WhatsApp interferes with Facebook's attempts to root out fake news

There is a conference room inside of Facebook's headquarters that is devoted to fighting election interference. Casey Newton a reporter with the Verge visited what is called the war room and wrote a recent article about the visit.

Newton visits the Facebook war room

After an introductory briefing, Newton got to visit the actual room. The room MPK 20 is just one of many conference rooms in the headquarters in Menlo Park, Palo Alto as shown in the appended image. There were desks for 24 people and the room is ringed by seventeen screens. Each screen highlights a stream of information that Facebook is monitoring.

Employees watch for suspicious spikes in spam and hate speech. In some cases they use special software to do this. They are looking for activity such as voter suppression. For example there may be posts saying that an election has been delayed because of long lineups. The team recently uncovered a hoax claiming that the Brazilian election had been delayed a day because of protests. The offending posts were quickly removed.

Newton was unfortunate in that nothing dramatic happened while she was there.

Facebook's war room is fighting a war in the Brazil election

Newton notes that the room was festooned with both US and Brazilian flags. The war room is waging war against fake news not only in US elections but those in Brazil as well. Surely, this might be considered interfering in the Brazilian election. Even if this is done in the name of stopping fake news, it could be considered interfering in the Brazil election. If Bolsonaro wins then Facebook could very well find itself banned in Brazil because its actions meant that he probably had less votes than otherwise.

It seems that a report by Folha on the scheme to use WhatsApp for fake news was timed to coincide with the reporters visit as it appeared while they were there. Buzzfeed notes: "The report was released the same day that WhatsApp's new CEO, Chris Daniels, published a piece in Folha, writing, "We have a responsibility to amplify the good and mitigate the bad." Thursday morning, also, appears to have been the time when Facebook allowed access stories from American journalists such as CNN covering Facebook's new "election war room" to publish. The timing of the embargo — an agreement between news organizations to publish news provided by a source at the same time — the investigation by Folha, and Daniels' op-ed throw into question exactly how Facebook intends to monitor fake news and hyperpartisan misinformation, especially in a WhatsApp-dominated country like Brazil."

In other words the timing was intended to ensure that the stories would point out the failings of WhatsApp. Newton uses Buzzfeed to explain what happened.

How the scheme worked

Media firms that support the right-wing front runner Jair Bolsanaro used his supporter database along with third party databases of phone numbers. Some agencies even broke down data on the basis of income level and location. They then used a service called mass shooting to send thousands of messages.

The Folha investigation alleges that the firms bought contracts worth up to $3.2 million dollars. This is not only an abuse of WhatsApp, its illegal in Brazil where companies are banned from donating to political campaigns and are not allowed to access a candidate's database.

The scheme may not show up on any Facebook screen

The media companies' scheme is most insidious in that it is not evident that any of the many screens in the Facebook war room can capture the malign activity. The fake news is spread virally using a platform that almost no one can see inside.

How the damage might be limited

Several Brazilian researchers have suggested three ways the WhatsApp propaganda could be limited. The number of times a message can be forwarded could be reduced from 20 to 5. Facebook already does this in India. Secondly, Facebook could lower substantially the number of people that a person can send a single message to from the present very large 256. Finally, the company could limit the size of new groups in the hope that this could limit the formation of misinformation mobs. As to the last technique, surely this would be easy to avoid by just forming many clones of smaller groups and having them work in concert.

Newton concludes that it would be best to not allow an app to have both end-to-end encryption and viral sharing mechanics just one or the other. This would allow the mobs to be in plain sight. It would be interesting to see what WhatApp would have to say about Newton's complaints and suggestions.

Are those helping to filter fake news neutral?

One should always be suspicious when giant corporations decide to protect us from fake news and misinformation. Obviously political figures such as Donald Trump and many other politicians make announcements that are lies and they are dutifully reported by the mass media ad nauseam often without comment since to comment is not straight objective reporting. Now this is not regarded as fake news but it has the same effect especially if the politician is regarded as truthful by many of his or her followers. No one suggests banning those reports. People are left to determine themselves whether what important figures say is true or false. Other reports may show these are lies or claim they are but such reports do not ban the original statements.

