Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,182
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 719
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 04:56:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length

The integrity initiative

Started by biggytitbo, December 04, 2018, 02:23:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

manticore

Quote from: biggytitbo on December 10, 2018, 09:38:32 PM
The propaganda is now eating its own tail



Okay, that story has replaced the BBC story I linked to just above, so that link now leads to it. The previous story can be found on the wayback machine here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181210180044/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46509956

This is not my area. Is it normal practice for the BBC to replace a story with another one on exactly the same url? I guess it probably is, but when it results in a link leading to an article with a significantly different twist to the previous one, it seems a bit odd.

biggytitbo

I don't know, I definetly think its a bit of a shady thing to do. Clearly had a call from the FCO and not so much as ordered to change it as the BBC supinely acting as the usual stenographer for the official line.


You can see the differences side by side here https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1712325/diff/0/1

Pdine

Quote from: manticore on December 10, 2018, 10:31:15 PMThis is not my area. Is it normal practice for the BBC to replace a story with another one on exactly the same url? I guess it probably is, but when it results in a link leading to an article with a significantly different twist to the previous one, it seems a bit odd.

Yeah it happens fairly regularly - they rewrite the story and change the headline as more information emerges. Usually each day they'll start afresh, but it's not really practical to create a new story every time anything changes, and it also fucks their social media promotion.

As for the substance of this story, to me it looks like the government following its usual shitty strategy of outsourcing to the third sector, then failing to make any real effort to oversee how the third sector is spending the money. 

biggytitbo

Looks like David Leask, despite his denials of having no involvement with them, was also part of the Integrity Institute's propaganda operations in Spain (i believe this refers to the independence referendum and protests) -




BTW, isnt this the british government clandestinely interfering in another countries affairs?





biggytitbo


Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on December 11, 2018, 11:16:39 AMBTW, isnt this the british government clandestinely interfering in another countries affairs?

Obviously, yes. The point is that everyone does it but this appears to be us doing it expensively and incompetently. When Russia does it, for example, they achieve more, with greater deniability, using less money.

biggytitbo

You mean the social media scam run by some minimum wage keyboard monkeys? The exaggeration out of all proportion of that into 'a new 9/11' is in itself another example of information warfare by our own side targeted against us.

Here's the opening of the two respective articles on this -

Daily Record:
QuoteA secret UK Government-funded infowars unit based in Scotland sent out social media posts attacking Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.

BBC:
QuoteThe Foreign Office has accused Russian state media of trying to discredit a government-funded body that works to counter Kremlin disinformation.

manticore

Quote from: Pdine on December 11, 2018, 09:44:31 AM
Yeah it happens fairly regularly - they rewrite the story and change the headline as more information emerges. Usually each day they'll start afresh, but it's not really practical to create a new story every time anything changes, and it also fucks their social media promotion.

But the effect is that someone posts a link on the web so that people can read a particular story, and a few hours later if someone clicks on that same link it leads them to a different article with a headline and a slant changes the story from one more about possible misdeeds by a government funded body into one more about 'Russian state media ...trying to discredit a government-funded body that works to counter Kremlin disinformation'.

So I think they should change the url in such a case whatever the practicalities, because the effect is that the person posting the link is tricked, and so are the people clicking on the link.

It's effectively a deception, and the BBC shouldn't be doing it.

Blumf

It'd be nice if they had a revision history available, like wiki articles.

biggytitbo


manticore

Quote from: Pdine on December 11, 2018, 11:45:45 AM
Obviously, yes. The point is that everyone does it but this appears to be us doing it expensively and incompetently. When Russia does it, for example, they achieve more, with greater deniability, using less money.

There was a wonderful story given great prominence by BBC World Service news in August about Russian twitter bots and trolls messing with Western Civilisation by stirring up the 'vaccination debate' using the method of generating tweets supporting both 'sides' of the argument to try to generate general dissension.

When it went into the substance of the story it turned out that the evil tweets were typically very short messages written in poor english with strange and unnatural phrasing, and there was very little sign of them being taken notice of by more than a very few people on twitter.

This kind of major news story rather reduces my inclination to take these things very seriously.

biggytitbo

Pish, some obscure bots with 12 followers between them tweeting broken english is clearly vastly more influential than clusters of msm journalists and pundits with millions of followers between them and an even bigger circle of influence smearing empire friendly fake news around the whole internet like florescent shit.

biggytitbo

Chris Williamson has been very good on this. Here is the government blocking his request for more information abut a body they are funding to smear the leader of the opposition



biggytitbo

According to one of Assange's lawyers the integrity initiative was behind the false story implicating Assange in the catalan referendum https://twitter.com/AssangeLegal/status/1072238027542548482?s=19

Pepotamo1985

I managed to get into the offices of the Institute for Statecraft in Temple, London earlier today (not the entirely fake derelict mill in Scotland they potentially illegally claim is their HQ in official documents). When I revealed I was a journalist (and where I worked) I was very aggressively ushered out by an individual named Simon Bracey-Lane, one of their research fellows.

