No, Russians Do Not Hack The FCC’s Public Comments

(This is just getting out of hand.)

Image result for russians did it

from Moon of Alabama

A member of the Federal Communications Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post.

It is unlikely that the headline was chosen by the author of the op-ed. The editors of the Washington Post opinion page wrote it. I also doubt that she would have chosen a picture of the FCC head to decorate her piece.

For the record: The headline is false…

[read more here]

7 Responses

  1. 1. I agree with Moon of Alabama. 2. I disagree with you, Scott.
    I agree with MoA because I believe it is impossible for the Russians to find such huge number of imbeciles in Russia to post the kinds of moronic comments I’ve seen. They simply don’t have our resources.
    I disagree with your snide implication in the photo at the top that it was not the Russians who pooped in the hallway. I know dogs. Some of my best friends have been dogs, and I am telling you that those are honest dog faces.
    I urge nothing more than fairness and objectivity:
    the Russians did not “interfere” with our elections;
    they did not enlist half a million feeble-minded typists to post retarded comments;
    but they did poop in that particular hallway!

  2. I’ve been wondering what the equation is for propaganda. For example, when do the powers-that-be know when to ease up on the Russia-gate accelerator. They’re already letting up a bit, it seems. Perhaps because they know the Russia propaganda campaign has been won, or has reached its maximum possible effectiveness/saturation point. But how do they know the propaganda is working? And conversely, how do they know when it isn’t or isn’t quite working? What’s the metric that they use internally? And what’s the mechanism overall? That’s what I’m wondering.

    I’m thinking that there is a threshold of acceptance among a population — or a cognitive dissonance threshold — that propaganda must exceed in order for the propaganda campaign to be deemed successful. (I imagine academics have studied this and that I could find the actual data if I looked hard enough.) After reaching this threshold, any new information that contradicts the propaganda can be effectively repelled by gaslighting (new information is easily dismissed as “conspiracy theory”, messengers of new information are readily dismissed as crazy, etc.).

    So, I’m guessing the mechanism is something like this: Devise campaign. Distribute campaign plan/message/talking points to controlled media. Hammer the public with the campaign. Measure public acceptance of the propaganda using polling services. Once the polls reveal that public acceptance is above the cognitive dissonance threshold — mission accomplished. Is that about how it works?

    • I don’t know. An interesting question. I know they are constantly polling but not as much as they used to. Moreover these days, they hire firms to sweep the web and social media and glean the required info directly from the horse’s mouth so to speak. No need in polling if folks are going to offer up their unfiltered opinions on Facebook and in their emails, right?

      I know one thing: for the most part, the needle measuring public sentiment moves slowly unless motivated by some “catastrophic event like a New Pearl Harbor” right? So the propaganda is useful to some degree, but look how far they’ve been able to move the needle in terms of gun control since Sandy Hook. Right afterwards it budged a bit but since then? Not much. In terms of the Russian hacking myth, no New Pearl Harbor event ergo… not much movement except for the folks who were already shocked and awed by the election of Trump in 2016.

      I think to some degree the propaganda isn’t necessarily used to foment change as much as it is cover. If that makes sense. They needed cover for the new Cold War. They needed cover for the illegal invasion of Iraq. They needed cover for Obama re-committing troops to Iraq and trying to regime change Syria. WMDs stories and Yellow Cake forgeries didn’t make people want to invade Iraq. That was the residual effects of 9/11 right? But they provided enough cover for the complicit media to get behind the goal which was an illegal war of aggression.

      I guess what I am saying is, certain agenda items are less dependent on public opinion than you might think. Examples: TARP and repealing Net Neutrality I suppose. The propaganda provided cover at least in those cases and they acted in spite of public opinion not after it changed, because it didn’t in either case.

      • Yes, “cover vs. foment change”. That makes sense. Maybe there’s no math involved. It’s like the-powers-that-be have already made the decision to do something terrible, they don’t need permission or a blessing from the people. Propaganda just becomes an effort to keep people from protesting too much once the terrible event starts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: