Suchergebnisse

After the Mueller report revealed that there was no collusion between Russia and the United-States during the 2016 US presidential election, the rhetoric of the New York Times has been much criticized by the European media. This has resulted in shaking the media's aim to provide information, therefore investigating the interpersonal relationship between The New York Times and their readers from the perspective of an empirical media discourse approach may be interesting in order to understand the impact of the newspaper's discourse on the readers' comprehension of the events. This research takes a discourse analysis, both computer assisted and traditional discourse analysis, and combines appraisal theory and frame theory. It explores a non-exhaustive data corpus of 114 articles, spread before and after the Mueller report was published in March 23, 2019, and from January 10, 2017 when the Steele dossier, which contains the first allegations of conspiracy between Trump and the government of Russia, was released online. The main research questions are: do the conclusions of the report have an impact on the discursive interpersonal relationship between The New York Times and their readers? What are the implications of the results of our analysis on the media's aim to provide information? The results of our research seem to show that the information gathered and shared by The New York Times were insufficient, therefore readers were left with a never-ending debate of opinions and hypotheses on Russiagate and on its consequences. This would result in a media's tendency to hazard guesses, which would nourish readers' hopes and/or fears. ; Suite à la publication du rapport Mueller révélant une absence de collusion entre la Russie et les États-Unis pendant l'élection présidentielle américaine de 2016, la rhétorique du New York Times sur le Russiagate a été condamnée par beaucoup de médias occidentaux. La visée d'information du média se trouvant ébranlée, nous avons voulu étudier l'impact du récit du New York Times ...

Die Autoren haben ihren fast gleichnamigen Bestseller von 2014 um ein Wort im Titel (immer) und ein Kapitel zu "Russiagate" erweitert. Mehr war nicht notwendig, um das Buch zu aktualisieren, da ihre Argumentation in den vergangenen Jahren immer wieder bestätigt wurde. Rezension (ekz): Die Autoren haben ihren Bestseller von 2014 um ein Wort im Titel und ein Kapitel zu "Russiagate" erweitert. Mehr war nicht notwendig, um das Buch zu aktualisieren, da ihre Argumentation in den vergangenen Jahren immer wieder bestätigt wurde. Deutsche "Qualitätsmedien" sind weiterhin äusserst unkritisch, wenn es darum geht, das Feindbild Putin/Russland zu pflegen. Das angefügte Kapitel "Russiagate" beleuchtet die angeblichen Einflussnahmen russischer Hacker und der obersten Führung des Landes auf den Wahlkampf in den USA aus einer Perspektive, die fast nirgends in der deutschen Medienlandschaft zu lesen war: Bisher wurden keine Beweise für die Einflussnahme vorgelegt. Wo bleiben die Dementis? Spannende Lektüre. (2)

Russiagate 2.0?

The independent journalist talks about true press freedom, the Twitter Files, Russiagate, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Secondo la National Security Strategy 2017 la Russia rappresenta – insieme alla Repubblica Popolare Cinese – il principale sfidante dell'ordine internazionale a guida americana. Considerando il mantenimento dello status quo come il principale obiettivo di Washington dopo la fine della Guerra fredda, l'articolo si interroga sull'approccio americano al "problema" russo negli anni 2009-2018. Sia l'Amministrazione Obama che quella Trump, d'altronde, si sono confrontate con una sfida crescente alla leadership globale americana. L'ipotesi di ricerca è che, nonostante le differenze politiche e personali, entrambi i presidenti abbiano tentato di integrare Mosca nell'ordine internazionale, preferendo l' engagement al containment. Tuttavia, il risultato dei loro sforzi è stato l'inesorabile ritorno a una competizione serrata, che nel caso dell'Amministrazione Trump ha subito un'accelerazione come conseguenza del Russiagate. ; According to the National Security Strategy 2017, Russia – together with the People's Republic of China – represents the main challenger for the America-led international order. Assuming the preservation of the status quo as the primary goal of Washington after the end of the Cold War, the article investigates about the American approach to the Russian "problem" in the period 2009-2018. After all, both the Obama and Trump Administrations faced a growing challenge to the American global leadership. The research hypothesizes that, despite the political and personal differences, both Presidents have tried to integrate Moscow into the international order, preferring engagement to containment. However, the result of their efforts was the inexorable return to a close competition that, in the case of the Trump Administration, underwent an acceleration due to the Russiagate scandal.