Among those helping Facebook to filter the news is the Atlantic Council. Rania Khalek an independent journalist said in a tweet: “This is alarming. The Atlantic Council — which is funded by gulf monarchies, western governments, NATO, oil and weapons companies, etc. — will now assist Facebook in suppressing what they decide is disinformation." In Facebook's statement which announced the partnership it said that the company will use the Atlantic Council's Digital Research Unit Monitoring Missions during elections and other highly sensitive moments.

Adam Johnson, a contributor at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, said in response to Facebook's announcement: “Monopoly social media corporations teaming up with [the] pro-U.S. NatSec blob to determine truth was always the logical end of ‘fake news’ panic.”

While Facebook will naturally try to ensure that it does not place itself in a position where it breaks the laws of a country where it operates it would be wise not to hold itself otherwise responsible for filtering what appears on its platform. Leave it to the authorities to warn them when posts are against the law and to prosecute those who break the law as happened in Brazil. The companies using WhatsApp in Brazil broke the law and there is evidence for it. The way to stop them is to prosecute them not to complain about WhatsApp.

As the appended video shows Facebook even banned a video by well known Guardian columnist George Monbiot.

Published earlier in Digital Journal

Facebook hires two employees to filter out fake news

Facebook is looking for one English and one Spanish speaker who were originally described as a "news credibility specialist" but this was changed to "news publisher specialist". Whatever they are called they are to filter out fake news from Facebook.

After the news media, including the Guardian, discovered the postings and wrote about them it appears that they were edited.

The original postings

Originally according to the Guardian the postings said that Facebook was looking to hire two people with "a passion for journalism, who believe in Facebook's mission to make the world more connected" Applicants were informed that their job would be "developing "a deep expertise in Facebook News Credibility Program" and would also be "conducting investigations against predefined policies". The description appears to have been changed to not give away the fact that the job will be in effect a form of filtering out "fake news" which to some will no doubt appear as a form of censorship.

Filtering news has been problematic for Facebook

Earlier Facebook had an editorial team that filtered news that was supposed to be neutral. However, some conservatives claimed there was a bias against conservative views. Some leftists made a similar claim about their views. Facebook eventually fired the team and hired Poynter International Fact-Checking Network members Snopes and Politifact to both identify hoaxes and discourage people from sharing them.

It would seem that Facebook may be attempting to at least in part bring the job of fact-checking back in-house even though this will leave them open to charges of bias and blame for making errors whereas the independent checkers would otherwise be subject to the same criticisms. However, some of the independent fact-checkers may not like to be bound by Facebook procedures creating tensions between them and Facebook. There are some questions as to how reliable some fact-checkers are.

Snopes

WIkipedia's description of Snopes is almost all positive: "Snopes.com /snoʊps/, formally known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is one of the first online fact-checking websites. It has been termed a "well-regarded source for sorting out myths and rumors" on the internet.. It has also been seen as a source for validating and debunking urban legends and similar stories in American popular culture."

An article in the Daily Mail paints an entirely different picture in its usual sensational style. After the messy divorce of the two founders David and Barbara Mikkelson, he married a former escort and porn actress and she is now one of the company's staff members. Both David and Barbara accuse each other of financial impropriety.

Kalev Leetaru wrote an article in Forbes about his attempt to get Snopes to refute the claims made in the Daily Mail. He noticed that none of the mainstream press picked up on the piece and he took this as a sign that the article was another example of sensational fake news. He was surprised when he contacted Snopes by email. He expected to get a reply that showed point by point how each of the claims made by the Mail were false. However, no such reply ever came. When he asked again he was told that many of the points could not be answered because of David's divorce settlement. In another words, the truth had to remain secret. Leetaru was unable to get much information as to how workers were hired or about the processes used to determine if news were fake.

Leetaru concludes: Regardless of whether the Daily Mail article is correct in its claims about Snopes, at the least what does emerge from my exchanges with Snopes’ founder is the image of the ultimate black box presenting a gleaming veneer of ultimate arbitration of truth, yet with absolutely no insight into its inner workings. While technology pundits decry the black boxes of the algorithms that increasingly power companies like Facebook, they have forgotten that even the human-powered sites offer us little visibility into how they function."

Algorithms too are often biased. As an article written some time ago notes biased algorithms are everywhere.

