News What drives the creator of fake news to continue?

[zoobyshoe]

Commercial Bias
The first thing to remember when consuming news is that the news media is a business. It makes money from advertisers, whose payments are proportional to the number and quality of viewers it can reach. Public services (like the BBC) are not funded by advertisers, but they too need high viewing numbers to justify their existence. The bottom line is that the news media needs viewers. What attracts viewers? Interesting stories. Unfortunately, bad-news stories (e.g., conflict, crime, disaster) are far more interesting than good-news stories.

http://www.howtogetyourownway.com/biases/news_media_bias.html

People often forget that newspapers are businesses in competition with other newspapers for the public's attention. They aren't a public or government service. The astute reader knows it's "caveat emptor," just as it is when reading hype about a new car or shampoo. Personally I find, more often than not, the story does not support the hype of headline, just like most products don't live up to the wonders claimed in commercials. I'm over it and now always expect the actual story to be less dramatic than the headline.

Same site linked above talks about the "fairness bias" that arises when a news outlet tries to be so fair it ends up granting too much play to fringe viewpoints:

The BBC is so "fair", it often isn't fair, and its reporters and editors tussle with this idea constantly. For example, let's imagine that 99% of people think apartheid is inhuman and immoral and 1% think it isn't. A news programme covering this issue would present the idea as though it were a 50/50 debate (e.g., showing two street interviews with people against apartheid and two for).

In a similar vein, Greenwald's criticisms, if taken too much to heart, could lead to a point where the media becomes afraid to print anything that hasn't been unassailably vetted and proven impossible to refute.

As far as I'm concerned, the Washington Post took a gamble to get the scoop, and lost. They had to recall their product and so did all the outlets that copied them. A couple days after the Post broke the story the retractions/corrections were just as ubiquitous as the original story. Anyone who didn't quit reading the news altogether would have seen them. I think most now realize the Russians didn't hack the grid (that we know of).

 

[russ_watters]

As far as I'm concerned, the Washington Post took a gamble to get the scoop, and lost.

I'm not sure I follow; what was the gamble? Are you saying the gamble was that people wouldn't notice them spinning a wild tale far beyond what the evidence showed them? This isn't like Rathergate, where there was a clear-cut story and CBS simply gambled that the evidence they had was true without doing their due diligence to prove it (and that was bad enough to destroy careers). This story itself was generated by WaPo. At best one could argue extreme ignorance of the subject they were writing about (and through all levels of editing), but would you really consider that level of recklessness to be ok?

Rathergate was bad enough. Journalists have an explicit ethical obligation toward the truth. Gambling that a piece of evidence is true instead of verifying it properly is an explicit violation of that code. And this case is worse.

A couple days after the Post broke the story the retractions/corrections were just as ubiquitous as the original story.

That isn't really true. Among other things, the original story was hyped on the company Twitter account and the retraction was not announced on Twitter. In addition, they made several substantive edits without making any announcements at all. I guess you'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they intended to eventually and the firestorm of criticism they got for it played no role in causing them to issue the retractions. But then -- that could just make the "gamble" you referred to circular. Anyway, studies have shown that provocative false stories have legs.

In a similar vein, Greenwald's criticisms, if taken too much to heart, could lead to a point where the media becomes afraid to print anything that hasn't been unassailably vetted and proven impossible to refute.

I'm willing to gamble that the pendulum wouldn't swing quite that far back the other way. At least we should be willing to let it come back toward the center before being too worried about it going the other way. Especially since, as you pointed out, the inherent commercial bias always puts pressure in the current direction.

 

[nsaspook]

I assumed that mistakes by the Post are done entirely in good faith or ignorance and not by rolling the dice when the story has matters related to Russia. It must be “newsroom economics,” and no ill will or political incentive or ideology is ascribed by these gambles.

 

[jim hardy]

no ill will or political incentive or ideology is ascribed

you're more generous than I .

Since Woodward and Bernstein, to bag a president has become some sort of Golden Fleece.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This story itself was generated by WaPo.

I don't know where you're getting this idea. Not even Greenwald, the most meticulous critic here, is making this claim. His main complaint is that the Washington Post did not verify the story with the Vermont Utility, and took it at face value from its "government source."

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know where you're getting this idea. Not even Greenwald, the most meticulous critic here, is making this claim. His main complaint is that the Washington Post did not verify the story with the Vermont Utility, and took it at face value from its "government source."

Fair enough; I missed that they cited "government sources" - I thought they saw a line in the Vermont utility report (as you previously indicated) and ran with it.

However, unlike Rathergate, where the source document was provided for all to see, the statements of these alleged 3rd parties are inherrently unverifiable for us. WaPo isn't going to tell us who they were or quote them exactly (or provide a copy of whatever the actual communication was). Since betting against an information vacuum is still apparently acceptable and given WaPo's clear difficulty in recognizing/understanding/interperting facts, and the fact that they edited the story several times after publishing it (presumably without checking back with the original sources each time), I'm still going to "bet" that a significant portion of the report's key content was generated by WaPo.

 

[nsaspook]

you're more generous than I .

Since Woodward and Bernstein, to bag a president has become some sort of Golden Fleece.

How the mighty have fallen.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...e-symbol-womens-march-washington-cover-961023

"Washington Post Express Puts Male Symbol on Women's Inauguration March Cover"

"We made a mistake on our cover this morning and we’re very embarrassed. We erroneously used a male symbol instead of a female symbol."

 

[jim hardy]

"We made a mistake on our cover this morning and we’re very embarrassed. We erroneously used a male symbol instead of a female symbol."

My guess is some nitwit said "You can't put a Cross on our cover!"

 

[zoobyshoe]

Fair enough; I missed that they cited "government sources" - I thought they saw a line in the Vermont utility report (as you previously indicated) and ran with it.

However, unlike Rathergate, where the source document was provided for all to see, the statements of these alleged 3rd parties are inherrently unverifiable for us. WaPo isn't going to tell us who they were or quote them exactly (or provide a copy of whatever the actual communication was). Since betting against an information vacuum is still apparently acceptable and given WaPo's clear difficulty in recognizing/understanding/interperting facts, and the fact that they edited the story several times after publishing it (presumably without checking back with the original sources each time), I'm still going to "bet" that a significant portion of the report's key content was generated by WaPo.

Washington Post, Greenwald, and Forbes have published very detailed breakdowns of the chain of events. (It's looking like nsaspook and I are the only people who've read them.) It's clear from these "autopsies" (my term for them) that just about all parties involved contributed to the cascade of misinformation, especially, IMO, the FBI/DHS who were the original definers of what constituted "Russian" malware here. Nsaspook and Greenwald, however, want to limit liability to the Washington Post because, I think, of it's previous recent screw up with the PropOrNot story. IMO, everyone in the chain of info is responsible for their contribution. I am not inclined to blame the WP for not checking whether the Vermont Government had any real justification for their borderline hysteria because I see that as emanating from the FBI/DHS warnings about what should be considered a red flag. Computer guys at the Vermont Utility might have know there was no real cause for alarm, but they had a protocol to follow which they weren't at liberty to alter: the alarm having been tripped, they had to alert the proper authorities.

I think nsaspook and Greenwald are faulting the WP from a position of "curse of knowledge." That is: knowing what they know about computer security, they have become unable to understand the minds of people who don't know what they know. I'm thinking it did not occur to one editor there to question whether the FBI/DHS characterizations were overly broad or not. That's pretty much the kind of thing it would only occur to a cyber-security savvy person to ask.

 

[Bystander]

It's clear from these "autopsies" (my term for them) that just about all parties involved contributed to the cascade of misinformation, especially, IMO, the FBI/DHS who were the original definers of what constituted "Russian" malware here.

