buzzfeed--2020-01-09--Fox News Hosts Were Against A Ground War With Iran. Trump Listened.

Fox News personalities by and large supported President Donald Trump ’ s confrontation with Iran over the past week .
But between the lines , even the most ardent Trump supporters on Fox ’ s opinion side like Sean Hannity stopped short of encouraging all-out war , though some less prominent on-air figures spoke in favor of more extreme measures .
And one of Fox ’ s biggest opinion hosts has consistently criticized the confrontation with Iran .
The coverage of the Iran showdown on Fox has reflected a conundrum for Trump supporters — whether to cheer his every move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disentangle the US from conflicts in the Middle East .
In the hours and days following the US strike that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani , Fox hosts rallied in predictable fashion : praising the president as decisive , saying the move had made Americans safer , excoriating Democrats for failing to applaud him .
As Iran launched retaliatory strikes on US targets in Iraq Tuesday night , with no direct communication from the president , observers fell even more into the habit of reading the tea leaves of Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration was marching the country toward war .
Sean Hannity , in particular , gave the impression of having inside information Tuesday when he said on his show , “ Their hostility will now be met with the full force of the greatest , most advanced , most sophisticated military this world has ever seen.
” Hannity said that those who work in Iran ’ s oil refineries should be nervous .
But Hannity also said he didn ’ t want “ boots on the ground , ” nor did the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as something that would be the fault of the “ swamp , ” not the president himself .
“ The president has been clear he ’ s not putting boots on the ground .
Might need a few more intelligence people .
Might need to protect very specific areas .
And I know the Washington swamp creatures , they like to send our kids to war .
Then they put them on the battlefield , then they politicize the war and say never mind .
We can ’ t allow that to ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of officials to back up that view .
Sen. Lindsey Graham , who said he had just spoken to Trump , called Iran ’ s retaliation an “ act of war ” before stressing that the president “ doesn ’ t want regime change , he wants the behavior of the regime to change ” and that his goal would be getting Iran “ back into a deterrent mode.
” Sen. Ted Cruz said , ” We are not going to get into an extended land war in the Middle East , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sen. Marco Rubio and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said much of the same , each reinforcing the other .
The morning after the strike on Soleimani , Geraldo Rivera challenged the hosts of Fox and Friends for cheering the move , arguing that a war would put US troops in harm ’ s way .
Rivera also pledged to “ counsel restraint ” on Hannity ’ s show on Tuesday , before tweeting that his appearance had been canceled .
Monday night , Tucker Carlson launched what would become a series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , notably , not Trump personally — for getting involved in yet another Middle Eastern nation .
He broke from other Fox personalities in criticizing the entire venture , including the killing of Soleimani , which most others supported .
Fox is divided into news and opinion shows , though the division isn ’ t always clear-cut ( news host Bret Baier , for example , said on Wednesday that critics of Trump ’ s moves might have “ Trump Derangement Syndrome ” ) .
He later responded to criticism of that comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairly means you point out the good-the bad & the ugly . ''
The network doesn ’ t impose a uniform editorial line on its shows , with each show operating with a degree of independence .
In this tense week , some minor voices in the Fox world — those trying desperately to win or win back Trump ’ s attention — have been pushing for war .
Sebastian Gorka , a former White House official and conservative commentator , said on Fox Business that “ we should welcome ” Iran ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because “ Now there can be no question that Iran is a threat to American national security .
You do n't have to be an expert in terrorism or irregular warfare to know that Iran is an imminent danger to our country , to our citizens , to our servicemen and women.
” “ This president will unleash holy hell on that regime , ” Gorka said .
Dan Bongino , a contributor to the network , said on Tuesday , “ The mullahs only understand one language , and that 's the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if death is what we have to give them to stop this , and sadly , that 's what we have to do.
” But those with real influence , most notably Carlson , have not .
Carlson has become an increasingly influential voice for anti-interventionism on the right and is very popular among the Trump base .
