What drives the creator of fake news to continue?

[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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

The reporters knew they knew nothing in particular about hacking. For an expert opinion, they relied on the FBI/DHS. So, they did what you said they should. But you're not happy, so I guess you really meant they should get a second expert to check on their first expert. Is that enough experts? Does it stop anywhere? Or is it like the turtles that hold up the world: experts all the way down?

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.

That's the statement. The criteria I mentioned is not in that statement, it was sent out in conjunction with it. It consists of all the computer code associated with Grizzly Steppe. The utilities they sent it to were to use it to screen their systems. And they did.

Here's a quote from a "DHS Official," from a Politico article:

"DHS regularly shares information with our private and public partners to help them defend their network and mitigate vulnerabilities. As part of these efforts, we shared technical information with critical infrastructure entities to aid them in identifying the malicious cyber activity known as Grizzly Steppe. When we become aware of a potential vulnerability, DHS offers our assistance and upon request, can provide technical analysis and support. Information shared with DHS as part of these efforts, including the identity of affected organizations, is confidential."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/russian-hackers-electricity-grid-vermont-233085
The Utility's press release:

Friday, December 30, 2016

Last night, U.S. utilities were alerted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of a malware code used in Grizzly Steppe, the name DHS has applied to a Russian campaign linked to recent hacks. We acted quickly to scan all computers in our system for the malware signature. We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization’s grid systems. We took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alerted federal officials of this finding. Our team is working with federal officials to trace this malware and prevent any other attempts to infiltrate utility systems. We have briefed state officials and will support the investigation fully.

https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/news/3908/Burlington-Electric-Department-Statement-

In short, what tripped the alarm was Grizzly Steppe malware as defined by the FBI/DHS. That is: the Utility found code on a laptop that was classified by FBI/DHS as something from Grizzly Steppe. That alarm having been triggered, the Utility contacted the "federal officials." So, actually, everything "in there" (the joint report) lead to the WP story, since what was "in there" lead to the alarm being triggered, and the WP story was about the Russian hack which that triggered alarm was supposed to represent.

Now, having gotten here, to the point in the story where the alarm was triggered, I'll ask again, why shouldn't the Washington Post have relied on the expertise of the FBI/DHS, when the Vermont Utility, itself, was relying on them? There is actually, no particularly good reason for them to question their expertise unless they, themselves, are good enough at hacking to already know the law enforcement experts are not always so good. Why, now that you mention being aware of one's own ignorance, didn't the FBI/DHS call Greenwald or nsaspook and ask for some pointers? Shouldn't they be as alert to their own ignorance as you are requiring the WP to be? They're supposed to be saving lives. The WP is just a news outlet.

[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!

The initial, and soon corrected, original headline is not that important. (I, myself, did not see the story till after the first headline had been changed, and I was still alarmed by the hack attempt. I actually posted a thread here about it.)

This is the real screw-up here, the only one that matters: there probably was no hack attempt! Greenwald and others say the code the FBI/DHS fingered, and which the Vermont Utility found, could have come from anywhere, and was not actually indicative of a deliberate Russian hack! Greenwald compared the code to a Kalashnikov rifle: yes, it's made in Russia, but the Russians sell them to people all over the world. Anyone could have bought a copy, planted it anywhere, and the Utility picked it up by sheer chance. If that's true, the whole thing from start to finish is a non-story.

So, what you don't seem to have understood so far, is that the whole chain of alarm and outrage was triggered by code that was exaggeratedly labeled by the FBI/DHS as the fingerprint of a deliberate Russian hack. See? And yet you want to take the WP behind the woodshed for buying into FBI/Homeland without questioning it, just like everyone upstream and downstream from them did. FBI/Homeland hasn't taken anything back, hasn't backpedaled, issued any corrections, nothing.

You think the whole blunder lies in the initial, and brief, erroneous claim the hack had succeeded. In fact, the outraged Senator and Governor knew it hadn't succeeded. They were outraged by the ATTEMPT, itself:

Senator Leahy:

State-sponsored Russian hacking is a serious threat, and the attempts to penetrate the electric grid through a Vermont utility are the latest example. My staff and I were briefed by Vermont State Police Colonel Matthew Birmingham this evening. This is beyond hackers having electronic joy rides – this is now about trying to access utilities to potentially manipulate the grid and shut it down in the middle of winter. That is a direct threat to Vermont and we do not take it lightly.

Read it carefully: the senator obviously already knows the grid was not taken control of, he's outraged by the ATTEMPT to hack.

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin lashed out at the Russian government, saying in a statement, "Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world's leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely upon to support our quality-of-life, economy, health, and safety."

Read it carefully: the Governor knows the grid wasn't taken control of. He's outraged that Putin "has been attempting" to hack it.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...officials-say-russia-hacked-a-vermont-utility

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.