 

[nsaspook]

I think nsaspook and Greenwald are faulting the WP from a position of "curse of knowledge." That is: knowing what they know about computer security, they have become unable to understand the minds of people who don't know what they know. I'm thinking it did not occur to one editor there to question whether the FBI/DHS characterizations were overly broad or not. That's pretty much the kind of thing it would only occur to a cyber-security savvy person to ask.

That's a problem if all things were equal (their previous main tech security savvy guy left) due to ignorance but IMO the major reason for the story taking flight in it's initial form was the 'it's too good to check' attitude that can snare all of us when we have a predetermined bias for a sequence of events. You don't need much cyber-security training to check OMG news sources for the slightest bit of accuracy and lock it down before publishing when the facts are only a phone call away.
The bigger the OMG factor the more you need to check!

I can easily see how the original source of the story could be confused by even the WaPo.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle...unraveled-through-web-archiving/#3c93bde52bc1

In fact, when I asked the Post why it had not contacted the utilities prior to publication, in her emailed response to me, Ms. Coratti asserted that the Post had indeed contacted both utilities for comment prior to publication and had not received a reply from either and so proceeded with publication. In fact, she went as far as to state “we had contacted the state’s two major power suppliers, as these sentences from the first version of the story attest: ‘It is unclear which utility reported the incident. Officials from two major Vermont utilities, Green Mountain Power and Burlington Electric, could not be immediately reached for comment Friday.’”
...
However, as the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine shows, this is actually false. Archived snapshots of the story at 8:16PM and 8:46PM make no claims about having contacted either utility and state instead only that “While it is unclear which utility reported the incident, there are just two major utilities in Vermont, Green Mountain Power and Burlington Electric.” No claim is made anywhere in the article about the Post having contacted the utilities for comment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...vermont-utility-story/?utm_term=.b5586f272773

On Friday night, “officials” appeared to have given The Washington Post a perfect scoop for a weekend that would bridge the years 2016 and 2017. “Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, officials say,” read the OMG headline on the original story. Even on the sluggish first steps of a holiday weekend, the story hustled its way everywhere. Journalists tweeted it; other outlets pursued it; statements came flying out of officialdom.
...
What stands out about the incident, however, is that the newspaper published its salacious story based on the accounts of the “officials,” though without input from the utility folks. Burlington Electric executive Neale Lunderville told Vermont Public Radio, “It could have easily been corrected, well first, had this federal official not leaked this information inaccurately, and second had the news outlet got in touch with us to confirm it or deny it, and we would have told them, ‘Not so. That’s not the case.’ And they could have printed a correct story the first time around.”
...
Kris Coratti, a spokeswoman for the paper, issued this statement: “We have corrected the story, prominently displayed the correct information after further reporting, evaluated what transpired, and had the appropriate discussions internally to make sure something similar does not occur again.”

“Again” would be the third time, considering that The Post was forced to publish an editor’s note over a Thanksgiving-weekend story fingering Russia for assisting in the spread of fake news.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The bigger the OMG factor the more you need to check!

Yes, except there are some authorities you wouldn't think needed checking. How this applies depends on who exactly leaked the story to them. Whoever it was seems to have been "official" enough to shoo into print in their minds.

Considering the excruciating detail of their own "autopsy" of what went wrong, I think the WPost is now going to be pretty cautious. It seems they took all the criticism seriously and will probably not go off half cocked again.

 

[russ_watters]

I think nsaspook and Greenwald are faulting the WP from a position of "curse of knowledge." That is: knowing what they know about computer security, they have become unable to understand the minds of people who don't know what they know.

I suppose the opposite of "the curse of knowledge" is "the excuse of ignorance". I'm not inclined to accept that a reporter can use that as a shield against an affirmative responsibility to the truth. In practice, it means that if they are ignorant, they have an obligation to contact an expert for an interpretation before publishing the story.

I am not inclined to blame the WP for not checking whether the Vermont Government had any real justification for their borderline hysteria because I see that as emanating from the FBI/DHS warnings about what should be considered a red flag.