And according to a source with knowledge of the conversations , Trump told people that he had watched Carlson ’ s show and it had affected his view on the Iran situation .
On Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down and indicated that the US wouldn ’ t pursue further military action , though it will continue to impose new sanctions .
The early reaction from Fox ’ s opinion hosts were encouraging for the president .
“ I think what Trump has done is he ’ s blown up the myths and the lies , ” Greg Gutfeld said on The Five .
“ He ’ s actually really good at this stuff .
He ’ s not impulsive .
This is something that was thought through .
It was decisive @ @ @ @

Fox News personalities by and large supported President Donald Trump’s confrontation with Iran over the past week. But between the lines, even the most ardent Trump supporters on Fox’s opinion side like Sean Hannity stopped short of encouraging all-out war, though some less prominent on-air figures spoke in favor of more extreme measures. And one of Fox’s biggest opinion hosts has consistently criticized the confrontation with Iran.
The coverage of the Iran showdown on Fox has reflected a conundrum for Trump supporters — whether to cheer his every move regardless or hold him to campaign promises to disentangle the US from conflicts in the Middle East.
In the hours and days following the US strike that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, Fox hosts rallied in predictable fashion: praising the president as decisive, saying the move had made Americans safer, excoriating Democrats for failing to applaud him. As Iran launched retaliatory strikes on US targets in Iraq Tuesday night, with no direct communication from the president, observers fell even more into the habit of reading the tea leaves of Trump’s favorite channel to see if the administration was marching the country toward war.
Sean Hannity, in particular, gave the impression of having inside information Tuesday when he said on his show, “Their hostility will now be met with the full force of the greatest, most advanced, most sophisticated military this world has ever seen.” Hannity said that those who work in Iran’s oil refineries should be nervous.
But Hannity also said he didn’t want “boots on the ground,” nor did the president. He cast the potential for further escalation as something that would be the fault of the “swamp,” not the president himself. “The president has been clear he’s not putting boots on the ground. Might need a few more intelligence people. Might need to protect very specific areas. And I know the Washington swamp creatures, they like to send our kids to war. Then they put them on the battlefield, then they politicize the war and say never mind. We can’t allow that to ever happen again.”
Hannity paraded a slew of officials to back up that view. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said he had just spoken to Trump, called Iran’s retaliation an “act of war” before stressing that the president “doesn’t want regime change, he wants the behavior of the regime to change” and that his goal would be getting Iran “back into a deterrent mode.” Sen. Ted Cruz said, ”We are not going to get into an extended land war in the Middle East, we’re not gonna do it.”
Sen. Marco Rubio and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said much of the same, each reinforcing the other.
The morning after the strike on Soleimani, Geraldo Rivera challenged the hosts of Fox and Friends for cheering the move, arguing that a war would put US troops in harm’s way. Rivera also pledged to “counsel restraint” on Hannity’s show on Tuesday, before tweeting that his appearance had been canceled. Monday night, Tucker Carlson launched what would become a series of monologues criticizing the administration — though, notably, not Trump personally — for getting involved in yet another Middle Eastern nation. He broke from other Fox personalities in criticizing the entire venture, including the killing of Soleimani, which most others supported.
Fox is divided into news and opinion shows, though the division isn’t always clear-cut (news host Bret Baier, for example, said on Wednesday that critics of Trump’s moves might have “Trump Derangement Syndrome”). He later responded to criticism of that comment on Twitter, saying "Covering things fairly means you point out the good-the bad & the ugly." The network doesn’t impose a uniform editorial line on its shows, with each show operating with a degree of independence.
In this tense week, some minor voices in the Fox world — those trying desperately to win or win back Trump’s attention — have been pushing for war. Sebastian Gorka, a former White House official and conservative commentator, said on Fox Business that “we should welcome” Iran’s retaliation for the killing of Suleimani because “Now there can be no question that Iran is a threat to American national security. You don't have to be an expert in terrorism or irregular warfare to know that Iran is an imminent danger to our country, to our citizens, to our servicemen and women.”
