Telegram as a vehicle for war propaganda

[temporal1]

Of course Telegram is a vehicle for war propaganda. One of the top three, in fact.

Conventional wisdom from years gone by (no longer politically correct or culturally acceptable or technologically relevant, so I beg a bit of indulgence for bringing it up in good humour and assure all readers that no offense is intended in any way) says that the most efficient ways to spread propaganda, news, "news", gossip, and other information are as follows:

1. Telephone
2. Telegram
3. Tell a woman

I can't be the only person that finds this funny

What am i, chopped liver?
It seems a bit before his time, tho.

[Bootstrap]

.. are you saying there has not been front-page news that uses either staged or unrelated (ie from a different war) footage? Please go on record saying this.

This wasn't addressed to me, but let me go on record to say this: I do my best to rely on sources that have teams of fact checkers, issue corrections, change the story over time as facts develop, etc. For this kind of coverage, familiarity with the kinds of tools in the Bellingcat toolbox is a must.

If you pull things off of Telegram, there is so much fake content that it's simply not worth the time to check it. You can look at sources that do check the things that go viral, sources that use these tools. And if they do use these tools, they often tell you what you need to verify for yourself. That's what open source intelligence is all about.

On the other hand, you can go to the Ukraine war photos page on the New York Times and be fairly confident that every one of these pictures was checked using tools like those in the Bellingcat toolbox:

https://www.nytimes.com/article/russia- ... ia-ukraine

Give it a try. Can you find even one such photo on this page? Use the Bellingcat toolbox, make sure you tell us enough that we can verify your work. If you want to play in these waters, there are some basic skills to learn.

And yes, it takes significant time to check photos. I have spent hours and hours doing it at times in the past, these days I mostly leave it up to the people I came to trust by doing it myself.

[nett]

.. are you saying there has not been front-page news that uses either staged or unrelated (ie from a different war) footage? Please go on record saying this.

This wasn't addressed to me, but let me go on record to say this: I do my best to rely on sources that have teams of fact checkers, issue corrections, change the story over time as facts develop, etc. For this kind of coverage, familiarity with the kinds of tools in the Bellingcat toolbox is a must.

If you pull things off of Telegram, there is so much fake content that it's simply not worth the time to check it. You can look at sources that do check the things that go viral, sources that use these tools. And if they do use these tools, they often tell you what you need to verify for yourself. That's what open source intelligence is all about.

On the other hand, you can go to the Ukraine war photos page on the New York Times and be fairly confident that every one of these pictures was checked using tools like those in the Bellingcat toolbox:

https://www.nytimes.com/article/russia- ... ia-ukraine

Give it a try. Can you find even one such photo on this page? Use the Bellingcat toolbox, make sure you tell us enough that we can verify your work. If you want to play in these waters, there are some basic skills to learn.

And yes, it takes significant time to check photos. I have spent hours and hours doing it at times in the past, these days I mostly leave it up to the people I came to trust by doing it myself.

What's your point about the NYT story? I never said the article Dan posted was fake, although some of the angles are improbable and seem staged (which bellingcat would not help with)

The New York Times published a stock photo in May and claimed it was a Palestinian girl girl killed by Israeli forces. They are not above faking what they need to sensationalize a story.

[Bootstrap]

What's your point about the NYT story? I never said the article Dan posted was fake, although some of the angles are improbable and seem staged (which bellingcat would not help with)

My point is pretty simple - so much of the claims you see on social media and especially on Telegram turn out to be fake, and even someone with the skills to check it probably doesn't have the time to check every vivid emotional claim. Frankly,, the same is true of claims made on MN.

If the photo was staged, I think Bellingcat actually would help. But that does take time and effort and learning.

So I think it's useful to start with a reliable source. The kind of source that does fact checking, issues corrections when they get something wrong, and basically attempts to tell the truth.

The New York Times published a stock photo in May and claimed it was a Palestinian girl girl killed by Israeli forces. They are not above faking what they need to sensationalize a story.

That article had a WHOLE lot of pictures, you can see it here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... ldren.html

And you're right, one of the pictures turned out to be the wrong girl. It wasn't a stock photo, they got it from social media, Twitter, and this slipped through their fact checking. I don't think that means you can trust Twitter or Signal more than you can trust the New York Times, I think it shows that even the New York Times doesn't always check everything they see on social media adequately.

They issued the following correction:

Correction: A picture with an earlier version of this article was published in error. The child in the photograph was not Rahaf al-Masri. It has been replaced by a photograph supplied by Rahaf’s family.

But I don't think the error particularly changes the story - they fixed it by swapping out one picture of a cute, healthy little girl for another cute, healthy little girl. I don't think the error was sensationalism. But it does demonstrate that even reliable sources make mistakes, which they generally correct later when it becomes clear.

Here's the correct photo:



Here's a Facebook post pointing out that the New York Times got the wrong photo:

[nett]

What's your point about the NYT story? I never said the article Dan posted was fake, although some of the angles are improbable and seem staged (which bellingcat would not help with)

My point is pretty simple - so much of the claims you see on social media and especially on Telegram turn out to be fake, and even someone with the skills to check it probably doesn't have the time to check every vivid emotional claim. Frankly,, the same is true of claims made on MN.

If the photo was staged, I think Bellingcat actually would help. But that does take time and effort and learning.

So I think it's useful to start with a reliable source. The kind of source that does fact checking, issues corrections when they get something wrong, and basically attempts to tell the truth.

The New York Times published a stock photo in May and claimed it was a Palestinian girl girl killed by Israeli forces. They are not above faking what they need to sensationalize a story.

