#the stated beliefs are either fake or deliberately misleading

[miodiodavinci]

(single loud AA) (the forest goes silent immediately after) (birdsong returns moments later)

[oldguardaudio]

Ben Swann - Russia Hackers or CIA Fake News? Washington Post Fake News on Russian Hacking in Vermont

Russia Hackers or CIA Fake News? Reality Check: Proof That Those "Moderate Rebels" in Syria are Really Jihadists

Reality Check: Why WaPo's Russia Hacking U.S. Power Grid Story is Epitome of "Fake News"

so the CIA says that Russia did in fact

0-04

attempt to sway the u.s. presidential

0-05

election in favor of Donald Trump and

0-07

while most of the media is taking that

0-09

statement as fact we're pushing back and

0-11

looking at at least five problems with

0-14

this claim this is a reality check you

0-16

won't see anywhere else

0-17

well by now you've heard of the CIA is

0-23

sure that Russia did hack the DNC and

0-26

John Podesta emails with the intent to

0-28

swing the election toward Donald Trump

0-30

and predictably here's how some

0-32

politicians have responded the Russians

0-35

are not our friends

0-36

it defies belief that somehow

0-38

Republicans in the Senate are reluctant

0-40

to either review Russian tactics or

0-43

ignore them

0-44

our men and women in the intelligence

0-45

community who gather and assess

0-49

intelligence are very careful very

0-50

deliberate and if they weren't they

0-52

wouldn't be in the position that they

0-54

occupy but what most media isn't doing

0-57

is actually asking for evidence of these

0-59

claims i'm gonna give you five problems

1-01

with what the CIA is saying problem

1-04

number one how the information was

1-06

released in the first place because the

1-07

CIA did not officially release this

1-09

information rather anonymous sources

1-12

inside the CIA leak this conclusion to

1-15

the washington post on friday and then

1-17

another anonymous source leaked the same

1-19

conclusion to the new york times from

1-21

the post the CIA has concluded in a

1-23

secret assessment that Russia intervened

1-26

in the 2016 election to help Donald

1-28

Trump when the presidency rather than

1-30

just undermine confidence in the u.s.

