posted anti Russian articles...they would be shutdown on day fucking one. If the western governments shut down RT they would have a thousand stories about this heinous act, and yet again their puppets would believe them.

The people who view those websites have the intelligence of the average The_Donald poster. I dont mind the old Trump myself but im a neutral being a Brit yet I mocked the odious cunt that is Martin Shkreli yesterday for being a spurious wanker who just boasts and gloats about wealth whilst live streaming washed up rappers album whilst all his little teenager fanboys suck his dick and I was downvoted to oblivion, thats the RT mentality aswell. Blame the jews, blame the blacks, muslims....you get upvoted on RT like crazy. If you say the truth...its a lie, if you say a obvious lie that favors Russia agenda...WE LOVE YOU.

TIL the difference between disinformation and misinformation.

Well, our media is good at lying to us without the russians help.

Are you facebook? Facebook is not human nature.

What do you mean? The link is only to 'The Swedish Radio' - which definitely is not a government owned company.

Sveriges Radio (aka Radio Sweden) is Sweden's national public broadcasting company. It is to Sweden what BBC is to the UK or NPR is to the US. Technically it's a quango, which is essentially somewhere between an NGO and a part of the public sector, though it gets its funding from the riksdag. So yeah, if you wanted to boil it down, it sort of is.

The purpose was not to help Republicans or elect Trump. The purpose of Russian propaganda is to destabilize global alliances and the global economy. Weakening "the West" makes it difficult to enforce sanctions, respond unilaterally to threats, and mobilize quickly. This is why their message is inconsistent. It's intentional. It's terrifying. And it's brilliant.

So you don't think all of those Macedonia websites that were mascuariding as American news sites were fake news?

Much ado about nothing?

For now, I guess. They're right - you can't really measure impacts, you can only hypothesize about what is happening and what could happen.

I agree, I was initially feeling it could just be cold war rhetoric sliding us backwards and people were being heavy handed on Russia but the amount of countries pointing to issues we're having is startling and gives undeniable evidence. I would say though (so to not go too far into being blinded by a one sided look at things) the idea that other countries use PR is true. After all, we tried to pretend the terrorists like Al nusra raping and killing innocents would be better than Assad just to justify anti-russian aggression. We knew they wouldn't be a good choice and wouldn't have real plans to keep most citizens safe (as much as Assad is bad, the terrorists would have been worse). Not to mention how we ignore the goings on in Saudi Arabia with how much they promote terrorist ideologies that are far more fearful and far more in need of addressing than mere misinformation. I'm not trying to stir whataboutism as I fully agree Russia has clearly overstepped the mark an it's clearly being noticed by a lot of countries just how much they've been doing it but while it needs addressing we still do engage in our own PR with cloudy logic over how bad Russia is while ignoring several countries around them doing worse such as Turkey arresting hundreds of journalists, police and judges, the Philippines drug war with extra judicial killings and Saudi Arabia funding Wahabism, invading Yemen with bombs on weddings and destabilising agriculture etc.

I won't pretend Russia hasn't overstepped the mark but always keep a level head and remember that even when we are right to criticise them then there is still reason to question our politicians motives when we see them ignoring other worse things.

Swede here, absolutely no mention of this in Swedish media, which is strange since they usually grab any chance to jump on the Russophobia bandwagon.

What do you mean? The link is only to 'The Swedish Radio' - which definitely is not a government owned company.

PropOrNot's list was cited by Washington Post as if it were straight up fact. They later retracted it though, but you'd think someone at WAPO could have spent one minute looking at the list of sites they called 'Russian Propaganda Agents' and realized it was bullshit before someone else had to call them on it, but apparently journalistic integrity has fallen pretty far, that their article about Fake News was actually itself Fake News.

Being eastern ukrainian i can tell for sure that russian propaganda is dangerous and literally kills

Interesting read indeed, but this gets posted all the time on reddit, so I'll just copy paste my comment from earlier:

That is not "the Russian military textbook". Dugin is a philosopher. He is well known in Russia for having articulated a new vision for the country in Post-Soviet times, and he is quite intelligent as he foresaw several key issues in the West, but too extreme in his views. He doesn't have any hard influence on Russian politics, but people listen to him (which doesn't mean they agree with him) and he gets interviews. Just to give one example:

Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with the "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".

