The Main Stream Media (MSM) has reported on the events surrounding Vladimir Putin’s efforts to help Donald Trump win the White House, such as hacking the DNC and the disinformation campaign, but has continued hand wringing over what those efforts mean. At least since the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Russia has used disinformation campaigns to try to separate the U.S. from Western Europe and destroy or weaken NATO. Under Putin, these goals remain Russian foreign policy objectives. Trump now rejects US foreign policy of the last 70 years as he hails for policies advanced by Putin. Putin’s efforts on behalf of Donald Trump, and other authoritarian European leaders who support the policies advanced by Putin, must be seen as indicative of his overall strategy. The MSM remains bewildered about how to report these events. It appears that Russia is particularly effective as they deceive the MSM, or maybe the MSM is particularly gullible.
|
Disinformation about Uncovering Who Is Hacking
Donald Trump’s lies and the surrounding events must be seen as elements of that disinformation campaign. Trump and the Republican Party disputed the findings of the U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and claimed hackers could not be identified. They obviously tried to counter charges that Putin helped Trump win the Presidential election by blustering that intelligence agencies could not identify the hackers, Compared to discovering who has hacked (i.e., gained unauthorized access) a computer network determining that the network has been hacked is easier. This is not to say discovering the existence of a hack is always simple. Sometimes the devices for hacking a computer network remain in place and dormant for long periods of time. The ways of determining whether a hack has occurred include finding hacking devices, observing whether activities such as data transfers have occurred, or discovering if computer networks have changed. The MSM gave equal credence to Trump’s unsupported assertions as they did to the intelligence community’s findings.
Once a hack has been determined, discovering who has hacked the computer network can be difficult, but is not impossible. Like finding the perpetrator of other crimes, physical evidence is useful, but not essential. Physical evidence is a byproduct of surreptitiously installed software, referred to as malware that can steal information from the hacked network and transfer it to other unauthorized networks.
The malware opened in an email message or link, provides physical evidence such as identifying information about the computer that sent the message (i.e., internet protocol – IP address). The malware code , like any written material, has stylistic and content idiosyncrasies that provide physical evidence. And, the information that the malware is designed to steal is itself informative.
Like physical evidence in other crimes, this physical evidence may be ambiguous, misleading, deliberately planted to mislead. Nonetheless, the evidence itself, especially across crimes, can form a pattern that is informative. Physical evidence, however, is only one type of the evidence that is available. Patterns of crimes that have been committed in similar manners with similar phishing techniques, and IP addresses for similar purposes help to identify the perpetrators.
Why the MSM Did Not Explain the Russian Disinformation Campaign
MSM’s excuse for their inability to explain what was going on was that they could not fully credit the intelligence agencies’ findings because the agencieshave not been able to reveal their means and methods used to reach their conclusions. A more plausible explanation for the MSM’s failure to develop a narrative is that they did not understand that they needed to explain a disinformation campaign not simply a hack. And, the MSM’s typical way of reporting was itself clouded by a Russian disinformation campaign. That is, Russian disinformation campaigns by their intelligence services create a false reality for a targeted audience by planting carefully constructed lies, usually supported by forged papers or photographs, faked news stories reported by acquiescent media outlets, and social media manipulated by trolls and bots.
The purpose of this disinformation campaign was to win an electoral victory for Trump; Hillary Clinton alone was targeted. The information stolen from the DNC was turned over to WikiLeaks and subsequently made available to various media outlets. Three issues about the distribution of this stolen information illustrate the MSM’s naiveté about disinformation campaigns. First, the information distributed to media outlets was not thoroughly vetted either by WikiLeaks or the media for forgeries or other deceptions. Some people who sent or received emails disclosed in the leaks noted that their emails were genuine. Nonetheless, disinformation tactics typically include mixing deceptive materials with truthful materials. In this instance, Donald Trump himself mixed the truthful content of the emails with lies about what the stolen emails supposedly disclosed. Trump lied as he claimed that the leaks showed Hillary Clinton allowed thousands of undocumented immigrants who were guilty of crimes to be released in the U.S. because their home countries would not take them and that Hillary Clinton paid protestors to disrupt his rallies. Unable to recognize a disinformation campaign, the MSM did not understand how the truthful emails were being used as camouflage for deceptive materials.