“This president will unleash holy hell on that regime,” Gorka said.
Dan Bongino, a contributor to the network, said on Tuesday, “The mullahs only understand one language, and that's the language of death, sadly. And if death is what we have to give them to stop this, and sadly, that's what we have to do.”
But those with real influence, most notably Carlson, have not. Carlson has become an increasingly influential voice for anti-interventionism on the right and is very popular among the Trump base. And according to a source with knowledge of the conversations, Trump told people that he had watched Carlson’s show and it had affected his view on the Iran situation.
On Wednesday, Trump announced that Iran had backed down and indicated that the US wouldn’t pursue further military action, though it will continue to impose new sanctions.
The early reaction from Fox’s opinion hosts were encouraging for the president.
“I think what Trump has done is he’s blown up the myths and the lies,” Greg Gutfeld said on The Five. “He’s actually really good at this stuff. He’s not impulsive. This is something that was thought through. It was decisive and unpredictable.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-09--The White House's Iran Briefing Won Over Most Republicans, But Rand Paul And Mike Lee Are Calling It

The White House's Iran Briefing Won Over Most Republicans, But Rand Paul And Mike Lee Are Calling It A Disgrace

WASHINGTON — Democrats and Republicans came out of a classified briefing on the Iran situation describing two totally different worlds Wednesday .
Democrats said the senior Trump administration officials who briefed Congress would not explain the supposed imminent threat posed by Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani that justified the need to kill him , and they called for Congress to seize back its constitutional authority to sign off on new military escalations .
“ It is abundantly clear they have no strategy for what comes next , ” said Rep. Seth Moulton , who said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unspecific ” in their briefing .
Rep. Gerry Connelly said he came away utterly unconvinced there was any new or imminent threat to America .
“ There was no rationale beyond a graduate school thesis text , ” he said .
But Republicans left the briefing saying they were confident the killing of Soleimani was justified because he was planning new attacks on American personnel beyond his usual work crisscrossing the region .
“ We have to speak very carefully on this , but I can tell you with assurance this was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been seeing for the past few years .
This was something different , ” said Rep. Chris Stewart .
But in the Senate , there were two loud exceptions to the partisan split , as Republican Sens .
Rand Paul and Mike Lee emphatically denounced the briefing as inadequate .
Lee said the White House officials refused to provide details while warning senators that publicly debating the president ’ s decision would only embolden Iran .
“ They ’ re in the process of telling us we need to be good little boys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public .
I find that absolutely insane .
I think it ’ s unacceptable , ” said Lee .
Paul said it is egregious that the administration is using a 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) against Saddam Hussein after 9/11 to justify attacks on Iran in 2019 .
“ That is absurd .
That ’ s an insult , ” he said .
Both senators said they would support some form of war powers resolution limiting the president ’ s ability to take action without congressional approval @

WASHINGTON — Democrats and Republicans came out of a classified briefing on the Iran situation describing two totally different worlds Wednesday.
Democrats said the senior Trump administration officials who briefed Congress would not explain the supposed imminent threat posed by Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani that justified the need to kill him, and they called for Congress to seize back its constitutional authority to sign off on new military escalations.
“It is abundantly clear they have no strategy for what comes next,” said Rep. Seth Moulton, who said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper were “grossly unspecific” in their briefing.
Rep. Gerry Connelly said he came away utterly unconvinced there was any new or imminent threat to America. “There was no rationale beyond a graduate school thesis text,” he said.
But Republicans left the briefing saying they were confident the killing of Soleimani was justified because he was planning new attacks on American personnel beyond his usual work crisscrossing the region.
“We have to speak very carefully on this, but I can tell you with assurance this was not the same thing that we’ve been seeing for the past few years. This was something different,” said Rep. Chris Stewart.
