How to Identify a Fake (AKA PROPAGANDA)
http://www.stopfake.org/en/how-to-identity-a-fake/A significant percentage of information on high-profile events (the confrontational situation in Ukraine, in our case), does not correspond to reality. The root cause of this is the use of such information for governmental propaganda purposes: in this case the news stories are used not to inform the public, but to impose certain opinions on them, which is generally beneficial to one side or another. This document will attempt to highlight the main methods used for identification of lies in mass media.
Let us begin by agreeing that we’ll attempt to work only with proven facts, and not with statements by either side. For example, if the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs makes a statement on some event in Ukraine, while the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Defence denies said statement, then we find ourselves in a classic scenario of “word against word”; two interested parties say that which benefits them. For this reason our website has so few refutations of verbal statements: they are possible only when someone contests information that is beneficial to them (for example, when Donetsk militants denied their seizure of “Grad” multi-rocket-launcher systems, which was reported by channel LifeNews, loyal to them). Therefore we shall try to speak of only facts.
Photo-fake
This is a more popular type of fake, but also it is easier to dispel. Using the Internet, it is usually possible to establish the credibility of any photo within a matter of seconds. As it turns out, however, most users are incapable of this; they instantly believe any “screaming” photo.
There are a number of ways to ID a photo-fake. If you use Google Chrome you simply need to right-click on an image and select the option of searching for the image in Google. If you use a different browser (one without this default image-search option), you can install a special plug-in; there are many. For example, a very useful one is Who stole my pictures. The benefit of this plug-in is that it can search not only on Google, but also on Yandex, Tineye, or all three at once.
MORE TECHNIQUES FOR DEBUNKING "FACTUAL" INFORMATION
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
delrem
(9,688 posts)The article is, itself, propaganda.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Obamacare, and human ability to control the weather, climate, etc., that is, any topic where emotion blocks rational analysis of the data.
The first step in detecting propaganda is Cui bono? Who benefits from a lie, or a half-truth, or an attempt to manipulate the conversation?
delrem
(9,688 posts)and is itself a form of propaganda.
What are the facts that we know?
There was a coup overthrowing a democratically elected gov't.
Civil war followed along ethnic, linguistic and geographic lines that are readily available to be seen on appropriately colored maps and, once seen, are obvious to all.
There are outside actors and interests, principally Russia and NATO.
The first victim of war is the truth.
Otherwise, what do we know?
That one method of consolidation for empires from time immemorial is "divide and conquer"?
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Through Victoria Nuland of the State Dept. and her PNAC connections...
I thought you knew that!
Russia had no reason to overthrow a premier who was negotiating with them.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)Fact-checking website Stopfake.org was launched on March 2, 2014 by alumni and students of Mohyla School of Journalism (yes, that would be in Kiev) and of the Digital Future of Journalism professional program for journalists and editors.
At a later stage, the initial team was joined by many journalists, marketing specialists, programmers, translators and all those who care about the fate of our country and its people.
The main purpose of this community is to check facts, verify information, and refute distorted information and propaganda about events in Ukraine covered in the media.
http://www.stopfake.org/en/about-us/
Yes, they are and always have been pro-Maidan.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)
Igel
(35,320 posts)"they are possible only when someone contests information that is beneficial to them (for example, when Donetsk militants denied their seizure of “Grad” multi-rocket-launcher systems, which was reported by channel LifeNews, loyal to them)."
The problem was that it was *not* contesting information beneficial to them, or not contesting it in any meaningful sense.
The militants denied seizing Grads because the claim was they'd used Grads to strike civilian areas. To admit they had them would be to admit the plausibility of striking civilians when their shtick was that "only fascists kill kids". The alternative, that they had Grads from Russia, had been officially denied by a Russia who had similar mixed motives: To say they provided them would play well at home, to say they did not provide them would play well abroad.
When given mixed benefits, what often happens in such situations is a split between what's assumed locally or said locally and what's said for international consumption. Note that a few weeks after the rebels denied having seized a few Grads, there was a great flowering of Grad attacks in numerous locations. By then it was assumed they had them and there was no loss in acknowledging the truth.
In other words, you can't interpret "beneficial" through your own lens, your own perspective. Same with all Cui bono? allegations. I may do something you think entirely against my own good because I have a different take on what is good for me, causing you to think I must be innocent or telling the truth. Or something may happen and you think I did it because it helps "my" good as you, but not I, see it, when there's no way in hell I'd do such a thing because I act in what I perceive to be my interests, not in what you perceive to be my interests.
It's harder when there's no single POV that makes official pronouncements. Now one "leader" says in 15 days they'll be starving in the LNR. Now another leader says that they're good for at least a year, even without Russian assistance. One makes medicines free to anybody with a prescription and all's hunkey-dory. Then the next day another announces that they have no stockpiles, it's a real crisis, while a third says that the stockpiles are nationalized and reserved for troops and those who meet additional guidelines and there is no crisis at all. Who's telling the truth?