UPDATE: Fred Walton pointed out that I left out an important recent development. The Atlantic Council is partnering with Facebook to help them weed out fake news especially during elections.

Facebook teams up with the Atlantic Council

Katie Harbath, the global politics and government outreach director for Facebook said: “Experts from their Digital Forensic Research Lab will work closely with our security, policy, and product teams to get Facebook real-time insights and updates on emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world. This will help increase the number of ‘eyes and ears’ we have working to spot potential abuse on our service — enabling us to more effectively identify gaps in our systems, preempt obstacles, and ensure that Facebook plays a positive role during elections all around the world.”

This all sounds fine but for Sputnik News it just means filtering out news that contradicts the anti-Russian ideology of most western countries and NATO. However the New York Times, hardly a purveyor of Russian propaganda is also critical: "The Atlantic Council, which has seen its annual revenue grow to $21 million from $2 million in the last decade, offers access to United States and foreign government officials in exchange for contributions. Individual donors, like FedEx, have also helped fund specific reports that align with their agendas." The Atlantic Council is anything but neutral in spite of all its "expertise".

Previously published in Digital Journal

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau demands Facebook address "fake news" problem

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned social networking behemoth Facebook the that it must address its "fake news" problem or it would face stronger regulation by the Canadian government.

	1 of 2
Trudeau's meeting with Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg

Back in November Trudeau had told Sheryl Sandberg chief operating officer of Facebook that he was concerned that the company was not doing enough to address the problem of misleading information on Facebook.

Trudeau is said to have made the comments during a meeting with Sandberg at the Asia-Pacific Economic Forum in Vietnam last November. The source said that the conversation was constructive. Trudeau was particularly concerned about identifying the origin of partisan "news", posts or ads.

Neither the PM's office nor Facebook would discuss the specifics of the meeting. However, Kevin Chan Facebook's policy chief in Canada said in a statement to the Star newspaper: “We stand with the lawmakers around the world, including in Canada, in their efforts to protect the democractic process.”

Facebook has been under increasing pressure for allowing false information to masquerade as legitimate journalism. Russia has been accused of using ads on Facebook to influence the recent U.S. election that saw Donald Trump win over Hillary Clinton.

Facebook has also faced criticism for lack of transparency as to who is buying ads appearing on it.

The Trudeau government and social media

Trudeau appears to be concerned that there will be material on Facebook designed to influence the upcoming 2019 Federal election.

The federal government, including Trudeau and his cabinet ministers, issue constant Twitter posts, Instagram statements, and announcements on Facebook. At the same time, the government worries about the use of these platforms by opponents and foreign countries to influence Canadian elections using social media.

CSIS concerns

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) that deals with cybersecurity and espionage has warned that it is quite likely that outside groups will attempt to influence the elections.

CSIS even held a workshop for researchers that talked about the possible responses to "information warfare" and disinformation in the fall of 2017. Elections Canada has already taken steps to ensure cybersecurity. Global Affairs has also been taking an interest in the fake news phenomena.

Katrina Gould, Democratic Institutions Minister claimed that social media have plenty of work to do to address the problems of “cybersecurity, hate speech, and the dissemination of misinformation.” Gould said: “We encourage all social media platforms to think critically about their current practices and how they can create spaces for informed public dialogue.”

Facebook's response

Facebook points out that it already employs 10,000 people working on "safety and security" globally and plans to increase the number to 20,000.

The company also launched a "Canadian Election Integrity" initiative late in 2017. It provides a guide to MPs, candidates and parties to prevent "mischief" on line and gives a direct link to Facebook's security team. The company claims it is also providing more transparency as to who buys ads and who they are targeting.

Facebook's head of global policy management, Monika Bickert told the Canadian House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it had deleted thousands of fake accounts in the run-up to 2017 elections in the UK, France, and Germany. Many politicians have little faith that tech and social media companies will address the issues themselves.

Rise of tech media giants creates economic and other issues

Carolyn Wilkins, senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada said that the rise of giant social media companies has resulted in a relentless appetite for users' data. This raises questions about privacy of the data, security and also intellectual property.

Wilkins said: “If user data are an important source of monopoly rents in the digital age, how should we regulate who owns the data and how they're shared?. We're going to need to judge wisely when it’s best to use public policy tools to manage the risks and when it's best to let private enterprise work its magic.”