The thing is, this didn't come to pass even though Russia had an opportunity to move things in that direction. Greece did request Russian assistance during its brief revolt against Eurozone bailout conditions in 2015 and was basically told to suck it. So if Russia is pursuing a strategy for "Greece to unite with them and reject the West", which Dugin advocates, they sure don't show it at all.

And, it's important to note, that most redditors who constantly link to that book have never read it. The book has never been translated to English. So to assume, without ever actually having read that book, that it is literally the basis for Russian geopolitical strategy, is ludicrous to begin with.

Some of this might be true, for example a fake letter that looked like one from the Swedish government offering weapons to Ukraine to fight Russians "leaked", but then they try to say sites that report on immigration crime and other bad effects are "Russian fake news", which is bullshit.

No, but the desire to be the first to tell people things is. Basically it's self-preservation by making yourself feel relevant.

There are few things more "human nature" than that.

Yes they have the ability to, but the regular person is not interested enough to search for, read and filter what is legitimate or not. If anything, the age of the internet is saturated with so many sources of information that people are likelier to become more confused rather than informed.

Crap. I read your comment.

Whataboutisms are almost exclusively used to deflect though. It's to take away the attention from you, and spread it thinner. To keep people distracted and mitigate whatever charge is being leveled at you. It's basically to disrupt the argument. Russia and China engage in this all the time.

For example, accuse China and Russia of corruption, and they're quick to point out the corruption in the U.S and elsewhere. Only, the corruption in those countries are on an entirely different level. See the report from transparency.org. Both China and Russia don't even rank in the top 99 least corrupt countries. The U.S is tied for 17th. Not amazing but not horrible either. China and Russia, however, are shockingly corrupt. It's pervasive throughout their entire culture.

I knew I should've added "/s" at the end of my post...

Have a look at a recent story about how the Kremlin might have dirt on trump.

So the strategy appears to be:

Gather dirt on all relevant political candidates Use it to sink the ones that arent conducive to your goals(in a tight, 51%/49% race, every bit helps) Use it as leverage to ensure loyalty of the rest.

And here is Trump's team already working on their Kremlin assigned task, reducing sanctions on russia.

By sites I think you mean Sputnik, and by reporting immigration I think you mean "mostly reported on the EU, the USA, and NATO with such highly sensationalized titles like 'Sweden in Flames' and 'EU waiting for Armageddon'", and by saying they are calling it Russian fake news, I think you mean they said Sputnik was publishing highly editorialized and negative articles about specific topics without actually claiming they were out-and-out fake (the exception being the forgeries).

In 2014 the Swedish army stated it had proof of a Russian sub lurking in Swedish territorial waters right before a vote on increasing military spending. In 2015 the Defense Ministry admitted the "proof" was actually a sonar signature which came from a Swedish vessel, and not a Russian sub.

This could be another instance of the Swedes fear-mongering. Or it could be true.

My guess is that it is true. Most news sources have a tendency to push a narrative to their audience. For example, this article is clearly singling out Russia as a source of fake news and is not providing the whole picture of who published fake news.

Seriously. There is zero self awareness. The US is the most meddlesome country on earth even with its own allies. No shit Russia meddles, but this push to hunt them down specifically is so forced it's nauseating. So is the Fake news narrative which can simply be renamed "don't trust anything other than what we tell you peasants".

Foreign media outlets influencing decision making? What the hell are CNN and BBC, then?

I'm curious - what is the moral difference between a well-funded Russian propaganda operation designed to influence western politics, and a well-funded Rupert Murdoch propaganda operation designed to influence politics in western countries? I suspect neither is working for the interests of the average western citizen.

As far as I'm concerned, they are both objectionable - Murdoch's operation more so, simply because it has more bandwidth.

This is getting absurd. If your 'democracy' gets toppled by a bunch of online trolls then you live in a failed state. Get a grip people.

There's a lot that you wont see in your media

Story about fake News about Sweden

Top comments spreading bullshit about Sweden

Well done Worldnews.