Second, the MSM seemed unaware that disinformation campaigns typically include a variety of tactics such as cyberattacks and hacking, troll attacks, disbursement of money to sympathetic groups and individuals, endorsements by opinion leaders and persons of influence, and distribution by third parties such as WikiLeaks and sympathetic media outlets. The MSM assumed that the DNC hack was unrelated to other incidents such as the anti-Hillary trolls, the FBI Director’sjudgment and the relentless attacks by various Republican elected officials and media pundits. But, some of the reported social media disputes between Bernie and Hillary supporters were really conducted by Russian trolls. As a result of media unawareness of the extent of Russian disinformation campaigns, the media was handicapped in their search for who was behind the DNC computer hack. If the MSM had been aware of how disinformation campaigns work, they might have been more alert to the plausibility of the Russian hack of the DNC.
Third, the Russian intelligence services have used disinformation campaigns since the 1920s to accomplish their political goals. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, however, and the increased perceived vulnerability of Russia to the West, Russia has resorted to the greater use of disinformation campaigns. Russian intelligence organizations have used disinformation campaigns as instruments to exert their power in Estonia in 2007; in Georgia and Lithuania in 2008; and in France and Germany in 2015. There are also credible reports that a Russian disinformation campaign was used to support the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. Both governments and private groups in many of these European countries, aware of the dangers of these campaigns have established organizations to study and resist the influence of Russian disinformation. Media outlets in the U.S. failed to weigh the existence of evidence of Russian influence in these European countries in assessing the likelihood of such a campaign conducted here.
Questions Raised by the Disinformation Campaign
The MSM, seemed unable to question or fold into the narrative any of the issues raised by the analysis of the disinformation campaign. For example, in an October 2016 book Malcom Nance, a veteran of the U.S. intelligence community’s Combating Terrorism program, suggested how Putin’s intelligence apparatus would have gone about recruiting Donald Trump as an agent of Russian influence. In addition, 35 pages of memos written by former MI-6 agent, Christopher Steele, based on his research using Russian sources identified the nature of the hold Russian intelligence has on Trump. Both of these analysts presented credible evidence suggesting that Trump had become an agent of Putin. While Nance appeared on a few MSNBC cable shows, he was never given enough time to fully lay out the case that Trump was a Putin asset. Also, when CNN reported that the U.S. intelligence community had briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of Steele’s 35 pages of memos, the network was pilloried for printing unsubstantiated rumors.
While the allegations made by these two researchers, as well as others, can be disputed, at least, the following points need resolution.
How the MSM Should Cover Disinformation Campaigns
The MSM appear unable to clarify the circumstances surrounding the events of the Russian campaign to make Trump President of the U.S. because the usual journalistic standards cannot be met in a timely way. For example, the Russian intelligence officers who design and implement the first level of the campaign are unlikely to be sources for Western journalists. Participants at lower levels of the disinformation campaign may be willing to discuss their roles, but cannot discuss the purpose or even the existence of a campaign. Also, a disinformation campaign aimed at an election could well be over and the harm done before journalists learn the kind of potent information that only defecting intelligence officers could provide.
Of course, no responsible media outlet should publish rumors, but resisting disinformation campaigns that are the ploys of intelligence agencies means adopting intelligence standards of proof. Further, simply repeating disinformation caveated with “unverified” or “false” is not enough to prevent the spread of disinformation. Instead of simply repeating disinformation, however much it is caveated, media outlets should discuss the characteristics of the disinformation. For example, the media should note the following:
Above all the business model of the media must change and allowing disinformation if it brings in viewers or listeners must change. Rather, disinformation must be uncovered and fully discussed, even if it means covering one or two stories instead of five or six on a program.
Donald Trump’s lies and the surrounding events must be seen as elements of that disinformation campaign. Trump and the Republican Party disputed the findings of the U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and claimed hackers could not be identified. They obviously tried to counter charges that Putin helped Trump win the Presidential election by blustering that intelligence agencies could not identify the hackers, Compared to discovering who has hacked (i.e., gained unauthorized access) a computer network determining that the network has been hacked is easier. This is not to say discovering the existence of a hack is always simple. Sometimes the devices for hacking a computer network remain in place and dormant for long periods of time. The ways of determining whether a hack has occurred include finding hacking devices, observing whether activities such as data transfers have occurred, or discovering if computer networks have changed. The MSM gave equal credence to Trump’s unsupported assertions as they did to the intelligence community’s findings.