The problem of "fake news" Facebook versus Twitter

There are many views of what constitutes fake news. President Trump appears to consider any report fake news if it is critical of him and his administration and he rejects it as not true. Wikipedia describes fake news as follows:Fake news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.[1] Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically,[2][3][4] often using sensationalist, dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership, online sharing, and Internet click revenue. In the latter case, it is similar to sensational online "clickbait" headlines and relies on advertising revenue generated from this activity, regardless of the veracity of the published stories.[2] In

However, what some might consider fake news others might consider basically true if somewhat biased. In propaganda there may be many true statements. Russian ads meant to divide Americans often contain true but perhaps exaggerated accounts of race relations in the US. To expect social media companies to filter out fake news will just increase the power of the powerful to the detriment of free speech and repression of viewpoints that don't fit in with the mainstream views.

Facebook takes the view it has the responsibility to intervene to block fake news. In contrast Twitter has decided that it will not be an arbiter of what is true or of fake news.

The Facebook view

As noted earlier, Facebook already has thousands filtering out fake news from Facebook.

It has also announced a plan to crowdsource credibility ratings for news outlets. It has assembled a team of fact checkers in Italy just ahead of parliamentary elections there next month. Before the French presidential election last year in France, Facebook took out full page newspapers ads that featured tips on identifying fake news.

The Twitter view

Nick Pickles head of Twitter's public policy for the UK said in testimony in Washington said: We are not the arbiters of truth. We are not going to remove content based on the fact this is untrue. The one strength that Twitter has is it's a hive of journalists, of citizens, of activists correcting the record, correcting information.”

Pickles was among executives from Twitter, Facebook, and Google who fielded questions about fake news at George Washington University. The UK held its first ever public hearing outside the UK.

Pickles also said: "I don't think technology companies should be deciding during an election what is true and what is not true, which is what you're asking us to do. I think that's a very important principle.”

Accounts can still be cut off at Twitter if they violate terms of use. Trump seems to stay on even though many argue he constantly violates the terms of use.

Greater transparency as to who places ads and who is targeted seems to me a laudable goal and would help the reader assess the likely veracity of a post.

Previously published in Digital Journal

Facebook will allow users to flag articles as fake news

Facebook is making good on its promise to try to eradicate "fake news". One of the techniques Facebook will use for doing so is a tool that will allow users to flag anything that they consider to be fake news.

The 1.8 billion users of Facebook will be able to click the upper right-hand corner in any post to flag the content as fake news. There is one huge problem right off the bat according to an article in Zero Hedge. Not all posts can be flagged, only those not from "legitimate news sources". Which outlets are legitimate news sources and why? Even if a new source has an excellent reputation it can still carry fake news especially if the news is produced by the government as in the coverage of the issue of Hussein's having WMD. Zero Hedge asks of the list of legitimate news outlets: ".. does it include the likes of NYTs and the WaPos, which during the runup to the election declared on a daily basis, that Trump has no chance of winning, which have since posted defamatory stories about so-called "Russian propaganda news sites", admitting subsequently that their source data was incorrect, and which many consider to be the source of "fake news". " Who exactly would make the determination of which sites are legitimate news sites? The elimination of legitimate news sites from flagging blocks users from identifying any fake news reports on these sites. Yet these are the very sites that people have become more skeptical about.

The many remaining sites will be subject to a type of "crowd sourced" censorship in which as a result of flagging by members of the crowd of Facebook users a post can then be reviewed by Facebook researchers and then relayed to a fact-checking organization for further verification or it could be marked as false. Zero Hedge wonders what this process could evolve into in practice: ".. how much good will checking will take place considering that these "researchers" will be bombarded with tens of thousands of flagged articles daily, until it ultimately become a rote move to simply delete anything flagged as false by enough disgruntled readers, before moving on to the next article, while in the process not touching the narrative spun by the liberal "legitimate news outlets", the ones who would jump at the opportunity to have dinner with Podesta in hopes of becoming Hillary Clinton's public relations arm. " As I understand it, flagged articles are not deleted.