Can't we just drop the stupid "fake news" label and just call it what it is, propaganda?

It's nothing new, many powerful governments do it domestically and abroad.

Like Soviet propaganda, Russian public diplomacy today can also be wildly inconsistent.

That is on purpose, you throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

Ask for a selfie, he's going to deliver in a second if it's really him.

propaganda about propaganda

¯_(ツ)_/¯

Maybe Breitbart could avoid some of this confusion by showing even the most moderate amount of compunction about carrying Russian propaganda and taking the word of guys like Flynn, and other conspiratorialist writers. They might even want to acknowledge that guys like Tillerson and former Russian stooge politicial campaigner Manafort have a serious foreign conflict of interest.

Oh, wtf was I thinking, Bannon, Drudge and FOX news run a media empire with personal aims on power and influence, but that's ok, because stiggin' it to libs.

edit a letter

I guess Rupert Murdoch is a Russian agent now. Russia will support nationalist parties who oppose a closer EU because they share a common goal, nothing shocking about that. That does not mean that any anti-EU sentiment you see is a result of the Russian media machine. Nationalism is not a new or rare viewpoint.

The Russia/Fake News narrative will be used by globalist factions to imply that any public opposition is caused by Russian manipulation, and therefore not legitimate. They may ride this narrative all the way to censorship of their political opponents. Mainstream media is already doing this by casually connecting Breitbart and Russian interference in the same articles. The suggestion of course is that Breitbart must be a Russian outlet, instead of just a western nationalist publication which engages in the same narrative building through distortion that both factions are now neck deep in.

The Globalist angle over the last 2 years has been to pretend that their only opposition were confused and uneducated proles who didn't understand what they were voting for. Then they were racists and sexists motivated by hate. Then they were misguided protesters unhappy about something, anything other than the march of globalism, because what sane person could oppose that?

Now they are Russian sleeper agents.

Pretending that their political opposition doesn't really exist hasn't gone too well so far. Lets see how long they keep it up.

Meanwhile, reddit still loves RT and others as news sources. Face it.

Russian political theorists seem to want to unite conservative movements across the west. Using black propaganda as it's primary weapon- the aim is to kill liberalism with its own press freedoms. First stoking fears of immigrants to allow right wing parties to sweep to power, then to fracture the European Union, and finally to realign the West and create a New Middle Ages (because the first one was so good apparently)? It seems to be a collective rejection of religious tolerance, growing ireligiousity of Western people, the influx of muslims, the waning control of traditional sex and gender norms-- all that stuff is like mana for authoritarian followers, they're most common trait seems to be angry adherence to convention.

I think everyone should subscribe to Russia Today and other news channels on Youtube and watch a bunch of their videos. If you compare RT to any western News Channels its pretty obvious who is creating disinformation and propaganda.

Don't believe everything you see. Do some research, find the sources. It's really easy.

Your example is a great example itself. First of all, Martin Kragh, a Russia expert at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, mentioned 26 fake documents in his report, ten of them were identified as forged, but only 3 of them were examined:

A letter signed by Swedish Minister of Defence Peter Hultqvist appeared on a Twitter of a well-known Swedish military affairs journalist.

A letter signed by Tora Holst, head of the International Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm, was uploaded to CNN’s website.

A letter, uploaded to Pressbladet, from Nada al-Qahtani, a female IS leader to Swedish Foreign Minister.

All those letters have nothing to do with Russian media, despite the fact that those documents were reported by some of them (not sputniknews, though). As well as they were reported by some western media.

But since the report is filled with keywords like sputniknews, propaganda, fake, kgb, warfare and so on, any reader will get a feeling of some kind of wrongdoing by evil Russikes.

The issue isn't the political nature of RT, it's the fact they're practically a propaganda network with almost no interest in journalistic integrity.

RT isn't merely publicly funded, it's pretty much an apparatus of the state. That's different from just getting access to public funding.

There was a study in 2012 that showed that people that watched Fox News or MSNBC were worse informed than people that consumed no news at all, CNN was only slightly better than no news, NPR consumers were the best informed.

