{"id":171636,"date":"2020-11-02T12:00:19","date_gmt":"2020-11-02T12:00:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=171636"},"modified":"2020-10-31T07:20:41","modified_gmt":"2020-10-31T07:20:41","slug":"10-ways-to-call-something-russian-disinformation-without-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2020\/11\/10-ways-to-call-something-russian-disinformation-without-evidence\/","title":{"rendered":"10 Ways to Call Something Russian Disinformation without Evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"

The principles of American Newspeak, vol. 1<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

27 Oct 2020 – <\/em>How do you call something \u201cRussian disinformation\u201d when you don\u2019t have evidence it is? Let\u2019s count the ways.<\/p>\n

We don\u2019t know a whole lot about how the New York Post <\/em>story about Hunter Biden got into print. There are some reasons to think the material is genuine (including its cache of graphic photos and some apparent limited confirmation from people on the email chains), but in terms of sourcing, anything is possible. This material could have been hacked by any number of actors, and shopped for millions (as Time <\/em>has reported<\/a>), and all sorts of insidious characters – including notorious Russian partisans like Andrei Derkach – could have been behind it.<\/p>\n

None of these details are known, however, which hasn\u2019t stopped media companies from saying otherwise. Most major outlets began denouncing the story as foreign propaganda right away and haven\u2019t stopped. A quick list of the creative methods seen lately of saying, \u201cWe don\u2019t know, but we know!\u201d:<\/p>\n

1 . Our spooks say it looks like the work of their spooks<\/strong>.<\/h3>\n

A group of 50 \u201cformer senior intelligence officials\u201d wrote a letter<\/a> as soon as the Post <\/em>story came out. Their most-quoted line was that the Post <\/em>story has \u201call the classic hallmarks of a Russian information operation.\u201d Note they said information operation, <\/em>not disinformation operation \u2014 humorously, even people with records of lying to congress like James Clapper<\/a> and John Brennan<\/a> have been more careful with language than members of the news media.<\/p>\n

Emphasizing that they didn\u2019t know if the emails \u201care genuine,\u201d these ex-heads of agencies like the CIA added \u201cour experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case,\u201d noting that it appeared to be an operation \u201cconsistent with Russian objectives.\u201d Politico<\/a>, <\/em>the Boston Globe<\/a>, <\/em>the Washington Post<\/a><\/em>, the Daily Beast<\/a>, <\/em>and many other outlets ran the spook testimonial.<\/p>\n

2. It was prophesied<\/strong>.<\/h3>\n

The Washington Post <\/em>needed four reporters<\/a> \u2014 Shane Harris, Ellen Nakashima, Greg Miller, and Josh Dawsey \u2014 to tell us that \u201cfour former officials familiar with the matter\u201d spoke of a long-ago report that the would-be source of the Post<\/em> emails, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, had been \u201cinteracting with people tied to Russian intelligence\u201d in Ukraine. As such, any information he \u201cbrought back\u201d from there \u201cshould should be considered contaminated by Russia.\u201d Therefore, by the transitive property of whatever, the New York Post <\/em>story should be dismissed as part of an \u201cinfluence\u201d operation.<\/p>\n

3. Authorities are investigating if it <\/strong>might<\/strong><\/em> be Russian disinformation<\/strong>.<\/h3>\n

\u201cThe FBI is probing a possible disinformation campaign<\/a>,\u201d announced USA Today, <\/em>citing the omnipresent \u201cperson familiar with the matter.\u201d Officially, of course, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said<\/a> \u201cHunter Biden\u2019s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,\u201d to which FBI spokesperson Jill C. Tyson officially said the bureau had \u201cnothing to add at this time<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Many of the outlets who covered this sequence of events described the F.B.I. statement as \u201ccarefully worded<\/a>,\u201d inviting us to read in things left unsaid. Thomas Rid in the Post <\/em>went so far as to say Tyson was \u201chinting that actionable intelligence might yet be developed,\u201d which is technically true but also technically meaningless.<\/p>\n

Another neat trick was to discuss the Post <\/em>story and in the same sentence refer to a present-tense description of an apparently confirmed operation to discredit Joe Biden. CNN\u2019s construction<\/a> was like this: \u201cThe FBI is investigating whether the recently published emails that purport to detail the business dealings of Joe Biden’s son in Ukraine and China are connected to an ongoing Russian disinformation effort targeting the former vice president’s campaign.\u201d<\/p>\n

That \u201congoing Russian disinformation effort\u201d is a story again sourced<\/a>, as so many stories of the last four years have been, to assessments of intelligence officials. Thus the essence of these new headlines comes down to, \u201cIntelligence officials are checking to see if the new story can be connected to prior claims of intelligence officials.\u201d<\/p>\n

4. Even if it isn\u2019t a Russian influence operation, we should act like it is<\/strong>.<\/h3>\n

Johns Hopkins \u201cProfessor of Strategic Studies\u201d Thomas Rid came up with the most elegant construction in a Washington Post <\/a><\/em>editorial<\/a>, stating bluntly: \u201cWe must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation \u2014 even if they probably aren\u2019t.\u201d Err on the side of caution, as it were. As the bosses in Casino <\/em>put it, why take a chance<\/a>?<\/p>\n

5. The Biden campaign says it\u2019s Russian disinformation (even though they can\u2019t say for sure it\u2019s disinformation at all).<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The press has elicited from the Biden campaign a few limited, often contradictory comments about what is and isn\u2019t true in the New York Post <\/em>story. For instance, the campaign\u2019s chief communications officer Andrew Bates said about allegations Joe Biden met with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharski, \u201cWe have reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the same article<\/a>, reporters noted, \u201cBiden\u2019s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi.\u201d So no meeting took place (although we\u2019re not saying no meeting took place).<\/p>\n

The campaign continues to not take a concrete position about the veracity of the emails, but allows people like \u201csenior Biden advisor\u201d and former Assistant Secretary of State Michael Carpenter to say things like, \u201cThis is a Russian disinformation operation\u2026 I\u2019m very comfortable saying that.\u201d<\/p>\n

The natural follow-up question there should have been, \u201cIf it\u2019s disinformation, are you saying the emails aren\u2019t real?\u201d But we haven\u2019t seen many questions of that sort, probably because no one wants to be the member of the White House pool six months from now wearing the scars of interactions like this:<\/p>\n

\n

I asked Joe Biden: What is your response to the NYPost story about your son, sir?<\/p>\n

He called it a \u201csmear campaign\u201d and then went after me. \u201cI know you\u2019d ask it. I have no response, it\u2019s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask.\u201d pic.twitter.com\/Eo6VD4TqxD<\/a><\/p>\n

— Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) October 17, 2020<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n