That even smart people fall so easily for this sort of propaganda (the article itself, as opposed to its colorful just so stories) is a testament to how bad things are in the West.
We would all be better served by identifying propaganda and misinformation being spread by our own governments since it affects our lives much more directly and we might actually be able to do something about it.
Beyond the specific opinion about Russia geopolitics it is important to highlight that intelligence agencies around the world also work on misinformation activities.
Catching Russia on this is just interesting OSINT information.
> This is the case where you need to be in the field
> Hamas is a serial liar without independent media while Israel has an independent media that search throughfully
This feels like an unnecessary statement intended to gatekeep meaningful journalism. We know that Gazans and Israelites both by-and-large have political agendas to push in the area; and you're suggesting we ignore one in lieu of another?
Both sides need to be taken with a hearty grain of salt, and the citizen journalism that both sides attempt to suppress cannot be discounted. Simply stating that a list of information is unreliable isn't an argument against an identified pattern, either. The journalists "in the field" are being decimated right now, and I wouldn't trust the think tanks in Tel Aviv to furnish a superior explanation.
I don't think the Hamas-controlled media of Gaza and the Israeli media are comparably transparent. That doesn't mean you should trust "think tanks in Tel Aviv" --- I wouldn't, either! But there is no Haaretz of Gaza; Hamas would not allow such a thing to exist.
I think their ideologically-driven mouthpieces are comparable. Their treatment of journalism is politically divergent, but both sides are so well-stocked with zealots that I think both can be characterized as a "serial liar" pretty safely.
As a person that supports secular politics, both ideologies repulse me. The media I trust most to report on this topic are the people with the least to gain from it, the sort of people the parent might dismiss for not being "in the field" enough.
I don't think what you're saying is true. I see you as arguing that both sides are equivalently polarized and biased --- seems reasonable! --- but skipping the fact that Hamas has outlawed an opposition press, something Israel has not in fact done.
I’m very confused by this focus of Hamas supposedly outlawing opposition press. By far the largest threat to free press in Gaza has come from the Israeli military, that targets Journalists both in Gaza and the West Bank, does not allow free press access, etc. Even before Oct 7, the Israeli military destroyed the office of AP in 2021[1]. I’m still waiting for any credible excuse for why they did that (other then to limit press freedom in Gaza). And a year later they targeted and murdered journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.
I’m not super informed about journalism and news access in Gaza (reading about it here[2]), but I was under the impression that Gazans get news from all over the world, not just Al-Aqsa TV, including PBC from the West Bank (meanwhile I’m not sure al-Aqsa TV is available except via satellite in the West Bank). I can be wrong about this, but from what I’m reading it appears that the most widely circulated newspaper in Palestine is al-Quds (based in Jerusalem obviously) which is also circulated in Gaza.
In any case, the Gazans I follow on social media seem to have no problem getting news from non-Hamas sources. So whatever press restrictions Hamas is enforcing, it doesn’t seem to affect the news Gazans are actually receiving much, and if you compare that to the restrictions the Israeli military imposes and the destruction they cause, Hamas is a very minor player in limiting press freedom in Gaza.
I admit to being flummoxed by this line of argumentation, since Hamas is famous for throwing supporters of the PA off rooftops during the 2006 elections --- the fact that only a small minority of Gazans are old enough ever to have voted in an election in Gaza is part of why collectively punishing them for Hamas' actions is so atrocious. Amnesty has been running campaigns about Hamas suppression of the press for almost a decade now.
You're making, as well, the argument that Gazans have access to real journalism (and may themselves practice real journalism) in spite of Hamas. I agree completely. I made a very narrow point about a comparison drawn between Hamas and Israel, that's all.
The comparison may be just if you only look at Hamas’ restriction within Gaza and Israel’s government restriction within Israel. However, if you include Israel’s restriction on Gaza and (the relatively minute, but still non-zero) Hamas’ restriction on Israel, you will find a massive tower overlooking the other three.
Israel’s press freedom within Israel is perhaps much better than Gaza’s press freedom within Palestine (as dictated by Hamas). But Palestinians still suffer much much much lower press freedom and Israel enforces several orders of magnitude worse press suppression if you include the cross national interference.
Your point is perhaps correct if we keep it narrow. However, I think it is wrong to keep it this narrow, because it obfuscates a very real democratic malpractice done by the state of Israel.
There's no "if we keep it narrow". It's a narrow point. I'm not here to defend the democratic practices of Israel, or any other country, just to say that Hamas would murder you for trying to stand up a major news outlet opposed to Hamas's control of Gaza.