Once a hack has been determined, discovering who has hacked the computer network can be difficult, but is not impossible. Like finding the perpetrator of other crimes, physical evidence is useful, but not essential. Physical evidence is a byproduct of surreptitiously installed software, referred to as malware that can steal information from the hacked network and transfer it to other unauthorized networks.
The malware opened in an email message or link, provides physical evidence such as identifying information about the computer that sent the message (i.e., internet protocol – IP address). The malware code , like any written material, has stylistic and content idiosyncrasies that provide physical evidence. And, the information that the malware is designed to steal is itself informative.
Like physical evidence in other crimes, this physical evidence may be ambiguous, misleading, deliberately planted to mislead. Nonetheless, the evidence itself, especially across crimes, can form a pattern that is informative. Physical evidence, however, is only one type of the evidence that is available. Patterns of crimes that have been committed in similar manners with similar phishing techniques, and IP addresses for similar purposes help to identify the perpetrators.
Why the MSM Did Not Explain the Russian Disinformation Campaign
MSM’s excuse for their inability to explain what was going on was that they could not fully credit the intelligence agencies’ findings because the agencieshave not been able to reveal their means and methods used to reach their conclusions. A more plausible explanation for the MSM’s failure to develop a narrative is that they did not understand that they needed to explain a disinformation campaign not simply a hack. And, the MSM’s typical way of reporting was itself clouded by a Russian disinformation campaign. That is, Russian disinformation campaigns by their intelligence services create a false reality for a targeted audience by planting carefully constructed lies, usually supported by forged papers or photographs, faked news stories reported by acquiescent media outlets, and social media manipulated by trolls and bots.
The purpose of this disinformation campaign was to win an electoral victory for Trump; Hillary Clinton alone was targeted. The information stolen from the DNC was turned over to WikiLeaks and subsequently made available to various media outlets. Three issues about the distribution of this stolen information illustrate the MSM’s naiveté about disinformation campaigns. First, the information distributed to media outlets was not thoroughly vetted either by WikiLeaks or the media for forgeries or other deceptions. Some people who sent or received emails disclosed in the leaks noted that their emails were genuine. Nonetheless, disinformation tactics typically include mixing deceptive materials with truthful materials. In this instance, Donald Trump himself mixed the truthful content of the emails with lies about what the stolen emails supposedly disclosed. Trump lied as he claimed that the leaks showed Hillary Clinton allowed thousands of undocumented immigrants who were guilty of crimes to be released in the U.S. because their home countries would not take them and that Hillary Clinton paid protestors to disrupt his rallies. Unable to recognize a disinformation campaign, the MSM did not understand how the truthful emails were being used as camouflage for deceptive materials.
Second, the MSM seemed unaware that disinformation campaigns typically include a variety of tactics such as cyberattacks and hacking, troll attacks, disbursement of money to sympathetic groups and individuals, endorsements by opinion leaders and persons of influence, and distribution by third parties such as WikiLeaks and sympathetic media outlets. The MSM assumed that the DNC hack was unrelated to other incidents such as the anti-Hillary trolls, the FBI Director’sjudgment and the relentless attacks by various Republican elected officials and media pundits. But, some of the reported social media disputes between Bernie and Hillary supporters were really conducted by Russian trolls. As a result of media unawareness of the extent of Russian disinformation campaigns, the media was handicapped in their search for who was behind the DNC computer hack. If the MSM had been aware of how disinformation campaigns work, they might have been more alert to the plausibility of the Russian hack of the DNC.
Third, the Russian intelligence services have used disinformation campaigns since the 1920s to accomplish their political goals. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, however, and the increased perceived vulnerability of Russia to the West, Russia has resorted to the greater use of disinformation campaigns. Russian intelligence organizations have used disinformation campaigns as instruments to exert their power in Estonia in 2007; in Georgia and Lithuania in 2008; and in France and Germany in 2015. There are also credible reports that a Russian disinformation campaign was used to support the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. Both governments and private groups in many of these European countries, aware of the dangers of these campaigns have established organizations to study and resist the influence of Russian disinformation. Media outlets in the U.S. failed to weigh the existence of evidence of Russian influence in these European countries in assessing the likelihood of such a campaign conducted here.