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf

Reddit defends Russia? The only thing I see it doing is constantly shitting on Russia since Ukrainian conflict. It's behind everything bad right now.

That's the best part--for the most part now, leaks don't actually have to be incriminating. Look at how much insanity the Podesta leaks created, out of the most mundane subject matter. The leaks themselves become the story, and then when crazy conspiracy theorists create a phantom pedophile network out of whole cloth, more people pay attention to them because "there must have been something in the leaks".

It's only whataboutism if you fail to disprove the logic behind their actions. Calling out human right abuses in Saudi Arabia is not illogical it's pretty damn logical.

There's also a danger coming from our own media. /u/teohtime put it very well in the comment below:

Russia will support nationalist parties who oppose a closer EU because they share a common goal, nothing shocking about that. That does not mean that any anti-EU sentiment you see is a result of the Russian media machine. Nationalism is not a new or rare viewpoint.

The Russia/Fake News narrative will be used by globalist factions to imply that any public opposition is caused by Russian manipulation, and therefore not legitimate. They may ride this narrative all the way to censorship of their political opponents. Mainstream media is already doing this by casually connecting Breitbart and Russian interference in the same articles.

There's a lot of misinformation coming from all sides as part of the 'perception management' strategy, today grouped with others under the buzzword 'information warfare'.

What's written in the linked paper looks to me as a description of a real strategy. It would be great to get similar papers from Russia and China that discuss the strategies of the NATO members and EU countries. In this way people could compare all approaches and hopefully figure out how to critically evaluate information they receive from the media.

The perception management today is already automated:

Revealed: the MoD's secret cyberwarfare programme - Multimillion pound project will look at how i...

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

These automated system have amazing capabilities in language processing, artificial intelligence, emotion manipulation, profiling, elicitation of information, etc. You can read more about these from the Negobot project. It's a technology like any other and can be used both for bad and good.

That's why there's gossip. That's also why there is something called, wait for it, JOURNALISM. It's a shame that news and fact checking have somehow become two separate entities instead of one being an integral part of the other.

I've lived in Russia for six years. The primary difference in corruption between the US and Russia is that the low to mid levels of the bureaucracy aren't corrupt in the US, due to heavy enforcement and the fact that government jobs pay pretty well and generally have great benefits. Simply put, there's very little incentive to take a bribe in the US when the penalty is a criminal record and loss of a stable job that demands very little of you.

In Russia the low level bureaucracy has a lot of power, because everything is over-regulated and requires extensive paperwork and permits, but their pay is very low. Low pay, little oversight, and lots of power is a great mix for fostering corruption. Due to the low pay, they also don't attract very talented people, so they're slow and inefficient. In most cases the bribes aren't paid because a businessman or citizen is looking for any particular advantage in competition, but simply because they want to get something done that requires a pointless permit, and the fastest way to do that is to give the appropriate clerk a couple of thousand rubles to process your paperwork immediately, rather than wait 3 months.

Ex: a simple driver's license. You can take the classes, be a perfect driver, and then have the official administering the test fail you over and over again for extremely minor infractions, or made up infractions. After the first test most people just pay the official to pass them, which in Moscow will cost you about 30,000 rubles ($500) right now.

The higher the approving authority for whatever you want to accomplish is, the higher your gratuity.

By comparison, most corruption in the US would arguably be at the executive levels. State senators, US senators, congresspeople, mayors, state comptroller, etc. The people who effectively are in charge of their own regulation have largely legislated to make bribes legal. The US system is simply far more sophisticated, and much of it is predicated upon future reward. So while a congressman might not take overt bribes while in office, when they get hired to an $1.2 million a year job as a consultant after giving up their seat, it's not because they've earned that position through their professional acumen. Russia also has this corruption at the highest levels, but prosecution of it is dependent on how useful you are to the ruling party and how blatant you are. Whereas officials once more or less flaunted their ill-gotten gains, typically they're more low-key now.

What did she do?

So people should see both sides of this:

It's a smart strategy by Russia to influence manipulate other countries without dropping bombs. In geopolitics it's always smart to try to get ahead.

It's also smart for the countries at the other end of this to take steps to prevent Russia from doing this. They can't send the message that it's ok for other countries to manipulate their policies and politics.