That Hamas is extraordinarily bad does not make Israel good.
You were trying to argue that your ancestor was employing a false equivalence, that the disinformation campaign on both sides were in fact not equally bad.
I agree that there is a false equivalence, however I disagree with you that it is Hamas which is extraordinarily bad while Israel is relatively not as bad. The actions Israel employs against free press during this genocide are telling, and have consequences. There may be free press within Israel, however that free press does not have access to Gaza because the Israeli military does not grant them access. The targeting of journalists the Israeli military is guilty of also has consequences for the supposedly free Israeli press. If you are working in Gaza and you are afraid Hamas member will push you off rooftops if you publish a critical piece, well... if you are an Israeli journalist, you should indeed be very afraid if you are going to cover a story about Israel’s crime in Gaza. More then a few journalists have indeed be targeted and killed by the Israeli military for trying to do that, including international journalists.
What you should take from this is that it is the Israeli military that has the greater potential to lie about their crimes here, and there is no free press in this world (especially not in Israel) which can safely cover those lies.
No, that's not what I was trying to argue; in fact, I said the opposite thing. At no point have I tried to argue that Israeli journalism is more trustworthy than Gazan journalism, which is not something I believe.
Which part do you disagree with? Both sides host and support people that will readily lie to defend their own entrenched position. I'll agree any day of the week that Hamas has the more draconian social policy, but that's not an excuse to write off Gazan journalism.
Israel's flaw is theocracy, which does not inherently equate them to their enemies but tragically condemns them to a similar path. Their army is stocked with religious adherents and their population is seeded with nationalist migrants. They're bankrolled by a foreign power that ensures their competency but one that doubts their altruism when acting independently. In effect it's a proxy war of chicken, with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives caught in the middle.
That part I hate. The only thing I'd be willing to concede is that journalists are being suppressed domestically, even though journalist casualties in Gaza suggest a staggeringly different story. In lieu of direct evidence I'll shelf that, but still contend the rest.
I'm not writing off Gazan journalism. I am making a narrow point about the lack of equivalence between journalistic institutions in Hamas-controlled Gaza and in Israel.
Aside from that: Israel is not, in reality, a theocracy (it has theocratic forces in the same way the US and parts of Europe do). Nor is Israel is not "bankrolled by a foreign power"; it would be the preeminent military power in the region were foreign aid completely cut from it.
In no way is the ability to get citizenship via religious conversion comparable to anything in the US, and as far as I am aware, neither in Europe. You are indeed "writing off Gazan journalism" when saying "Hamas-controlled Gaza", which at this point is ludicrous given that Hamas controls literally nothing in Gaza, and certainly didn't control the Al-jazeera reporters, reuters reporters, Washington post reporters, and so on who have been killed by Israeli airstrikes so far. Also pretty weird argument to make when Israel is one of the only "democracies" in the world whose press operates under military censorship laws and has for decades.
To the extent you believe there is (or was) a meaningful institution of journalism that operates apart from Hamas in Gaza, we just don't have anything to argue about.
Almost the only issue I personally have with any of these discussions is that the tend to back out into some notion of Hamas being comparably legitimate (or, more often, comparably illegitimate) to Israel. This is why I keep saying that the argument I've made here is very narrow.
If it simplifies things for you: rewind the clock to October 6th. Israel has some measure of state control over the media. So does Hamas. Israel and Hamas are not comparable: Hamas is far, far worse. That's it, that's the whole argument. That this argument doesn't prove a bunch of other points (like, "Israel is therefore a liberal democracy") doesn't matter: I'm not making those points, and probably don't believe them.
I understand how message boards work but you're really going to have to take my word for it that this isn't some elliptical way to lay the groundwork for an argument that legitimizes Israel's current occupation of the Gaza Strip.
You say you are making a narrow argument, but how? You cannot shape the reality of the argument such that it conveniently fits the narrative. The world is complex, and if there is an important nuance to be added, we cannot just ignore it because the initial argument is narrow. That is not how debating works. Like, we cannot just rewind to October 6th and ignore everything since then. There is important context in events that have unfolded since.
You say: “Hamas is far, far worse” but how? Israel has litterally just banned al Jazeera, I’m not aware that Hamas has e.g. banned the BBC. If your earlier point was that there was no Haaretz operating in Gaza, but how? Gaza is under occupation and a sever blockade, any media operation is bound to suffer under such circumstances. Free journals without state subsidies are hard in most economies, in impoverished regions like Gaza, much more so. And even if such press could thrive, Israel has been targeting journalists in Palestine even before Oct 7, this includes detention and even assassinations.