But in the Senate, there were two loud exceptions to the partisan split, as Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee emphatically denounced the briefing as inadequate. Lee said the White House officials refused to provide details while warning senators that publicly debating the president’s decision would only embolden Iran.
“They’re in the process of telling us we need to be good little boys and girls and not debate this in public. I find that absolutely insane. I think it’s unacceptable,” said Lee.
Paul said it is egregious that the administration is using a 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Saddam Hussein after 9/11 to justify attacks on Iran in 2019. “That is absurd. That’s an insult,” he said. Both senators said they would support some form of war powers resolution limiting the president’s ability to take action without congressional approval.


buzzfeed--2020-01-09--Disinformation For Hire: How A New Breed Of PR Firms Is Selling Lies Online

One firm promised to “ use every tool and take every advantage available in order to change reality according to our client 's wishes.
” This story was reported in partnership with the Reporter , an investigative news site in Taiwan .
Peng Kuan Chin pulled out his phone , eager to show the future of online manipulation .
Unseen servers began crawling the web for Chinese articles and posts .
The system quickly reorganized the words and sentences into new text .
His screen displayed a rapidly increasing tally of the articles generated by his product , which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ System . ''
With the articles in hand , a set of websites that Peng controlled published them , and his thousands of fake social media accounts spread them across the internet , instantly sending manipulated content into news feeds , messaging app inboxes , and search results .
`` I developed this for manipulating public opinion , ” Peng told the Reporter , an investigative news site in Taipei , which partnered with BuzzFeed News for this article .
He added that automation and artificial intelligence “ can quickly generate traffic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 32-year-old wore Adidas Yeezy sneakers and a gold Rolex as he sat in a two-story office in the industrial part of Taichung that was filled with feng shui items such as a money frog and lucky bamboo .
A riot gun , which uses compressed air to fire nonlethal projectiles , rested on his desk .
Peng said he bought it for “ recreational purposes.
” In the interview , he detailed his path from sending spam emails as a 14-year-old to , being recruited to help with the 2018 reelection campaign of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Malaysia .
Peng ’ s clients are companies , brands , political parties , and candidates in Asia .
“ Customers have money , and I do n't care what they buy , '' he said .
They ’ re purchasing an end-to-end online manipulation system , which can influence people on a massive scale — resulting in votes cast , products sold , and perceptions changed .
Peng ’ s product is modeled on automation software he saw in China , which he believes no one else outside the mainland has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unique , his company , Bravo-Idea , is not .
There is now a worldwide industry of PR and marketing firms ready to deploy fake accounts , false narratives , and pseudo news websites for the right price .
If disinformation in 2016 was characterized by Macedonian spammers pushing pro-Trump fake news and Russian trolls running rampant on platforms , 2020 is shaping up to be the year communications pros for hire provide sophisticated online propaganda operations to anyone willing to pay .
Around the globe , politicians , parties , governments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the industry as “ black PR ” firms to spread lies and manipulate online discourse .
A BuzzFeed News review — which looked at account takedowns by platforms that deactivated and investigations by security and research firms — found that since 2011 , at least 27 online information operations have been partially or wholly attributed to PR or marketing firms .
Of those , 19 occurred in 2019 alone .
Most recently , in late December , Twitter announced it removed more than 5,000 accounts that it said were part of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saudi Arabia carried out by marketing firm Smaat .
The same day , Facebook announced a takedown of hundreds of accounts , pages , and groups that it found were engaged in “ foreign and government interference ” on behalf of the government of Georgia .
It attributed the operation to Panda , an advertising agency in Georgia , and to the country ’ s ruling party .
Nathaniel Gleicher , Facebook ’ s head of cybersecurity policy , told BuzzFeed News “ the professionalization of deception ” is a growing threat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence operations has been around for some time , but over the past several years , we have seen [ ... ] companies grow up that basically build their business model around deception , ” he said .