Adam Mosseri, Facebook vice-president of News Feed said in a blog post: "We believe in giving people a voice and that we cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves, so we're approaching this problem carefully." Yet in selecting "legitimate news sources" as not subject to crowd-sourced flagging, Facebook has been already an arbiter of truth.

If a story is determined by fact-checkers to be fake the item will still appear and can even be shared however there will be a warning and you can connect through a link to know why. The stories cannot be promoted or turned into advertisements and will no doubt appear lower in News Feed.

The fake news issue trended just days after the election. At the time, Facebook head Zuckerberg said that it was "pretty crazy" to think that fake news could have influenced the election. He said that Facebook "must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth". However as pointed out earlier by eliminating the legitimate news services from flagging, Facebook is already an arbiter of truth. The Facebook team claims it does not want "censorship" but it is carrying out something similar in a crowd-sourced vetting process supplemented by fact-checking. While posts are not deleted they are clearly downgraded.

The fact-checkers are working under the banner of the Poynter International Fact-Checking Network, a group that also owns the Tampa Bay Times. However, the Tampa Bay Times in no doubt a legitimate news outlet so they need not worry about being fact-checked. Those working as fact-checkers will follow the Poynter principles. Facebook's plans can be found here.

After finishing this article. I checked some of the articles about the new techniques being used by Facebook. I found no reference to legitimate news sources being an exception to the flagging. I then read the Zero Hedge article and it actually gives a link to NBC news as mentioning that legitimate news sources would not be flagged. However, I could find no place in the article that claimed this. Perhaps, this is partially fake news. Lets see! If all posts are included, the system could be a great job creator for fact-checkers.

.

Washington Post list dozens of sites peddling Russian propaganda

A recent article by Craig Timberg in the Washington Post lists dozens of news sites that supposedly are "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda".

 

The entire article can be found here. There is a long, detailed analysis of the article in the Intercept.

The article cites a report by a website called PropOrNot which claims that millions of Americans were deceived by a massive Russian "misinformation campaign". As one would expect, on the list are sites such as RT but included are also Wikileaks, the Drudge Report (Drudge being a conservative), a number of left-wing sites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report and Naked Capitalism, all often critical of Clinton. It includes Libertarian sites such as the Ron Paul Institute and antiwar.com. It also includes Infowars, and Prison Planet. The entire list can be found on Prop or Not's website.

The Washington Post is one of the prime U.S. dailies. It is published in Washington DC. The paper has won 47 Pulitzer prizes and Post journalists have received 18 Nieman Fellowships. It is the paper that revealed the Nixon Watergate scandal. Yet in the recent election it was hostile to Bernie Sanders: "On March 8th, 2016, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting published links to 16 purportedly negative articles on Bernie Sanders published in the on-line version of the paper during a period of 16 hours from March 6th to March 7th." The paper also called for the prosecution of Edward Snowden who helped them win a Pulitzer prize.

The Post published this article that is filled with reckless accusations and unproven allegations. The executive editor, Marty Baron, helped promote the article with posts on twitter:Marty Baron ✔ @PostBaron Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent researchers. 8:07 PM — 24 Nov 2016 Photo published for Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say. Researchers say sophisticated tools were used to boost Trump and undermine Clinton. washingtonpost.com 3,240 3,240 Retweets 2,506 2,506 likes

The experts behind ProOrNot are described as "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds". Not a single contributing individual or organization is named. There is a quote from the executive director but he is not named in order "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers". These experts with technology background are simply defenseless against Russian hackers. When the Intercept tried to find out from PropOrNot details about its team it replied: “We’re getting a lot of requests for comment and can get back to you today =) [smiley face emoticon].We’re over 30 people, organized into teams, and we cannot confirm or deny anyone’s involvement.”

PropOrNot listed numerous organizations as being allied with it. When the Intercept checked with some of them they claimed to have nothing to do with the group and had not even heard of it. After many of the groups complained on social media the Intercept asked about the inconsistency. At least the reply was clear. They admitted they had no institutional affiliation with any organization. The relationship list was changed to "related projects".

The Intercept quotes a number of tweets by PropOrNot that give a sample of what the groups views are like. Here is one: PropOrNot ID Service @propornot Fascists. Straight up muthaf*****n' [asterisks inserted] fascists. That's what we're up against. Unwittingly or not, they work for Russia." Another tweet says that they will consider revealing their names when Russia reveals the names of those running its propaganda operations in the West. The group even has a new Chrome plug in which will alert you when you visit a website that is on their list.