The state control which Hamas imposes upon journalism in Gaza is minute next to the state control which Israel imposes upon the same population. Hamas’s control is negligible. Yes they operate their own TV station and Radio. But they do not target journalists operating in Gaza, they do not detain and assassinate journalists, they do no not bomb offices of foreign media operators, they do not ban international media from broadcasting in their territory. Israel does all these things.
The state control which Hamas imposes upon journalism in Gaza is minute next to the state control which Israel imposes upon the same population
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand. I agree: Israel is far more repressive of Gazan journalism than is Hamas. The comparison is between Israel's own journalistic institutions in Israel and Hamas' in Gaza.
Pretty telling you stepped right past my point about conversion! Funny how you cherry picked the parts of my comment to respond to and then couched virtually your entire message in hedges! Also Al-Jazzeera has been operating in Gaza for nearly 20 years at this point, they have run pieces and interviews extremely critical of Hamas. As to the "I'm not legitimizing this" final sentence I'm not sure what you think your argument and others you've been dropping in these threads, are supposed to be doing given you sure do love to come in and drop some really gross generalizations and anti-arab racism in the way you paint Palestinian society. You are free to continually reference things like Hamas "throwing PA supporters off roofs", and consequently people are free to wonder and comment on why it is you only seem to pop up in these threads to make interventions like that, and not, say, literally anything at all about atrocities being committed by Israel.
> I am making a narrow point about the lack of equivalence between journalistic institutions in Hamas-controlled Gaza and in Israel.
I am arguing that the distinction doesn't matter when both sides field individuals that behave with equal vitriol. Hamas-controlled Gaza is a neverending humanitarian trainwreck, comparing the strength of it's legitimized institutions to the country pillaging it is a farce. I'll admit that you're right about a lack of Hamas Times newspaper, if that's what you need to be happy.
> it has theocratic forces in the same way the US and parts of Europe do
Does it field serious non-theocratic armed forces? There are none that I'm aware of, but maybe Google is hiding something from me.
I don't understand the question. The current most important internal rupture in Israeli civil society is that the most theocratic cohort of Israeli citizens has exempted itself from military service altogether.
No, I am suggesting to check the record of one against another. Hamas is a terrorist group that used to harm Palestines for their own purposes. Apples vs. oranges. Not forget that they violated women while feminist groups around the world have a big blind spot. This situation makes you think about the state of the humankind. Seems like many others who have not skin in the game also follow their own agendas posing as human rights defenders.
Why are you so quick to assume I don't have skin in the game? You could be talking to someone with family members that died in the Levant. Instead of unpacking that, I think it's smarter for us to argue on rational merits.
I know and do not contest that Hamas is a terrorist group. The suppression of genuine Palestinian suffering as a 'weapon' against Hamas is generating grassroots (and largely justified) skepticism of Israeli news outlets. For many topics, they are just as biased as the 'government' Hamas frontmen that lie out their nose for political support. It's a tragic situation that makes me ashamed to be an American taxpayer the more I hear about it.
They may have been. They live in Lebanon, when they're not being contested by settlers or occupied they're usually trying to maintain their claim to sovereignty same as anyone. It would unfortunately not surprise me to hear if they were threatened throughout October.
Regarding being an American citizen, I feel pretty proud that our government is taking a skeptical approach to Netanyahu's leadership. It just pains me that I'm indirectly supporting the same people that are effectively displacing half my family. I do engage with US politics, I don't see the value in petty protests of democracy though.
The research presents a set of websites, which "have similar content, rank for the same search terms (which hint at a pro-Russian narrative), and link and quote each other".
That's all.
It's then assumed that Russia is behind these sites and drives them somehow, directly or as "useful idiots".
The conclusion suggests "Experts and EU states should monitor the activities of such sites, and readers should question such content".
It seems fairly obvious that's the goal of this cleverly written piece, and rarely does anyone notice it is mostly persuasion rather than factual information.
It is called cherry picking. People read a news and their/our (limited) focus make the brain to not see the woods from the trees where we need to spend our limited focus to gather more information about the misinformation situation in general.
Again, this is not a Russia endorsement but, for example, it seems that the world is turned off in conflicts such as the war between Israel and Hamas where the focus is extremely narrow.
"Whataboutism" is a nonsense term used to lazily wholly dismiss any counter points.
Not only that, but they were just trying to reframe it to be more objective in perspective than singling out a single state actor's actions to fit whatever presented narrative.