Although Peng may be one of the most sophisticated black PR practitioners , he is far from the only one .
The Saudi and Georgian revelations followed a drumbeat of similar takedowns of and investigations into marketing and PR firms in countries such as Israel , Egypt , the United Arab Emirates , Ukraine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cindy Otis , a former CIA officer and the author of True or False : A CIA Analyst 's Guide to Spotting Fake News , told BuzzFeed News that information operations by nation-states like Russia and Iran have provided “ a playbook for individuals and groups that are financially motivated to delve into this space.
” The emergence of black PR firms means investigators at platforms , security firms , and within the intelligence community are “ spending increasing amounts of time looking at the disinformation-for-hire services that are out there , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Israeli black PR firm , created networks of hundreds of Facebook pages , accounts , and groups around the world , boasting on its website that it would “ use every tool and take every advantage available in order to change reality according to our client ’ s wishes.
” For an election in Mali , it managed a fake fact-checking page that claimed to be run by local students .
In Tunisia , it ran a page titled “ Stop à la Désinformation et aux Mensonges ” ( “ Stop Disinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ran pages advocating for and against the same politician , former vice president Atiku Abubakar .
Researchers postulated that the pro-Abubakar page “ was likely designed to identify his supporters in order to target them with anti-Abubakar content later.
” In Ukraine , the PR firm Pragmatico employed dozens of young , digitally savvy people to pump out positive comments on fake Facebook accounts about clients .
In Poland , Cat @ Net managed networks of fake Twitter accounts operated by staffers with disabilities working from home , whom the agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates while they received government subsidies .
Reporting by Investigate Europe also found Cat @ Net performed work for one of Poland ’ s most prominent PR agencies , Art-Media .
( The company denied working with Cat @ Net . )
In Puerto Rico , journalists revealed that former governor Ricardo Rosselló was an administrator of a Telegram group chat where a consultant from marketing firm KOI appeared to plan and direct social media campaigns to push pro-government messages and attack rivals .
In August , Rosselló resigned , in part over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s career is a road map of how online manipulation services evolved from solo operations to agencies that openly advertise their services and employ large staffs .
At 14 years old , he wrote an email spam program to stuff mailboxes of people in Taiwan .
“ Using 30 computers I had in a room , I became a very big player in sending spam , ” Peng said .
“ I think 1 of every 2 people in Taiwan has received junk mails that I was responsible for.
” In high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular internet message boards with offers , labeling the product as an `` Automatic Bulletin Posting Kit.
” One ad asked visitors to porn sites , `` Do you know that excessive masturbation can cause impotence and premature ejaculation ? ''
Peng said the fearmongering ad helped drive sales for male enhancement pills he was promoting .
Peng created thousands of fake accounts on popular Chinese message boards to promote his and his clients ’ products .
He soon began making and selling websites and counseling via Skype on how to make money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I even lost my voice !
I was a high school student then , and my mother was wondering what I was doing speaking on the phone all day , ” he said .
In 2011 , singers from schools across Taiwan competed in a popular TV competition .
Peng ’ s alma mater won ; its performer received more than 41 million online votes , almost twice the Taiwanese population .
A school official confirmed to the Reporter that the school had requested help from Peng in the competition but declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peng has been developing his “ Content Farm Automatic Collection System.
” His clients use his system to overwhelm their chosen corners of the internet with torrents of AI-generated text that influence search results .
Peng perfected the system by buying the services of every social media and SEO manipulation offering he could find on Taobao , a huge Chinese e-commerce site owned by Alibaba .
“ I was scammed a few times in the beginning because I didn ’ t really understand the software , ” he said .
“ Many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructed his six developers to build a system inspired by the best of what he saw .
“ This marketing logic is in response to China ’ s huge population of 1.4 billion people , [ where content ] only gets eyeballs when there is volume , ” he said .
“ In comparison , there are only 23 million people in Taiwan .