The governor's reaction originated in the WaPo story, which means THEY contacted HIM, not the other way around. That means he was reacting to their story, not providing additional corroboration. And I'm having trouble finding the exact time of publication, but it looks to me like the Senator's comments came later. I don't think we know the content of his briefing, do we? It may have been little more than "yeah, we read the WaPo article too and are looking into it".

Part of the trouble we are having with interpreting this and sorting out the timeline stablished comes from WaPo's numerous edits over a long period of time, which is an additional breech of ethics.

[edit] Lemme explain that a little more:
If you make an error in a story about something in the past and correct it, with the correction noted, no big deal. Everything stays clear. But this story was still developing and so WaPo mixed old information with new information in the same story, making it impossible to unravel the timeline without getting an ahold of an archive and comparing the various versions of the story line-by-line.

 

[Vanadium 50]

it means that if they are ignorant, they have an obligation to contact an expert for an interpretation before publishing the story.

Or - and I know that this is just crazy talk - if they don't know what they are talking about, they could shut up.

 

[russ_watters]

Or - and I know that this is just crazy talk - if they don't know what they are talking about, they could shut up.

Yes, I do kind of think that's crazy talk. They are reporters: they get paid to write stories. Shutting up isn't really an option for them or a reasonable request of them.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I suppose the opposite of "the curse of knowledge" is "the excuse of ignorance". I'm not inclined to accept that a reporter can use that as a shield against an affirmative responsibility to the truth.

What reporter did that?

In practice, it means that if they are ignorant, they have an obligation to contact an expert for an interpretation before publishing the story.

Aren't the FBI and Homeland Security experts at cyber-security? Perhaps Greenwald and nsaspook have their heads up their butts and don't actually know what they're talking about. All I actually know here is that there are people claiming to be experts who are questioning the FBI's expertise. I, personally, am judging Greenwald as worth listening to based on indirect indicators and not any shared knowledge of computer hacking at all.

And, if Greenwald could demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that the FBI has its head up its butt, why does he still require a newspaper to be more careful than the FBI?

The governor's reaction originated in the WaPo story, which means THEY contacted HIM, not the other way around. That means he was reacting to their story, not providing additional corroboration.

If you believe this is true, why aren't you faulting him for it? Why is a newspaper required to be more careful than a Governor?

In fact, I don't think the WP informed either the Governor or the Senator. My reading of their already well-developed responses to the Post is that they already knew and that one or the other, or even both, may well be the "government official" who contacted the WP.

You have to ask yourself what the protocol is in terms of who gets informed in what order when a terrorist red flag is triggered. The Utility was required to contact the "proper authorities." Surely that has to be, at least, the FBI and DHS, but it might also include state law enforcement and government who would need to be on alert in the event an electrical blackout actually gets triggered by hackers. Alternately, state law enforcement and government might be contacted by the FBI/DHS after receiving the red flag from the utility. Someone in that chain, but not someone working for the utility, called the Washington Post. The Governor and Senator's well crafted statements of outrage, ready for publication and quoting, make me think they could well have been the ones who lit the fire under the WP, and not the other way around. Alternately, it could have been someone in the FBI/DHS who, having previously primed the Governor and Senator to be outraged in a slanted briefing, tipped the WPost off as to what Government officials would be good to interview. There are many plausible scenarios here.

Part of the trouble we are having with interpreting this and sorting out the timeline stablished comes from WaPo's numerous edits over a long period of time, which is an additional breech of ethics.

Was it a breech of ethics or a breech of convention?

 

[nsaspook]

What reporter did that?

Aren't the FBI and Homeland Security experts at cyber-security? Perhaps Greenwald and nsaspook have their heads up their butts and don't actually know what they're talking about. All I actually know here is that there are people claiming to be experts who are questioning the FBI's expertise. I, personally, am judging Greenwald as worth listening to based on indirect indicators and not any shared knowledge of computer hacking at all.