That article had a WHOLE lot of pictures, you can see it here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... ldren.html

And you're right, one of the pictures turned out to be the wrong girl. It wasn't a stock photo, they got it from social media, Twitter, and this slipped through their fact checking. I don't think that means you can trust Twitter or Signal more than you can trust the New York Times, I think it shows that even the New York Times doesn't always check everything they see on social media adequately.

They issued the following correction:

Correction: A picture with an earlier version of this article was published in error. The child in the photograph was not Rahaf al-Masri. It has been replaced by a photograph supplied by Rahaf’s family.

But I don't think the error particularly changes the story - they fixed it by swapping out one picture of a cute, healthy little girl for another cute, healthy little girl. I don't think the error was sensationalism. But it does demonstrate that even reliable sources make mistakes, which they generally correct later when it becomes clear.

Here's the correct photo:



Here's a Facebook post pointing out that the New York Times got the wrong photo:

The New York Times has the resources to carefully manipulate people without using obviously fake news. They are large enough to be able to grind their axe without using obviously fake media. That does not make their message any more trustworthy, in fact, it's almost worse, because they have the facade of trustworthiness that apparently has completely duped you and people like you.

As Bari Weiss and Alex Berenson have exposed, the New York Times is not after truth, they are only interested in pushing their ideology. The fast they maintain a facade of honest journalism just makes it all the more insidious.

[Bootstrap]

The New York Times has the resources to carefully manipulate people without using obviously fake news. They are large enough to be able to grind their axe without using obviously fake media. That does not make their message any more trustworthy, in fact, it's almost worse, because they have the facade of trustworthiness that apparently has completely duped you and people like you.

As Bari Weiss and Alex Berenson have exposed, the New York Times is not after truth, they are only interested in pushing their ideology. The fast they maintain a facade of honest journalism just makes it all the more insidious.

Common pattern here. Pivot away from facts, tell a story about motivations, keep pushing that story. But if the New York Times does a good job of screening for fakes, issues corrections, and clearly doesn't seem to be doing what you claim by showing a picture of the wrong cute little girl ... the facts don't prove the point you were trying to make.

It's easy to fall out of the frying pan and into the fire. Witness the people who are so opposed to what they read in verifiable sources that they believe Russian propaganda streams on Telegram that are clearly fake instead.

There's an easy test here: is this about verifiable truth or not? If it is, how can I verify the claims? Don't tell me some predefined narrative about the evil motives that you think you know various people or organizations have, tell me something about verifiable facts.

[Josh]

The NYT (also known as Carlos Slim’s blog) is full of anti-Christian, anti-morality, pro-Western propaganda. Anyone who considers them to be a good source of news is badly deceived.

The Washington Post (also known as Jeff Bezos’ blog) is even worse.

Take caution when you read such sources and find yourself hating Russians, hating Russia, and feeling like it’s a good idea to go to war to “fight back”.

[temporal1]

The NYT (also known as Carlos Slim’s blog) is full of anti-Christian, anti-morality, pro-Western propaganda.
Anyone who considers them to be a good source of news is badly deceived.

The Washington Post (also known as Jeff Bezos’ blog) is even worse.

Take caution when you read such sources and find yourself hating Russians, hating Russia, and feeling like it’s a good idea to go to war to “fight back”.

i never expected to see it happen here.

i will not follow the NYT to war.
i will not follow those in Congress who export+impose abortion, homosexuality, et al, as conditions for aid to war.

i expected horrible things to follow Congress’ trillions in spending. “trillions” basically translates to: “we’ll do whatever we want, whenever we want, for as long as we want. the money’s there.” i just don’t see any possible way for any level accountability with these numbers. not possible. no one in Congress is competent for the task.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/09/10855099 ... nt-funding

[Ken]

The New York Times has the resources to carefully manipulate people without using obviously fake news. They are large enough to be able to grind their axe without using obviously fake media. That does not make their message any more trustworthy, in fact, it's almost worse, because they have the facade of trustworthiness that apparently has completely duped you and people like you.

As Bari Weiss and Alex Berenson have exposed, the New York Times is not after truth, they are only interested in pushing their ideology. The fast they maintain a facade of honest journalism just makes it all the more insidious.

It is funny how liberals hate the NYT just as much as conservatives do.

[nett]

The New York Times has the resources to carefully manipulate people without using obviously fake news. They are large enough to be able to grind their axe without using obviously fake media. That does not make their message any more trustworthy, in fact, it's almost worse, because they have the facade of trustworthiness that apparently has completely duped you and people like you.

As Bari Weiss and Alex Berenson have exposed, the New York Times is not after truth, they are only interested in pushing their ideology. The fast they maintain a facade of honest journalism just makes it all the more insidious.

Common pattern here. Pivot away from facts, tell a story about motivations, keep pushing that story. But if the New York Times does a good job of screening for fakes, issues corrections, and clearly doesn't seem to be doing what you claim by showing a picture of the wrong cute little girl ... the facts don't prove the point you were trying to make.

It's easy to fall out of the frying pan and into the fire. Witness the people who are so opposed to what they read in verifiable sources that they believe Russian propaganda streams on Telegram that are clearly fake instead.

There's an easy test here: is this about verifiable truth or not? If it is, how can I verify the claims? Don't tell me some predefined narrative about the evil motives that you think you know various people or organizations have, tell me something about verifiable facts.

Way to ignore everything I said. So you will just trust any news organization that reports "verifiable facts", ever heard of a lie of omission?