1-32

electoral system the post goes on to

1-34

report this intelligence agencies have

1-36

identified individuals with connections

1-38

to the Russian government who provided

1-40

WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked

1-42

emails and both the DNC and John

1-44

possesses email accounts so here's the

1-47

second problem here these anonymous

1-48

sources they did not provide any

1-50

evidence to support those statements and

1-53

by releasing the information anonymously

1-55

there's no one accountable to provide

1-58

that proof the third problem here

2-00

the CIA lies maybe they should have been

2-02

the first problem not always but i can

2-04

give you a number of recent stories

2-06

where that agency has made claims that

2-08

have been proven untrue

2-10

there are many public examples but just

2-12

two recent one

2-12

the Senate Intelligence Committee

2-14

blasted the CIA in 2014 for an ongoing

2-17

quote culture of Miss information which

2-20

they said has undermined the public's

2-22

trust in America's intelligence

2-24

leadership also Democratic Senator Ron

2-26

Wyden of Oregon said that quote that

2-29

trust has been seriously undermined by

2-31

senior officials reckless reliance on

2-33

secret interpretations of the law and

2-36

battered by years of misleading and

2-38

deceptive practices within the CIA and

2-41

what about that huge Senate report on

2-43

CIA torture practices remember this was

2-45

a four-year 40 million other Senate

2-48

report it found that the CIA repeatedly

2-50

lied about brutal techniques in the

2-52

years after nine eleven so please excuse

2-55

us if the public needs the CIA to do

2-57

more than just leaked anonymously its

2-59

conclusion that Russia tried to sway the

3-01

election

3-02

oh and by the way the fourth problem

3-04

here even according to the post article

3-06

those CIA investigators they haven't

3-08

even come to an agreement on the

3-10

conclusion again from the post there

3-12

were minor disagreements among

3-14

intelligence officials about the

3-16

agency's assessment in part because some

3-18

questions remain unanswered

3-20

what does that mean one of those

3-22

disagreements and without providing that

3-24

information

3-24

how can we trust these disagreements are

3-26

actually minor since that's of course a

3-29

relative term and that leads us to our

3-31

fifth problem the fact that repeatedly

3-33

Julian Assange the founder of wikileaks

3-35

has said that the DNC leak was not a

3-37

hack it was information leaked to

3-40

WikiLeaks from someone inside the DNC

3-42

will only days ago a former British

3-44

ambassador to with becca Stan Craig

3-46

Murray said that he has met the person

3-48

who gave the DNC emails to a sonj and

3-50

WikiLeaks and he says it is not the

3-53

Russians quote I know who leaked that

3-55

Marie told the UK Guardian I've met the

3-57

person who leaked them and they are

3-59

certainly not Russian and it's an

4-01

insider it's a leak not a hack the two

4-04

are different things so what you need to

4-06

know is that on top of all of these

4-08

questions is one fundamental issue that

4-10

everyone is missing the claim is that

4-12

russia decided to hack the election not

4-14

by altering voting results but by making

4-16

public actual emails from the Clinton

4-19

campaign and the DNC look I have said

4-21

this before and I will say it again

4-23

how bizarre isn't that the argument is

4-25

not the

4-26

options were trying to influence the

4-27

election through lies or electronic

4-29

voting but rather the claim if you

4-31

really boil it down is that the Russian

4-33

sway the election for Donald Trump by

4-35

revealing the truth about the Clinton

4-37

campaign and the truth about the DNC

4-40

that's reality check let's talk about

4-42

that on twitter

 Audio # 2 

  Reality Check: Why WaPo's Russia Hacking U.S. Power Grid Story is Epitome of "Fake News"  

0-00

russian hackers penetrated us

0-02

electricity grid through a utility in

0-04

Vermont US officials say that was the

0-06

headline from The Washington Post on

0-08

friday by now you might have heard that

0-10

these Russian hackers attempted to

0-11

access the power grid in Vermont

0-13

the only problem with the story it's not

0-16

true but this fake news story was

0-18

published by the post and yet among most

0-20

media and social sites like Facebook

0-22

there is no outrage over this fake news

0-25

so what happened let's give it a reality

0-27

check so i've got about three minutes to

0-31

explain to let me give you the rundown

0-32

it was friday night 755 p.m. when the

0-35

Washington Post ran its first article

0-37

claiming that Russian hackers connected

0-39

to a high-level Russian government

0-41

operation known as Grizzly steep had

0-44

penetrated the Vermont utility the post

0-46

did not have even one single name source

0-48

for this information and instead was

0-50

relying on an anonymous source from

0-52

Homeland Security and yet that same

0-54

evening between 924 until 6pm the post

0-56

updated the article to state that

0-58

multiple computer systems at the utility

1-01

have been breached quote officials said

1-03

that it was unclear when the code

1-04

entered the Vermont utilities computers

1-06

and that investigation will attempt to

1-08

determine the timing and the nature it

1-11

says of the intrusion of the article

1-13

began to spread on social media and it

1-15

grew from 818 paragraphs but as it grew

1-19

it did not include one single statement

1-21

from the utility in question which is

1-23

why within an hour and a half of that

1-25

first article being published the

1-27

utility company itself came forward

1-29

releasing this statement which actually

1-31

corrected the post article they said

1-33

quote we detected the malware in a

1-35

single burlington electric department

1-37

laptop not connected to our

1-39

organizations grid systems we took

1-41

immediate action to isolate the laptop

1-43

and alerted federal officials of this

1-45

finding

1-46

ok so did you get that it was not the

1-48

power drain it was a single laptop not

1-51

connected to the grid but that laptop

1-53

was still access by Russian hackers

1-55

right well no maybe not and here's why

1-58

burlington electric said in a statement

1-59

that the company well it detected a

2-02

malware code used in the Grizzly step

2-05

operation but the malware in question is

2-08

actually available for purchase online

2-09

that means anyone could have used it or

2-12

what is most likely here is that an

2-14

employee using that laptop had access

2-16

the website infected with malware five

2-20

days after blowing this story the post

2-21

finally admitted it got it wrong saying

2-23

this the post initially reported

2-25

incorrectly that the country's electric

2-27

grid have been penetrated through a

2-29

Vermont utility after burlington

2-31

electric released a statement saying

2-32

that the potentially compromised laptop

2-34

had not been connected to the grid the

2-36

post immediately corrected this article

2-38

and later added an editor's note

2-40

explaining the change

2-42

yeah but that's really not true see the

2-44

paper kept changing and amending the

2-46

story with no editors notes explaining

2-48

what was being changed and Forbes

2-50

explain it like this

2-51

the following morning nearly 11 hours

2-53

after changing the headline and

2-55

rewriting the article to indicate that

2-56

the grid itself was never breached and

2-58

that the hack was only an isolated

3-00

laptop with malware the post still had

3-03

not offended any kind of editorial note

3-05

to indicate that it had significantly

3-08

changed the focus of the article so what

3-11

you need to know is that glenn greenwald

3-12

makes a great point when he says that

3-13

journalists especially in cases like

3-15

this must not simply accept what

3-17

government state as absolute truth

3-20

remember it was a DHS source who

3-21

initially leaked the story but likely

3-24

happen here

3-24

someone from DHS tipped off the post

3-26

reporter about Russians hacking the u.s.

3-29

power grid and the paper decided to

3-31

simply believe that source rather than

3-33

take the basic journalistic step of

3-36

checking the facts

3-37

it is precisely for these reasons that

3-39

news organizations cannot simply accept

3-41

anyone's word government law enforcement

3-44

trusted sources the average citizen it

3-47

doesn't matter without verifying the

3-49

basic facts because to not do so well

3-52

that is the real definition of fake news

3-55

that's reality check let's talk about it

3-57

on Twitter

Published on Jan 6, 2017

  Check out my new Podcast | Audio episode!