Completely wrong. The fact the laptop wasn't connected to the grid is neither here nor there since it might have become connected at any time. The Utility says: "We took immediate action to isolate the laptop." Why should they isolate it unless it could potentially have gotten connected to the grid either directly or through another computer?
What outraged everyone, as I demonstrated in the quotes above, was the mere attempt to hack. Doesn't matter that there are no cookies in the jar: it's finding a hand in the cookie jar that pisses Uncle Sam off.

The WP story doesn't fall apart when we find out the computer wasn't currently connected to the grid, it falls apart because the code they found wasn't necessarily, or even probably, a Russian hack attempt! (Nsaspook outright sneered at the suggestion an authentic Russian hacker would use such outdated and obvious malware.) The Washington Post reported an ongoing situation, the discovery, containment, and investigation, of an apparent Russian hack attempt on a US Utility. It was passing on information that a whole bunch of government people thought was true, one of whom fed the story to them. Unfortunately, that whole bunch of people didn't think to question what the FBI/DHS thought should be considered a Russian Hack attempt, because it turns out there probably was no deliberate hack attempt. The computer probably picked up some random malware online (according to the non-government experts).

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

But you see, that's a completely arbitrary personal decision on your part.

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.

I see now you linked to a Snopes article. My bad: I completely missed it.

Unlikely, with the possible exception of the leak itself.

Again, my bad: I was thinking of Clinton being impeached for "lying to congress," which would seem to be an ethical violation. Checking now, I find it's actually the legal crime of "perjury." He was under oath.

 

[nsaspook]

I hate to bring this up but it's out there as a 'Fake News' story.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...nt-to-malign-mr-trump/512762/?utm_source=feed

Donald Trump and his lawyer on Tuesday night denied allegations in an explosive, unverified dossier that describes a purported Russian operation to compromise Trump.
...
Reached by telephone on Tuesday night, Cohen denied the dossier’s allegations.

The story is “totally fake, totally inaccurate,” Cohen said.

“I’m telling you emphatically that I’ve not been to Prague, I’ve never been to Czech [Republic], I’ve not been to Russia,” Cohen said. “The story is completely inaccurate, it is fake news meant to malign Mr. Trump.”

Cohen said that during the time the report places him in Prague, he was actually with his son visiting USC and meeting with the baseball coach. A USC baseball source confirmed Tuesday night that Cohen and his son had visited USC on August 29th. Cohen said that he was in Los Angeles from the 23rd through the 29th of August, and that the rest of the month he was in New York. He said that his only trip to an EU country over the summer had been a vacation to Italy in July.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The source for that is ultimately Mother Jones. Mother Jones used to be reliable. Sure, they had a left-wing slant, but what they wrote was at least true. In 2015, I spotted them taking an infographic from the Washington Post, altering it, and republishing it claiming it was something else. This wasn't a little oopsie - it was a flat out lie. I trust nothing they write any more.

 

[jim hardy]

This wasn't a little oopsie - it was a flat out lie. I trust nothing they write any more.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-godfather-of-fake-news.894647/page-5

My last straw was when our networks told me Trayvon Martin was a choir boy.

Alleged Russian meddling doesn't concern me nearly so much as this stuff

http://www.disruptj20.org/

We’re planning a series of massive direct actions that will shut down the Inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations–the Inaugural parade, the Inaugural balls, you name it. We’re also planning to paralyze the city itself, using blockades and marches to stop traffic and even public transit. And hey, because we like fun, we’re even going to throw some parties.

https://refusefascism.org/author/web/

(bold in original)
On MLK weekend, there needs to be massive demonstrations of many thousands in key cities, including Washington. D.C., that grow to millions over the next week, protests that don’t stop . . . where people refuse to leave and more and more people stand up with conviction and courage demanding:

NO! We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America!It’s not enough just to sign this Call – millions, tens of millions of people need to become aware of it in the days and weeks ahead. Print it and distribute it everywhere you go, leave it on buses and trains, in schools, in stores, places of worship, coffee shops … make it go viral on social media … use it as a basis for participating in or organizing activities where you live.

https://refusefascism.org/faqs-on-stopping-trump-pence/
These protests could be something with the character of the protests against police murder over the past few years, or the Occupy protests before that—but larger by several orders of magnitude and even more determined. Such protests would have to have the effect of figuratively “stopping society in its tracks”

Right to peaceable assembly is one thing but that's inciting riots. The sort of thing Lincoln warned about in his 1838 Lyceum address

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice...
...Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

Seems to me the "Community Organizer" community ought to heed John Lennon's lyrics to "Revolution".
http://www.metrolyrics.com/revolution-lyrics-john-lennon.html

We've got trouble right here in River City. Fake news is the among the mildest of its symptoms

 

[Nugatory]

Here's how CBS News reported it:

If I could ask your for a link to the CBS coverage in question? I'm asking out of curiosity, not with the intent to argue.