And, it's important to note, that most redditors who constantly link to that book have never read it. The book has never been translated to English.

Give me a machine readable copy and a day, and I'll give you an English translation that is sufficient to get a general understanding of it.

Careful, or you'll be labeled a Putin-phile

If people are paid to go and destroy any attempt at a civilized conversation on current affairs, be it reddit, facebook or at newspapers, it is a big, big deal. They are derailing professionals.

No conversation, no democracy. It doesn't get toppled, it just cuts oxygen out and people get confused and stupid. Granny can't handle someone raised on 4chan.

And yes, I've seen this and NO! it is not what everyone else is doing. Believe me, when there's a USA-criticising article being shared on these media in my language, nobody pops up to make people rage.

When articles criticises Russia, several people now seem to just hit the bottle hard and start posting all kinds of verbal flares, taunts and red herrings.

Hahaha artikeln är ju för fan från SR din fjant

There's no proof he was actually murdered due to anything politically related.

Edit: Hit send too soon.

When we do it, it's okay since we are pushing "truth". When others do it, it's bad because they are pushing "lies".

It's a form of geopolitical hypocrisy called propaganda.

I don't see why expressing an anti-EU opinion or criticising NATO is considered disinformation.

That's not disinformation. Disinformation is deliberately spreading misleading info, like "we pay 350 million to the EU every week, get nothing for it and can reinvest it in the NHS." Each part of that sentence is both an opinion and a lie with info detail to appear true.

It's doubly worse when it's sponsored by a state which openly declares itself as hostile.

Disinformation: Blatantly false stuff Misinformation: Wrong info that could be wrong either by accident or by deliberate action.

Disinformation would be "People should not drink P&G water products because P&G uses snail goop to make all their bottles"

Disinformation is misleading propaganda that diverts from the truth for various reasons. So yeah, it's wrong. It's not "just" an anti-EU opinion, which plenty of people are able to have without being accused of "disinformation". It's blatantly false lies which they're able to sell.

Shh, don't tell that to all the Americans who now love Russia and trust them more than half of their own country.

Takes time and resources to educate people. Fear works instantaneously on everyone regardless of intelligence.

Just because Worldnews often falls for it doesnt make it "true".

I didn't say anything about worldnews. They are real because there are sources like court documents, government stats etc. For example, immigrants in general commit more crimes than native Swedes. This is an objective fact, just because Russian media might report on it doesn't make it false.

Now your just doing what they are doing. There is no way Russia is responsible for Afro-American relations you guys dug that hole all by yourself.

Sweden, don't you fall for this shit like we did. I like you guys too much.

but then they try to say sites that report on immigration crime and other bad effects are "Russian fake news", which is bullshit.

No, they are fake news. Just because Worldnews often falls for it doesnt make it "true".

One of the worst

Despite their shortcomings and flaws (they certainly are far from perfect), our media only has one agenda, profits. They answer to shareholders. In places like Russia and China, their news agencies don't have shareholders. Their media is literally (not figuratively) ran by their respective governments. Their news is nationalized. They have completely different goals. Comparing the two in this manner isn't just naive, it's flat out ignorant.

That model only works when you have institutions that disseminate the news. Now however, anyone can make a site that looks legit and people will share the news regardless.

We cannot blame journalists for this problem. Unless people look for reputable sources, we are f'ed.

You can't have it both ways. Either there was nothing nefarious in the leaked emails, and so they couldn't possibly have influenced the election, or the information revealed was so compelling that it is the sole reason that Hillary lost and so Russia influenced the election. Which is it?

Or Obama recently saying that Russia is weak and only has two exports, or they're our number one geopolitical threat. Which is it?

We're accusing Russia of promoting inconsistencies in order to sow confusion, maybe we should get our own story straight first. Of course that is tough when you have the president saying contradictory things and a coordinated msm misinformation propaganda campaign saying that 'Russia Hacked the Election'.

Without question.

Left reporting in. You will still find us just as hostile toward shit liike pedophilia as we are toward nazis.

However did they actually do anything to directly affect the result of the voting?

We don't and can't know.