I'm not questioning their expertise at cyber-security in this thread. Unless you catch them in the act it's all a reconstruction of probabilities using very imperfect vision to reconstruct a chain of events that the intrusion artist tries to hide or obfuscate. It was just about impossible to have the level of certainty and detail in the WaPo story that quickly without being very creative with the facts. This is something that's universal to all sciences not just news stories. Getting it right usually takes time.

 

[1oldman2]

Citing multiple discussions about Russian malfeasance during the recent election, this just hit the news, (not claiming "fake or otherwise news", just thought it may be relevant to certain claims in this thread).
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/intelligence-report-putin-election/index.html
Washington (CNN)"The US intelligence community concluded in a declassified report released Friday that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an "influence campaign" aimed at hurting Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3254239-Russia-Hacking-report.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-briefing/index.html
Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump downplayed Russia's role in the election after a briefing with top US intelligence officials, even as a declassified report of their conclusions pointed definitively at Vladimir Putin.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It was just about impossible to have the level of certainty and detail in the WaPo story that quickly without being very creative with the facts.

Which doesn't mean the WP was the creative party. And no one seems to be accusing them of that, just of having not properly fact-checked before going to print.

However, Greenwald's article bears the following headline:

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived

Which is as much "fake news" as any. Equally sensational, but more accurate would have been something like, "WashPost Stumbles and Eats Dirt In Rush To Print Scoop."

 

[nsaspook]

Which doesn't mean the WP was the creative party. And no one seems to be accusing them of that, just of having not properly fact-checked before going to print.

However, Greenwald's article bears the following headline:

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived

Which is as much "fake news" as any. Equally sensational, but more accurate would have been something like, "WashPost Stumbles and Eats Dirt In Rush To Print Scoop."

We really have no idea who created the entirety of the false story but the WaPo has admitted error in publishing a false story that was approved by the WaPo for content before release. Greenwald's article and headline seem's very accurate when compared to the Posts reporting on this story.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We really have no idea who created the entirety of the false story but the WaPo has admitted error in publishing a false story that was approved by the WaPo for content before release. Greenwald's article and headline seem's very accurate when compared to the Posts reporting on this story.

My complaint is that the headline put on Greenwald's article makes it sound like the Washington Post sat down and invented a story from scratch purely for profit. That's not what happened.

 

[Vanadium 50]

. They are reporters: they get paid to write stories. Shutting up isn't really an option for them or a reasonable request of them.

Which is better? Ignorant reporters writing wrong things because they don't know any better, or spending the time to find the truth out, even if it means they might get scooped?

 

[StatGuy2000]

Which is better? Ignorant reporters writing wrong things because they don't know any better, or spending the time to find the truth out, even if it means they might get scooped?

Agreed. Journalists should be in the business of credibility, where the public has trust in what they report on. The more you have ignorant reports writing wrong things, the further and further they forfeit their credibility and trust.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There was a horrific attack on a mentally-challenged man in Chicago last week. He was kidnapped, held for ransom (a whopping $300), and tortured - and the whole thing filmed and uploaded to Facebook Live. The four attackers (I suppose should say "alleged" -but it's on video, for heaven's sake) were African-American while the victim was white. The attackers were, on the video, yelling "F--- white people!" and "F--- Donald Trump!".

Here's how CBS News reported it:

The viral video of a beating and knife attack in Chicago suggests the assault had racial overtones. CBS' Dean Reynolds tells us the victim is described as a mentally-challenged teenager.

In the video he is choked and repeatedly called the n-word. His clothes are slashed and he is terrorized with a knife. His alleged captors repeatedly reference Donald Trump. Police are holding four people in connection with the attack.

That is, CBS made it sound like it was four white supporters of Donald Trump attacking a black man, rather than the reverse. Why?

• Was the editor asleep at the wheel and didn't realize the story got this part reversed?
  
• Was the reporting so shallow and sloppy that Reynolds just assumed it played into his preconvictions?
• Was it a deliberate attempt to smear Trump supporters?
• Were they hoping to gin up some controversy and get more hits that way?

 

[russ_watters]

What reporter did that?

Everyone involved at WaPo, by your own estimation, did that. That's part of the "bet" you were describing and the reason why the "curse of knowledge" is relevant.

Aren't the FBI and Homeland Security experts at cyber-security?

Presumably, but again, we don't know anything about what they have said, do we? Unless I missed something:

I, personally, am judging Greenwald as worth listening to based on indirect indicators and not any shared knowledge of computer hacking at all.

Isn't the only thing we have about the FBI/DHS just a simple 3rd-hand statement that certain officials have been briefed?

Or are you referring to the report on the election hacking, which is a separate issue?

And, if Greenwald could demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that the FBI has its head up its butt, why does he still require a newspaper to be more careful than the FBI?

Seriously? Should the newspapers have treated J Edgar Hoover's FBI with kid gloves? The FBI report (on the election hack) is part of the story, which means it also needs to be examined critically by the newspaper. Again: Newspapers have a duty to the truth. If they do not understand the issue they are reporting on, they have a duty to become informed, such as by contacting 3rd party experts to comment.

If you believe this is true, why aren't you faulting him for it? Why is a newspaper required to be more careful than a Governor?

Seriously? Should Bernie Madoff's victims be in jail too?! Shouldn't they have known better?

I fault them both - the governor for being gullible and the WaPo both for doing a bad job of investigating and in this example for tricking the governor, but that isn't what the discussion has been about. This discussion is about the breathtaking pass you are willing to give WaPo for breathtakingly bad reporting.

In fact, I don't think the WP informed either the Governor or the Senator. My reading of their already well-developed responses to the Post is that they already knew and that one or the other, or even both, may well be the "government official" who contacted the WP.

That would be yet another breach of ethics by the WaPo. By listing them separately, WaPo implies corroboration. It enables them to quote/paraphrase the same person twice and call that two separate pieces of evidence when in fact it is only one.

All it takes for "well-developed responses" is 10 minutes of thought to put one together.

Was it a breech of ethics or a breech of convention?

Convention of ethics.

 

[russ_watters]

Which is better? Ignorant reporters writing wrong things because they don't know any better, or spending the time to find the truth out, even if it means they might get scooped?

That second option doesn't sound to me to be equivalent to your previous suggestion.

 

[russ_watters]

That is, CBS made it sound like it was four white supporters of Donald Trump attacking a black man, rather than the reverse. Why?

A similar thing happened in Philly right after the election: People sprayed graffiti with Trump's name next to a swastika and other similar things (in separate events). The Philly Inquirer reported them as Trump supporting neo-Nazi graffiti when clearly at least some were intending to say Trump is a Nazi.

 

[russ_watters]

Journalists have a professional society with a code of ethics, much of which relates directly to the issue we're discussing:
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
It has four core principles, with individual guidelines under each. Excerpts from the first and fourth are below:

Seek Truth and Report It
Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
– Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
– Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
– Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
– Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.

Be Accountable and Transparent
Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.
Journalists should:
– Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
– Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

I see definite, likely or possible violations of all of these principles in this case.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think nsaspook and Greenwald are faulting the WP from a position of "curse of knowledge." That is: knowing what they know about computer security, they have become unable to understand the minds of people who don't know what they know.

I suppose the opposite of "the curse of knowledge" is "the excuse of ignorance". I'm not inclined to accept that a reporter can use that as a shield against an affirmative responsibility to the truth.

What reporter did that?

Everyone involved at WaPo, by your own estimation, did that. That's part of the "bet" you were describing and the reason why the "curse of knowledge" is relevant.

No. You're taking something I said and putting it in the mouths of the Washington Post staff. None of those reporters said anything to the effect of, "We had no idea the FBI/DHS criteria could be unreliable." You have to know something about hacking for that to even occur to you. The bet they made was much more general: that their source was reliable.

In practice, it means that if they are ignorant, they have an obligation to contact an expert for an interpretation before publishing the story.