 

[Borg]

If I could ask your for a link to the CBS coverage in question? I'm asking out of curiosity, not with the intent to argue.

I Googled "cbs news beating story" and came up with several hits. This one has a link which states that it is the original audio.
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/cbs-...nd-biased-report-on-chicago-facebook-beating/

 

[nsaspook]

So now we have a major part of the rational for other news services to report the Unverified Russia Dossier story falling apart. It looks like this was just a pile of crap they assembled to show the President-elect what an intelligence report was not but they never used it but it was reported that they did leading to more stories about its contents.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/t...jects-dossier-alleged-russia-dealings-n705586

President-elect Donald Trump was not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week's intelligence briefing, according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing.

A summary of the unverified reports was prepared as background material for the briefing, but not discussed during the meeting, the official said. During Trump's press conference Wednesday morning, the president-elect said he was made aware of the information "outside that meeting."
...
While multiple officials say the summary was included in the material prepared for the briefers, the senior official told NBC News that the briefing was oral and no actual documents were left with the Trump team in New York. During the briefing, the president-elect was not briefed on the contents of the summary .

"Intel and law enforcement officials agree that none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period," the senior official said.
...
According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."

The briefers also had available to them unvetted "disinformation" about the Clinton Foundation, although that was not orally shared with Trump.

 

[mheslep]

Interestingly the NYT was not duped about the 'dossier':

...
The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual.

The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of Mrs. Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.
...

 

[zoobyshoe]

The source for that is ultimately Mother Jones.

If you're going to specify an 'ultimate' source, I don't think Mother Jones fits. The ultimate source(s) seem to be the former MI6 agent's Russian informants. According to the CIA, apparently, those sources have been vetted as "credible," but that doesn't mean what it sounds like it means at all. All it actually means is that they will give accurate accounts of what rumors are being passed around in Russian intelligence circles about the Trump/Putin relationship. The rumors remain unverified and probably unverifiable.

 

[nsaspook]

If you're going to specify an 'ultimate' source, I don't think Mother Jones fits. The ultimate source(s) seem to be the former MI6 agent's Russian informants. According to the CIA, apparently, those sources have been vetted as "credible," but that doesn't mean what it sounds like it means at all. All it actually means is that they will give accurate accounts of what rumors are being passed around in Russian intelligence circles about the Trump/Putin relationship. The rumors remain unverified and probably unverifiable.

At least a few in this pile of trash have been verified to be false like the Trump lawyer Michael Cohen in Prague conspiracy theory. Now CNN says it's a different Michael Cohen from some unknown place on the planet.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/819187673961287681

 

[mheslep]

..According to the CIA, apparently, those sources have been vetted as "credible,"...

Not according to the CIA, but vaguely according to CNN, who cite anonymous sources about past work.

...The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible.

The NYT states those claims are "unvetted", a reason they cite for not publishing the dossier/appendix, i.e. they are, for now, exercising responsible editorial control in my view.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If I could ask your for a link to the CBS coverage in question? I'm asking out of curiosity, not with the intent to argue.

About 2 and a half minutes in:

http://audio.cbsradionewsfeed.com/2017/01/05/08/Hourly-08.mp3

 

[nsaspook]

Not according to the CIA, but vaguely according to CNN, who cite anonymous sources about past work.
The NYT states those claims are "unvetted", a reason they cite for not publishing the dossier/appendix, i.e. they are, for now, exercising responsible editorial control in my view.

+1
From the NYT:

So what changed on Tuesday? Why is this now being reported and discussed by every news media organization?

CNN broke the news that a summary of the memos had been attached to the classified report by the F.B.I., C.I.A. and National Security Agency on the Russian hacking and leaking during the presidential election and that it was given to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and Congressional leaders last week. That level of official attention prompted news media organizations to decide to inform the public about the memos.
...
But why put the summary in a report going to multiple people in Congress and the executive branch, virtually assuring it would be leaked?

So now according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing the memo was for the sole effect of helping Trump to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation." They didn't show him or talk about the contents of the memo (or the one about Hillary) so it looks like he was able to tell the obvious difference between the two with no extra help.
I would like to know just who and why that person believed that this was a good idea during a factual briefing session about serious problems with Russia espionage operations with the top intel chiefs. It seems a very unusual element to have in the briefing folder during these types of circumstances.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not according to the CIA, but vaguely according to CNN, who cite anonymous sources about past work.

From the linked article:

Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.

In the video that is posted on the same page as the article, the FBI is specifically claimed by those reporters to have vetted the British agent and his sources. (I mis-rememberd the specified agency as the CIA: my bad.)

So, the reporters made a clear claim that can now be denied by the FBI if it is not true. We'll see.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you're going to specify an 'ultimate' source, I don't think Mother Jones fits.

That's fair. Let's instead say "first reported use of this material in the mainstream media" or, if you like "who the website got it from".