New York Times and AP Finally Retract False Claims on Russia Hacking

Donate

Written by Jason Ditz; Originally appeared at TheAntiMedia.org

Among the most oft-repeated claims of the entire Russia election hackin g scandal is that of absolute unanimity among US intelligence agencies, with media and politicians regularly claiming that “all 17 US intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump.” It’s not true.

New York Times and AP Finally Retract False Claims on Russia Hacking

Source: http://theantimedia.org/

Nearly a year into the hacking scandal, both the New York Times and the Associated Press are finally copping to the fact that this allegation is untrue, and retracting it outright. The AP confirmed falsely making the claim in at least four distinct articles, most recently on Thursday.

What actually happened? The Director of National Intelligence made the allegation, claiming it was based on information from three US agencies, the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The Director of National Intelligence nominally represents all 17 intelligence agencies, and that was quickly and incorrectly extrapolated into all 17 agencies being in consensus.

In practice, however, the DNI is an increasingly politicized office, and their publications aren’t necessarily in line with actual reality, let alone proof of a consensus among the intelligence agencies. Indications are that the overwhelming majority of the US intelligence agencies were never even involved in assessing the Russia hacks.

Nor would they be expected to be. It would be bizarre if the Pentagon’s intelligence agency, for example, was probing US elections, or if the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites looking for missile launches, was chiming in on the Trump Campaign.

It sounded better, particularly for those trying to make this into a bigger scandal, however, to claim that “all 17” US intelligence agencies had agreed on the narrative, because this would give the impression that it’s indisputable fact, as opposed to a heavily politically-motivated assertion backed up by limited circumstantial evidence dug up by a couple of US spy agencies.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Colin Oskapy

    The Jewish New York Times have never been anything but wrong and incorrect on anything yet. Those Yiddish Jews are not as half as clever as people think they must be.

    • Germinator

      The germans did everything correct with that satanic-pedophil gangsters! All countries of the world should act like germany since 1933…

    • Alex Black

      Comments like this discredit the entire content. I wonder if you are some mossad operative attempting to achieve just such a result.

      • Jesus

        NY Times is owned by Jews. Pushing a neocon agenda based on falsehoods from sources that do not exist, discredits the newspaper and its ownership, not the discussion at hand.
        We all know the Russian influence in the US election is a big lie concocted by those that do not want US to have normal relations with Russia.

        • Alex Black

          We agree that NYT provides Trump trashing propaganda. The jew language is what makes it very difficult to cite SF as a source. A number of people on this page who say, irrelevant racist garbage unrelated to what is otherwise fantastic analysis.

          • al quaida

            “The jew language is what makes it very difficult to cite SF as a source.”
            What jew language?

          • Alex Black

            the various comments that add unnecessary idiotic Jewish conspiracies to otherwise objectively verifiable analysis

          • al quaida

            Do you mean various comments in the SF articles or the comments section below the articles?

          • Alex Black

            People that comment in the comment section create the impression that this is some fringe neo-nazi outfit. This damages the value of the content and the reputation of the outlet.

          • al quaida

            No media outlet is responsible for the comments of its readers. You can read crackpot theories in the comments section of just about any article. This does not detract from the article itself.

          • Alex Black

            I think you underestimate how fickle people are.

          • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

            No , You overestimate some peoples comments as relevant to the column , but fact remains the NYT Editor failed the job and task of having the “Russian hacking” verified and vetted as credible and reliable sourced material.

          • Alex Black

            We agree on this part. I regularly cite to sf and one of the largest editorial criticism I get back is that sf is described as a fringe, antisemitic outlet. When I press for details, I get confronted with these conspiratorial anti Jewish comments, that are not necessary for the analysis. Even if you believe Israel is behind this, it would be wise to avoid discussing Jews as a cohesive group. Just my two cents.

          • al quaida

            “…sf is described as a fringe, antisemitic outlet.”
            This is a fairly typical attack on media outlets that provide an alternative view to the mainstream narrative.
            “When I press for details, I get confronted with these conspiratorial anti Jewish comments”
            To which you can reply that those comments are not necessarily the opinions of the author.
            I would hate to see SF censure comments that they consider conspiratorial, in an effort to be perceived as a “moderate” media outlet.

          • Alex Black

            I can also call out idiot comments that do not relate to the analysis and float conspiracy theories that denigrate the content itself.

          • al quaida

            You may have a full-time job doing that! I often can’t resist replying to nonsense, but I wonder if it best just to ignore them, as a lot of the time they are simply trolls looking for a bite…

          • Aracelijshaw

            my friend’s aunt makes $90 an hour at home… she has been laid off for 5 months, the previous month her pay was $12204 just working at home for a couple of hours each day..➤ see this➤ page
            ➜➜➜http://www.GoogleFinancialCashJobs368MediaOrange/Home/Wage….
            ✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦::::av78

  • matt

    All these morrons below here are a bunch of white trash hillbilley white scumbags!!!!!