Stephen Cohen's War with Russia? centers on his assessment of the situation that the new US-Russian Cold War is far more dangerous than its 40-year old predecessor, which the world barely survived. Cohen cites that during the preceding cold war, the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe was in the forefront of American mainstream political and media discussion, and in policy-making decisions and laws. The book draws attention to this new cold war, that has been evolving in Ukraine and which has been overruled by Russiagate allegations that remain unproven. This orthodox narrative of the U.S has also constrained President Trump's capacity to conduct crisis-negotiations with Moscow while American media outlets have vilified Russian President Putin for attacking "America Democracy" during the 2016 presidential campaign. Cohen's book is an excerpt from his radio broadcasts from 'The John Bachelor Show', a program based at WABC AM in New York.

Front Cover -- Back Cover -- Half-Title Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Preface: A Utopia of Division -- Note to Readers -- Introduction -- 1. The Beauty Contest: Press Coverage of the 2016 Election -- 2. The Ten Rules of Hate -- 3. The Church of Averageness -- 4. The High Priests of Averageness, on the Campaign Trail -- 5. More Priests: The Pollsters -- 6. The Invisible Primary: or, How We Decide Elections Before You Decide Them -- 7. How the News Media Stole From Pro Wrestling -- 8. How Reading the News is Like Smoking -- 9. Scare Tactics: All the Folk Devils Are Here -- 10. The Media's Great Factual Loophole -- 11. The Class Taboo -- 12. How We Turned the News Into Sports -- 13. Turn it Off -- 14. The Scarlet Letter Club -- 15. Why Russiagate is This Generation's WMD -- Appendix 1: Why Rachel Maddow is on the Cover of This Book -- Appendix 2: An Interview with Noam Chomsky -- Acknowledgments.

WikiLeaks poses a unique challenge to state and commercial institutions. This book considers the whistleblower platform's ongoing importance, focusing on the informational and communicative paradoxes it faces, and the shifting strategies it has adopted over time. Attention to these matters provides insight into the nature of the contemporary networked, post-truth media environment, and the types of factors likely to affect the success of activist groups today. Chapter 1 introduces WikiLeaks' significance as a novel expression of counterpower, outlining the disclosures marking its career. Chapters 2 through 4 address the dilemmas confronting WikiLeaks in its attempts to engage the public with and without the cooperation of mainstream news organizations. Chapter 5 appraises how WikiLeaks has adjusted its strategies to take better advantage of a densely populated and globally networked media environment within the larger context of an ongoing political legitimation crisis. Chapter 6 extends this analysis to the case of Russiagate.

International audience ; L'article examine les attitudes américaines envers le communisme et la Russie de Poutine reflétées dans la création, par Donald Trump, de la « Journée nationale pour les victimes du communisme ». La déclaration trumpienne du 7 novembre 2017 a été l'événement central de la célébration du centenaire de la Révolution russe aux Etats-Unis. Elle continue une longue tradition de cultiver la mémoire des victimes des régimes dictatoriaux en Russie, en Chine et d'autres pays communistes, qui remonte aux années 1950 et a connu un nouvel élan avec la chute de l'empire soviétique et les débuts de la dé-communisation en Europe de l'Est. Le scandale lié à l'intervention présumée du Kremlin dans les élections américaines de 2016 (le Russiagate) a aussi contribué à la politisation de la mémoire du communisme aux États-Unis. L'auteur suggère que l'association entre la Russie d'aujourd'hui et le communisme continue à influencer les perceptions américaines de ce pays.

AbstractThis article examines humor as geopolitical performance in the context of Russia–US political communication. Humor has featured prominently in the mass‐mediated performances of Russian state actors since 2012. Public officials such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have engaged in ambiguous play and satirical borrowings via the circulation of memes and other political theatrics. "Russiagate"—the scandal about Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election—proved to be a particular flashpoint. I draw on recent scholarship in anthropology and media studies as well as prior ethnographic work to account for these humorous performances and consider the work that they do. Dominant analyses view this humor in militarized terms, regarding it as part of a deliberate "hybrid war" strategy. I contend that deadpanning diplomats like Lavrov are produced when a transformed Soviet‐era humorous form, stiob, intersects with a hybridized and transnationally dialogic global media context, resulting in a volatile form of geopolitical communication. In taking this state propagated humor and the confusion it generates as ethnographic objects, I contribute to anthropological interrogations of the politics of post‐truth.