I did some digging into his background and found this 2016 article - https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/jez-we-can-feel-the-bern - which states:

"Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader."

It seems rather odd the enthusiastic Corbyn fan is now directly associated with an apparent effort to smear and discredit the Labour leader...

Moreover, he was head of Campaign Together - http://campaigntogether.org/ - which trained people to canvass and facilitated vote swaps in the 2017 General Election.

So, it basically seems one of the Institute's research fellows joined the Labour party after Jeremy became leader, was potentially in a position to shape, influence (and disrupt) campaigning tactics during the last election with privileged information on strategy in advance, and was likewise in a position to see how people intended to vote (and indeed influence votes). Undercover infiltrator much?

Oh, and curiouser and curiouser - a Jack Agazarian is listed a 'senior fellow' on the institute website. Perhaps he's related to Jack Agazarian, a British espionage agent who worked for the Special Operations Executive in France in World War II. Or they're using a fake name of another spook.

Looks like the address is not directly linked to the named directors, and doesn't appear on their books. More than one person has suggested the premises is hired by MI5.


biggytitbo

That is odd, because If he is a genuine Corbyn supporter he'd certainly be massively out of place at the Integrity institute.

Here's Leask again, with a curious article smearing a reporter who is pointing out the nazi problem in Ukraine. Leask seeks to minimize this, and trots out the usual 'parroting Russian propaganda' line - https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16298721.moment-of-truth-the-holyrood-nazi-claims-which-inspired-kremlin-media/

That's ironic consider Leasks approach here is right out of the integrity initiatives own disinfo manual on how to counter 'Russian propaganda'. Except in this case this is real reporting about a real problem, not Russian propaganda. Here is the deep state in action, a major journalist writing fake news on behalf of the UK state, and not disclosing this fact anywhere.


Pepotamo1985

The very same. He was evidently quite the hit with US news outlets, the Brit helping Bernie - Reuters and CBS both featured pics of him on their reporting of Sanders' campaign activities. I wonder if this was legend building - get a profile as a progressive organizer, infiltrate Labour, etc. Standard stuff really.

Interestingly, in this article he seems to have rowed back on his Corbynite affinities - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/09/jeremy-corbyn-hoping-for-bernie-sanders-election-endorsement

"Another Sanders volunteer, Simon Bracey-Lane, is working with a new group in Britain – Campaign Together, which encourages tactical voting – but he said he hoped a Labour leader might emerge to match the current popularity of Sanders.

"In future, we need to preserve the progressive movement but not necessarily a progressive alliance."


biggytitbo

It's amazing how wide these tentacles have spread. Why exactly is the BBC allowing this gentlemen to write articles about Russia and Ukraine when he is part of a shadowy FCO funded anti-Russia propaganda group?




It's not like they're even disclosing the potential conflict of interest.

Sebastian Cobb

What's with scoring out email addresses that are blatantly just their names?

biggytitbo

Haha Marcus was challenged about this on twitter and all he could come up with is 'ohh I seem to be on their press list' as if he knows nothing about it. Amazing how Uk journalists finest are having a collective bout of amnesia right now.

biggytitbo

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on December 11, 2018, 08:45:06 PM
What's with scoring out email addresses that are blatantly just their names?


Not sure, I do know if they were added without their permission they'd probably quite cross about it, rather than just pretending to be all confused and oblivious. They all follow each other on twitter so its not like they aren't aware of them.

biggytitbo


BlodwynPig

Quote from: biggytitbo on December 11, 2018, 04:58:28 PM
Pish, some obscure bots with 12 followers between them tweeting broken english is clearly vastly more influential than clusters of msm journalists and pundits with millions of followers between them and an even bigger circle of influence smearing empire friendly fake news around the whole internet like florescent shit.

You mean Time magazine People of the Year Journalists - be respectful of our new liberal overlords!

biggytitbo

How the integrity initiative prevented the appointment of a Spanish minister who wasn't anti Russian enough https://novaramedia.com/2018/12/10/undermining-democracy-not-defending-it-the-integrity-initiative-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-british-foreign-policy/

Also how key integrity initiative members spread a false story that Putin, via RT, was plotting to get Corbyn into power.

Jakey Chesterton


biggytitbo

That's good but I hope this doesn't become just about those tweets, considering how utterly objectionable the entire basis of their operation is, and their other conduct.

Jakey Chesterton

Quote from: biggytitbo on December 13, 2018, 10:45:59 AM
That's good but I hope this doesn't become just about those tweets, considering how utterly objectionable the entire basis of their operation is, and their other conduct.

Yes, I have to agree, that aspect has bothered me a bit.

manticore

It reminds me of the Information Research Department that George Orwell assisted at the start, which took the quite honourable idea of countering Stalinism and Stalinist propaganda and twisted it into McCarthyism, black propaganda and complicity in mass murder in Indonesia among other things.

This seems like a relatively small version of that. There's an inevitability about these things.