PropOrNot claims that stories planted or promoted by the Russian disinformation campaign have been viewed more than 213 million times. No account was given of how this number was determined. The group recommends relying on publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, the BBC and Wall Street Journal among other establishment publications. The group does not give its criteria for including a site on its list. It includes not just sites such as RT which do promote Russian propaganda but also "useful idiots" which include any publication that publishes anything that might help the Russian government. Of course that includes any material critical of Western governments and their policies. They deny being McCarthyite, yet they want U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia, the Intercept notes.

When the Intercept asked Craig Timberg the author of the article on PropOrNot, where it got its funding, whether it was linked to any government and whether it was fair to label left-wing news sites such as Truthout, "Russian propaganda outlets," he replied: “I’m sorry, I can’t comment about stories I’ve written for the Post.”

The Intercept points out in the past the Post itself has promoted "fake news". In September it published an article that took seriously a claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 because she was poisoned by Putin. The Post also printed numerous articles about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and alliances with Al-Qaeda. At least we can be thankful the Post has exposed itself as a creator of "fake news".

U.S. government is one of the prime producers of fake news

Lately, there has been much discussion of fake news. Much fake news is easy to detect with a little basic research. But there is another type of fake news that is spread by the U.S. and other governments.

	1 of 2
As a recent article puts it: "In the midst of the media’s sudden headline-blaring apoplexy over fake news, you won’t hear much about the government’s role in producing, planting and peddling propaganda-driven fake news – often with the help of the corporate news media – because that’s not how the game work." The article claims this is because the powers that be do not want you to be skeptical of messages of the government. They want us to be leery of independent or alternative news sources while trusting them and their corporate colleagues to filter the news for us.

The growth of the Internet has given rise to many alternative news sites. While many of these sites do contain misinformation they also often come up with material that the mainstream media avoids or show failings in the mainstream narratives. This is further compounded by sites such as Russia Today which slant the news in ways that contradict that of most western news media. Even the U.S. Congress has taken notice. Ed Royce chair of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs said: "Russia’s propaganda machine is in overdrive, working to subvert democratic stability and foment violence. Russian propaganda has the potential to destabilize NATO members, impacting our security commitments. This Russian campaign – what one witness describes as the 'weaponization of information' – seriously threatens U.S. security."

The U.S. media works to serve the interests of the U.S. government. In 1977, an article in the Rolling Stone reported:“More than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency… There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services… Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters… In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”Way back in the 1950's, Operation Mockingbird began which planted intelligence reports in more than 25 major newspapers and wire agencies. This was not genuine news but government produced propaganda.

Organizations such as the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, UPI and Reuters are among a long list of organizations that worked with the CIA to vet the news. The news media are often used to dutifully spread false information or fake news:For example, in August 1964, the nation’s leading newspapers – including the Washington Post and New York Times – echoed Lyndon Johnson’s claim that North Vietnam had launched a second round of attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. No such attacks had taken place, and yet the damage was done. American journalism helped prepare people for the Vietnam War and justify it.

A few years later, the western media pressed forward with false reports of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. As investigative journalist Nick Davies said: “For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it. The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news.”

Officially propagated news — or technically "information operations" — is now regarded as the fifth core competency by the Pentagon together with land, sea, air and special forces. Ever since October of 2006 the US has had its own "psyop" forces producing output for local media. This activity links up with that of the State Department campaign of what it calls "public diplomacy" which includes the funding of radio stations and news websites.

These operations can include the actual creation of fake news. The U.S. government paid a British public relations firm $500 million to run a top-secret propaganda campaign in Iraq:Bell Pottinger, a London-based P.R. firm, created fake videos that appeared to be the work of al-Qaida, the Islamist extremist group formerly headed by Osama bin Laden. It also created news stories that looked as though they were produced by Arab media outlets, and distributed them through Middle Eastern news networks.

While it may be a bit of a stretch to call government propaganda "fake news" the simple reporting uncritically of government claims, some of which may be false, is less presenting the news than a form of "manufacturing consent" for whatever the government wants to promote. I append a video from the alleged "fake news" site RT.