Il Regolamento (UE) 2016/679, in vigore dal 25 Maggio 2018, nello stabilire nuovi obblighi e responsabilità per gli intermediari digitali – i provider, fra cui le piattaforme di social networking – ha integrato, ed in parte superato, le precedenti disposizioni in materia. Il contributo in oggetto, dopo un breve excursus che ripercorre nella giurisprudenza europea ed italiana le tappe evolutive dei fondamenti normativi delle responsabilità sancite oggi dal GDPR, ne vuole verificare l'applicabilità alle piattaforme social, partendo dalla definizione stessa del concetto di piattaforma e delle sue funzioni, anche avvalendosi di contributi tratti dai media e cultural studies. L'obiettivo è analizzare l'equilibrio non sempre stabile fra gli obblighi per i Social Network Provider ed i diritti degli interessati nel delicato campo della comunicazione politica sulle piattaforme social: è su questi "campi di battaglia" infatti che si è recentemente verificata l'esplosione di "scandali" quali Cambridge Analytica e Russiagate, che hanno rinnovato l'attenzione sui rischi del trattamento automatizzato dei dati personali e sulla possibilità di data breach. L'articolo vuole dunque verificare la tenuta degli strumenti dispiegati dal GDPR - in primo luogo contro la profilazione degli utenti e l'aggregazione delle tracce digitali tramite algoritmo - quando questi si debbono applicare a scapito degli interessi delle major di Internet.

"Propaganda in the Information Age is a collaborative volume which updates Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model for the 21st century media landscape and makes the case for the continuing relevance of their original ideas. It includes an exclusive interview with Noam Chomsky himself. 2018 marks 30 years since the publication of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's ground-breaking book Manufacturing Consent, which lifted the veil over how the mass media operate. The book's model presented five filters which all potentially newsworthy events must pass through before they reach our TV screens, smartphones or newspapers. In Propaganda in the Information Age, many of the world's leading media scholars, analysts and journalists use this model to explore the modern media world, covering some of the most pressing contemporary topics such as fake news, Cambridge Analytica, the Syrian Civil War and RussiaGate. The collection also acknowledges that in an increasingly globalized world, our media is increasingly globalized as well, with chapters exploring both Indian and African media. For students of Media Studies, Journalism, Communication and Sociology, Propaganda in the Information Age offers a fascinating introduction to the propaganda model and how it can be applied to our understanding not only of how media functions in corporate America, but across the world in the 21st Century"--

Intro -- Preface -- Praise for the Second Edition of Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories in the Age of Trump -- Praise for the First Edition -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1 Introduction: Theorizing Conspiracy, Conspiracy Theories -- The Big Steal: A Conspiracy in Search of a Theory -- Political Conspiracies -- Conspiracy in Political Science -- Conspiracism Over the Decades -- Beyond Symptomology -- Chapters in This Book -- 2 Paranoia, Conspiracy Panic, and the Regime of Truth -- I'm Not a Conspiracy Theorist, But… -- Normal Believers, Malevolence, and the Paranoid Style -- Toward a More Democratic Regime of Truth -- Level or Scope of a Conspiracy -- Plausibility Based on Logic and Evidence -- JFK, 9/11, and The Regime of Truth -- From the Regime of Truth to Post-truth -- 3 New Conspiracism, Fake News, and QAnon -- New Conspiracism -- Misinformation and Conspiracism from Reagan to Trump -- From Cable News to Unsocial Media -- Fake News-Propaganda by Another Name -- QAnon, From Fringe to Mainstream -- Trump, the MAGAnificent -- 4 Conspiracies in the Voting Booth -- Reading Voters' Entrails -- Populism and the 2016 Election -- Fake News, Dark Money, Russiagate -- Years of Voting Dangerously -- Social Immobility and Unresponsive Elites -- Globalization, Economic Distress, and the Vote -- Election Fraud and Institutional Decay -- 5 Globalization, Populism, Conspiracism -- Suspicious Minds in the New World Order -- Immigration, Nativism, and Trump -- Wall Street and Monessen, PA -- Transnational Capitalism and the Nation-State -- Transnational Populism -- Trump, the Disrupter -- 6 Dark Money and Trumpism -- Dark Money and Operational Conspiracies -- Billionaire Cabals -- Democrats, Moral Hazard, Dark Money -- Political Science Meets Stealth Funding -- Show Us The Dark Money Trail -- Conspiracy Panic and Muckraking.

