In this era of supreme data accessibility and information transfer, governments, private industry and individuals have achieved significant success informing and misinforming mass audiences. A pertinent and timely example of such activity is the adaptation of state propaganda to this newer, more potent medium. The intuitiveness of online information distribution has played nicely into the aims of nations who consistently and deliberately influence their national media outlets to fit narratives in-line with the view of the state. Online fallacies have become a prominent feature of the modern internet, and an effective tool to influence not only – for example – Russian, or Chinese citizens but foreign outlets as well. This online propaganda has extended to international theatres threatening American sovereignty and possibly civic proceedings.
In an article featured in the New Yorker earlier this week titled “The Propaganda about Russian Propaganda,” Adrian Chen discusses a team of “internet watchdogs." The group operates under the name “PropOrNot.” Per the article the quasi-activist group’s self-description is a “newly-formed independent team of computer scientists, statisticians, national security professionals, journalists and political activists dedicated to identifying propaganda – particularly Russian propaganda targeting a U.S. audience.” Russia’s often malicious online presence has bred fervent suspicion of the Kremlin’s role in the most recent American election which yielded a Trump Victory. The hack of the Democratic National Committee in June and possible election tampering are disturbing notions while may not necessarily alter elections, certainly could compromise American national security. The prospect of such nightmare scenarios coming to fruition have brought about the formation of groups with functions consistent with those of PropOrNot. However, such organizations are composed of volunteers from a variety of state and corporate backgrounds. Their work is not indorsed by any government agency or alternate authority.
In late October, Chen – the author of the article – was contacted by PropOrNot to have a story made from a report they had conducted. Upon further investigation, the group was found to have minimal concrete evidence to support a significant Russian presence in international news outlets which had affected a political response in the United States. In addition, how the team yields and consolidates metadata is disorganized at best. Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton of The Intercept present a candid position on the team’s work. “[PropOrNot] embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist.” The clever excerpt expresses a valid critique of such organizations. An attempt to validate the creation of a watch-list based on mildly correlative often negligible search histories and page-likes is not a productive or fair way to go about weeding out seeds of Russian influence. Chen includes a comment by Vasily Gatov of the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism which expresses an astute position. “To blame internal social effects on external perpetrators is very Putanistic.” This of course in response to the unrealistic claims by PropOrNot implying that a number of Americans actively subscribe to Russian media falsehoods that in turn skew American elections.
Discounting rouge independent data tracking organizations, the possibility of foreign interference in American political affairs is an infuriating thought. Despite the new White House administration’s apparent Russian fondness – or at least that of Vladimir Putin as an individual – it would be wise to carefully monitor foreign meddling via hacking or other means. I don’t find this surveillance to be paranoia. Accounts of Chinese and North Korean cyber-attacks have been well documented. The hacking of the Democratic National Committee has been widely attributed to Russia by several senior officials at the Department of Defense. The thousands of thwarted online attacks conducted daily are not enough. Public displays of international interference demonstrate that it is quite possible to access governmental servers and tamper with sensitive information. It is necessary for the United States to devote as much energy as needed to repel attacks of this class. Not doing so would yield further embarrassment and compromise American national security. That being said, there is one person who would not oppose continued attacks. He happens to be the Russian president.