Honest Americans (like me, naturally) will tell you that the decision by certain elements here to side with a foreign adversary for domestic political gain is the biggest problem-Russian interference is a secondary concern in comparison. The divisive effect this had and is having cannot be overstated

Ukrainian. You mean Russian. I heard everyone there just wants to be Russian.

Well, the discussion has been going on for a long time, ever since Russia stared to help fund right wing extreme groups in Europe.

And that Russia helps spread fake news about Sweden has been talked about a lot the last year.

So this is not really that much of a "holy shit" moment, its more of a "well, yeah".

Like Soviet propaganda, Russian public diplomacy today can also be wildly inconsistent. The West is portrayed as weak, but at the same a near existential threat to Russia.

That's rich. Isn't that what we said about the USSR? In one breath we'd claim "they were an existential threat to the west" while in another breath we'd mock them for being weaklings who had to build up potemkin villages to hide their weakness.

We also do this to china. On the one hand, they are the yellow peril out to destroy us. On the other hand, they are backwards inferior people who can only copy but never innovate.

What's even funnier is that anti-russian message is so obvious and blatant propaganda run by the entire western media. It's a tad bit strange that the US, British, Canadian and even australian media all are pushing the same message.

The more we pretend we are different, the more "russian" or chinese we seem.

I've been taking some time off.

This sounds bad, but its absurdly common in history for countries to be pushing out propaganda to other countries.

Every country does it, some are worse and less ethical than others.

I also want to remind everyone that our own media pushed the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

part of me thinks that being 'informed' politically is irresponsible... Being informed historically would probably yield better results.

Well eumm Sweden is not an part of NATO...

Wonder if they messed with brexit, too

I don't think /u/AnothaOne4me was suggesting that one should read the book as a positive example on geopolitics, but rather that reading it would provide insight as to why this sort of information warfare is being used by Russia and their potential goals.

They all are. That's the game.

We had "correcting the record", now we have "propping the record"?

Because propaganda didn't exist until 2016 and Russia is the only country using it??

No, because fake news is a new phenomena that came with social media and is worthy of studying on its own. Previously, news sources were held to some sort of journalistic integrity else they could be called out for a blatantly false story and no one would believe that source anymore. Like the National Enquirer. Now, people just share something from a random Facebook page that looks like news and it passes for a real news source to enough people that it makes a real difference in public opinion.

And the fact that propaganda is something every government does isn't a valid dismissal. It's in a country's best interest to try to find it and put a stop to it whenever it can. The mere idea of dismissing foreign meddling in domestic elections as if it's not a big deal is ridiculous. To turn a blind eye to it is basically colluding with a foreign government against your own.

Calling people gullible and retards etc will NOT win you over to your cause NOR will it convince them you are right even if you are. I suggest not calling names if you wish to educate people about political goings-on.

Meanwhile a dude got elected president after bragging about sexual assault.

The right defends that too while the left condemns it.

And you'll find a lot of people condemning Dunham for what she did. A few people protecting her doesn't represent the entire group in the same way neo-nazis don't represent the right.

This whole "a few people on twitter represent everyone" shit is obnoxious.

Here we go, reddit defends russia. Every time.

Remember "Climategate?" That was proof of concept for election hacking. Release a huge dump of personal communications, and with a little digging and suggestive framing you can make anyone look absolutely filthy.

To play the devil's advocate, that would make it even easier to fan the flames.

The article is based on peer-reviewed research, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. They've cited what they're talking about and provided a lot of evidence.

Dirty laundry is not the same thing as corruption, nepotism and collusion.

The real problem is that there wasn't anything particularly damning in any of the leaks, but people like yourself are only too happy to pretend like there was.

Its smart, Russia won the US election.

They will now have considerable influence over our executive branch.

If you back the winner, you get spoils.

No, it isn't smart. All societies that practice censorship have superficially reasonable sounding justifications for doing it. And all the examples I can think of went wrong and caused huge problems.

Most of the "fake news" that's being talked about isn't fake news at all, it's just opinions that the so-called "elites" don't like very much. Links to Russia - usually either fully admitted (RT/Sputnik news) or far more often, asserted without evidence.