Questions Raised by the Disinformation Campaign
The MSM, seemed unable to question or fold into the narrative any of the issues raised by the analysis of the disinformation campaign. For example, in an October 2016 book Malcom Nance, a veteran of the U.S. intelligence community’s Combating Terrorism program, suggested how Putin’s intelligence apparatus would have gone about recruiting Donald Trump as an agent of Russian influence. In addition, 35 pages of memos written by former MI-6 agent, Christopher Steele, based on his research using Russian sources identified the nature of the hold Russian intelligence has on Trump. Both of these analysts presented credible evidence suggesting that Trump had become an agent of Putin. While Nance appeared on a few MSNBC cable shows, he was never given enough time to fully lay out the case that Trump was a Putin asset. Also, when CNN reported that the U.S. intelligence community had briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of Steele’s 35 pages of memos, the network was pilloried for printing unsubstantiated rumors.
While the allegations made by these two researchers, as well as others, can be disputed, at least, the following points need resolution.
- Three of Trump’s associates, Roger Stone, Carter Page, and Paul Manafort, had relationships with Russian businessmen and officials. Manafort, who replaced one of Trump’s most favored associates as campaign manager, was the operative for Putin’s Ukrainian strong man, Viktor Yanukovych;
- Manafort was key in arranging for language calling for the removal of support for the Ukraine to be removed from the Republican platform;
- General Michael Flynn, Trump’s National Security Advisor, has had numerous unusual contacts with the Russian Ambassador to the United States around the time the U.S. placed a new round of sanctions on Russia;
- Trump, reportedly having trouble financing several projects, arranged for financial assistance from Russian oligarchs. Trump’s failure to provide his income tax returns and his denial of Russian loans when his son admitted Trump’s businesses were in debt to Russian banks requires further explanation;
- In 2016 following a summer of sinking polls and reports of inadequate campaign funds, his daughter Ivanka and her husband, left their 4 month old son and other two small children to vacation in Croatia with Vladimir Putin’s girlfriend, Wendy Murdoch;
- During a President elect briefing by the U.S. intelligence community, Trump was shown a two-page summary of the 35 pages of memos detailing the hold Russian intelligence had on him. While the content of these memos had not been verified, Trump certainly knew whether they were true. If U.S. intelligence did not have confidence in their accuracy, it is unlikely that they would have shown them to Trump; and
- Trump and Putin have a strange personal relationship. Trump claimed first that he and Putin knew each other and then claimed that they had never met. Trump has gone out of his way to only say favorable things about Putin, and Putin has also said some positive things about Trump. More recently, after Trump was charged with cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow by the former MI-6 agent and had vehemently denied those charges, Putin went out of his way to stoke the subject of Moscow prostitutes; he noted that as a beauty contest owner Trump knew many beautiful women, but Russian prostitutes were the best in the world. One explanation for Putin’s strange behavior was to remind Trump that he was an asset beholden to Putin and had better toe the line.
How the MSM Should Cover Disinformation Campaigns
The MSM appear unable to clarify the circumstances surrounding the events of the Russian campaign to make Trump President of the U.S. because the usual journalistic standards cannot be met in a timely way. For example, the Russian intelligence officers who design and implement the first level of the campaign are unlikely to be sources for Western journalists. Participants at lower levels of the disinformation campaign may be willing to discuss their roles, but cannot discuss the purpose or even the existence of a campaign. Also, a disinformation campaign aimed at an election could well be over and the harm done before journalists learn the kind of potent information that only defecting intelligence officers could provide.
Of course, no responsible media outlet should publish rumors, but resisting disinformation campaigns that are the ploys of intelligence agencies means adopting intelligence standards of proof. Further, simply repeating disinformation caveated with “unverified” or “false” is not enough to prevent the spread of disinformation. Instead of simply repeating disinformation, however much it is caveated, media outlets should discuss the characteristics of the disinformation. For example, the media should note the following:
- Size or volume of disinformation;
- Source of basis of disinformation (e.g., due to media false equivalence or lack of knowledge about history or topic;
- Target of disinformation;
- Purpose of disinformation;
- Frequency of disinformation; and
- History of disinformation.
Above all the business model of the media must change and allowing disinformation if it brings in viewers or listeners must change. Rather, disinformation must be uncovered and fully discussed, even if it means covering one or two stories instead of five or six on a program.