You are completely missing the real possibility of a situation where a person doesn't know they're ignorant:

Aren't the FBI and Homeland Security experts at cyber-security?

Presumably, but again, we don't know anything about what they have said, do we? Unless I missed something:

Yes you missed something. The FBI and Homeland Security issued a joint statement about what things constituted a threat. The alarm or red flag at the Vermont Utility was triggered by criteria sent out in conjunction with that statement. Everyone from the Utility to the leaker, to the Washington Post, the Governor and Senator, and all the papers that copied the Post assumed that criteria was good, that Russian hackers had deliberately placed malware onto a utility computer. Every hacking-naive person assumes the FBI/DHS are experts, and doesn't question that aspect of the story.

If you're ignorant that there might be anything sketchy about the FBI/DHS criteria it doesn't occur to you to check. If nsaspook hadn't linked to Greenwald, I still wouldn't know it's something that should be questioned. Hence my question: why are you requiring the Washington Post to know more about this than the FBI?

I, personally, am judging Greenwald as worth listening to based on indirect indicators and not any shared knowledge of computer hacking at all.

Isn't the only thing we have about the FBI/DHS just a simple 3rd-hand statement that certain officials have been briefed?
Or are you referring to the report on the election hacking, which is a separate issue?

I am talking about Greenwald's "expert" opinion that the FBI/DHS criteria for what constitutes a "Russian" hack is poor and shabby. I am saying his opinion seems worth listening to, not because he claims he's an expert (a thing I cannot judge, not being an expert myself) but based on indirect indicators.

And, if Greenwald could demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that the FBI has its head up its butt, why does he still require a newspaper to be more careful than the FBI?

Seriously? Should the newspapers have treated J Edgar Hoover's FBI with kid gloves? The FBI report (on the election hack) is part of the story, which means it also needs to be examined critically by the newspaper. Again: Newspapers have a duty to the truth. If they do not understand the issue they are reporting on, they have a duty to become informed, such as by contacting 3rd party experts to comment.

My question has absolutely nothing to do with the election hack. Greenwald says the FBI criteria for what constitutes "Russian" code was shabby, but then, instead of castigating them at length for that, he castigates the WP for reporting a chain of alarms triggered by that faulty criteria. He wants perfection from the Post, but shrugs at the FBI's slop. Why isn't he treating the FBI like the newspapers treated Hoover?

If you believe this is true, why aren't you faulting him for it? Why is a newspaper required to be more careful than a Governor?

I fault them both

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Finally the Washington Post is not the exclusive source of all evil.

This discussion is about the breathtaking pass you are willing to give WaPo for breathtakingly bad reporting.

Actually, this discussion is about fake news.
I am not giving the WaPo a "breathtaking pass." What I am doing is wondering why everyone is so concentrated exclusively on bashing the WP, when there were probably several entities that contributed equally to this. This doesn't look anything like a case of "fake news" to me, more like, as I said, a case of a newspaper stumbling and eating dirt in a rush to get a scoop. They don't get a pass for that, but they also shouldn't get the same kind of bashing you'd give an authentic purveyor of fake news.

In fact, I don't think the WP informed either the Governor or the Senator. My reading of their already well-developed responses to the Post is that they already knew and that one or the other, or even both, may well be the "government official" who contacted the WP.

That would be yet another breach of ethics by the WaPo. By listing them separately, WaPo implies corroboration. It enables them to quote/paraphrase the same person twice and call that two separate pieces of evidence when in fact it is only one.

I'll buy that.

Yesterday I saw a video of a guy asserting, without explaining where he got the information, that the leak was someone in Homeland Security. [The video is on his Facebook page, name: Ben Swann. Some kind of watchdog type reporter, apparently for CBS 46 out of Atlanta.] I'd be interested if anyone's found any story that corroborates the leak was from Homeland Security.

I see definite, likely or possible violations of all of these principles in this case.