Victoria Nuland, whose infamous words "f-ck the EU" epitomized American primacy as it worked to mold the Ukrainian government after the 2014 revolution and helped to set up the country for a brutal showdown with Russia's Vladimir Putin, now says that Russia is trying to elect Donald Trump, again."He's at it again!" Nuland told Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC host whose red string conspiracy board was a regular feature for years during Trump's tenure and Russiagate, until she wasn't. Now she is back, and hosting the old gang. "It's good to be back with you Rachel to talk to you about this as we did in 2016 as well as 2020," said Nuland, without a trace of irony. She retired this year from the State Department. "And (Putin) has more sophisticated tools... He's got a brand new, very powerful tool, which is Elon Musk and X. In 2020, the social media companies worked hard with the U.S. government to try to do content moderation, to try to catch this stuff as it was happening. This time, we have Elon Musk talking directly to the Kremlin and ensuring that every time the Russians put out something, it gets five million views before anyone can catch it."Nuland was talking about a report in the New York Times on Tuesday that said that Russia, China, and Iran were all meddling in the presidential election. It said their tactics have "matured into a consistent and pernicious threat, as the countries test, iterate and deploy increasingly nuanced tactics, according to U.S. intelligence and defense officials, tech companies and academic researchers. The ability to sway even a small pocket of Americans could have outsize consequences for the presidential election, which polls generally consider a neck-and-neck race."Nuland was right that the government warned about the same thing in 2020, and that social media companies "worked" with the government to address what they said was pernicious meddling. But she fails to mention (not surprisingly) that beginning in 2017 government agencies including the FBI, DHS, intel community, and yes, State Department, put these companies under tremendous pressure to "acknowledge" the meddling in 2016, forcing untold posts and accounts to be deleted and millions of dollars spent fo "due diligence" in monitoring posts and activity through the 2020 election. This was all in the Twitter files. It has been acknowledged as much by Mark Zuckerbeg, CEO of Facebook (now Meta), who reaffirmed the pressure not once but twice (the second time was more about COVID) since the last election.Nevertheless, a NYU study last year said that the meddling likely had little impact on votes in 2016.But let's talk about the meddling that did have an impact. Like U.S. government-led democracy promotion, and quasi-government efforts, including the National Endowment for Democracy (for which Nuland is a newly minted board member), helping to foment the anti-Russian Orange revolution, then Maidan revolution that overturned the elected government in Ukraine in 2014. Nuland was on the ground there and can be seen in photographs handing out sandwiches to demonstrators. As President Viktor Yanukovych was being tossed out, Nuland was recorded in a conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, plotting who was in or out of the mix as a new Ukraine government was being assembled. This is where she made her infamous "you know, f-ck the EU" comment.When Russia invaded Crimea and then Ukraine in 2022, rather than see this as dangerous escalation, if not blowback to the aggressive "democracy promotion" policies in the former Soviet sphere that she had supported, first during the Obama Administration, then under Biden, it was an affirmation. She has said only when Putin is gone will Ukraine be safe (a sentiment shared by Biden at the beginning of the war).No doubt she feels the same way about Trump, telling Maddow, "Trump is taking Putin lessons, as autocrats around the world are." But meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are dead or wounded, the population has shrunk 25% and the war is not only far from over, Ukraine is by all metrics, losing. How many Ukrainians must fight for the crusades of ideologues thousands of miles away? Ask Maddow and Nuland. They are stuck in the narratives of 2016 and 2020 because an election is just days away, and as I wrote back January, their Russian "malign influence" story "helped to get the public's buy-in for a new Cold War with Russia by normalizing the idea that Russians not only helped to elect Donald Trump, but were actively trying "'to destroy U.S. democracy.'" We will have to decide whether it is in Americans' best interest to indulge this again, given all that has happened in the last four years.