You may be right. Also, we'll need lists of FBI/DHS ethics, and what ethics apply to a Governor and Senator. If you want to talk in terms of "ethical" violations, here again, the Post isn't the only miscreant, and their 'code of ethics' is not legally binding, whereas all the other parties can probably be prosecuted for any provable ethical violation.

 

[russ_watters]

No. You're taking something I said and putting it in the mouths of the Washington Post staff. None of those reporters said anything to the effect of, "We had no idea the FBI/DHS criteria could be unreliable." You have to know something about hacking for that to even occur to you. The bet they made was much more general: that their source was reliable.

You are completely missing the real possibility of a situation where a person doesn't know they're ignorant...

If you're ignorant that there might be anything sketchy about the FBI/DHS criteria it doesn't occur to you to check.

A reporter has an affirmative duty to the truth, but broader than that, recognition of one's own ignorance is the minimum intelligence requirement for learning. A reporter who doesn't even know enough to know they don't know anything about computers (and therefore should consult some people who do) is not competent to have a professional job of any kind. That's Dunning-Kruger territory. It's dangerous incompetence...er, well...yeah, that's what we are discussing.

Yes you missed something. The FBI and Homeland Security issued a joint statement about what things constituted a threat. The alarm or red flag at the Vermont Utility was triggered by criteria sent out in conjunction with that statement.

Are you referring to this?:
https://info.publicintelligence.net/DHS-FBI-GRIZZLY-STEPPE.pdf

That contains general guidance for recognizing and reporting threats. There isn't anything in there that could possibly lead to the WaPo story because it is not a report on the utility incident.

Everyone from the Utility to the leaker, to the Washington Post, the Governor and Senator, and all the papers that copied the Post assumed that criteria was good, that Russian hackers had deliberately placed malware onto a utility computer.

[assuming you're talking about the paper I linked] I'm not seeing how you get from point A to point B. Everyone gets phishing emails and viruses. I got a quality one today. I reported it to my IT department. This is normal practice. The starting point for investigating a potential breach. You can't get from there to the headline of the story. In particular, clearly the utility didn't think what you said they thought because they issued a statement an hour and a half after the article was published saying the title claim was wrong!

My question has absolutely nothing to do with the election hack. Greenwald says the FBI criteria for what constitutes "Russian" code was shabby, but then, instead of castigating them at length for that, he castigates the WP for reporting a chain of alarms triggered by that faulty criteria. He wants perfection from the Post, but shrugs at the FBI's slop. Why isn't he treating the FBI like the newspapers treated Hoover?

I'm seeing criticism of both from Greenwald. But the connection you are making between them is your own and I don't agree with it. The most important faulty fact doesn't require any deep understanding of computers and viruses: the fact that the computer wasn't connected to the grid network. It doesn't matter whether the code was Russian or not, for that fact to be clear -- and clearly wrong in the WaPo report.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Finally the Washington Post is not the exclusive source of all evil.

Don't be dramatic.

What I am doing is wondering why everyone is so concentrated exclusively on bashing the WP, when there were probably several entities that contributed equally to this.

I think by now it should be clear that there are a few main differences in our perspectives:
1. The different narratives we fill-in to the holes in the evidence.
2. The different level of ethics we ascribe to media.

Ultimately, though, this is simply a "buck stops here" issue for me: the person who reports it owns it.

This doesn't look anything like a case of "fake news" to me, more like, as I said, a case of a newspaper stumbling and eating dirt in a rush to get a scoop. They don't get a pass for that, but they also shouldn't get the same kind of bashing you'd give an authentic purveyor of fake news.

I didn't say they are in the same category as fake news. In fact, I provided, before this started, an article highlighting the difference.

...the Post isn't the only miscreant, and their 'code of ethics' is not legally binding...

Correct, it is "just" a requirement of any reporter or paper claiming to be reputable.

...whereas all the other parties can probably be prosecuted for any provable ethical violation.

Unlikely, with the possible exception of the leak itself.