Applying this logic , I will create the largest volume in the shortest amount of time , and the information I spread will reach everyone ’ s eyes.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PR firms elsewhere rely on manual labor , using brute force with what he does with code .
For investigative reporter Vasil Bidun , that meant an eight-hour shift in the trendy Podil neighborhood of Kyiv .
He would log on to different fake Facebook accounts to comment in favor of candidates , criticize their opponents , or steer conversations in specific directions .
Ukraine ’ s presidential election was underway , and he said his employer , Pragmatico , seemed to have secured contracts with several people running for office .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have denied involvement . )
“ The aim is to get an emotional reaction from a person , ” Bidun said in an interview .
“ If they read a comment , even [ if they understand ] that it was written by a bot , it could have affected them emotionally and it becomes more difficult for them to control themselves.
” But Bidun wasn ’ t just punching the clock at the agency .
After three months working undercover at the agency , he published an in-depth investigation .
He and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single apartment , rotating in three shifts .
It was mostly students trying to earn extra money , just over $ 300 per month , he said .
No one talked about the ethics of the work — they just did what they were told , promoting the candidacies of both conservative and progressive politicians , including popular musician Svyatoslav Vakarchuk .
“ It was the summer break and it was a method to earn a bit of money , ” he said .
“ Most don ’ t think much about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they just write.
” Two days before Bidun ’ s investigation was published in September 2019 , Facebook announced the removal of the firm 's assets on the platform , which amounted to 168 accounts , 149 pages , and 79 groups .
The social media giant also revealed that Pragmatico had spent $ 1.6 million on ads , a significant sum for the Ukrainian market .
But black PR continues to flourish on social media in other parts of Eastern Europe .
This year , while reporting for Investigate Europe , Katarzyna @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cat @ Net , a Polish company that describes itself as an “ ePR agency comprising specialists who build a positive image of companies , private individuals and public institutions — mostly in social media.
” “ Cat @ Net said it was a PR company , but in reality it was [ a ] troll farm .
They did fake accounts , ” she told BuzzFeed News .
( The company denied it was a troll farm in a statement posted to its website . )
Pruszkiewicz said she and her colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver work for the firms ’ clients .
This meant promoting Polish state media , pumping up the left-wing politicians who hired them , or attacking the government ’ s decision to place an order for American F-35 fighter jets .
Cat @ Net ’ s staffers worked remotely , congregating in Slack to receive their assignments .
Sometimes a professional copywriter would provide them content , but many times it was up to employees to come up with messages for the fake accounts .
Team members would celebrate each other ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important like a politician answered a comment from the fake accounts , ” Pruszkiewicz said .
Cat @ Net focused on hiring people with disabilities because they could be paid less and qualified for government subsidies , according to Pruszkiewicz .
“ They are in a wheelchair and have bills to pay .
They are often without professional skills , and Cat @ Net gave them work and got from the state a lot of money for [ employing ] these people , ” she said .
After her reporting was published in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Polish government opened an investigation into the company for the disability benefits it received .
However , Twitter accounts run by Cat @ Net are still online , Pruszkiewicz said .
“ The fake accounts still exist today and are writing on Twitter like nothing happened , and every day I can see what they are writing on Twitter and Facebook .
It ’ s really frustrating , because I spent six months [ investigating ] and the company still exists , ” she said .
Nowhere is the rise of black PR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than in the Philippines .
Many legitimate-seeming agencies here offer black PR services that include fake social media accounts , websites , and coordinated harassment campaigns .
This year , Facebook announced takedowns of properties attributed to Twinmark Media Enterprises , a digital marketing company in the Philippines , and Nic Gabunada , the social media director for Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte ’ s 2016 campaign .
In both cases , Facebook said the operations were engaged in “ coordinated inauthentic activity.
” Gabunada previously insisted in an interview with BuzzFeed News that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign had been “ organic ” and “ volunteer-driven.
” As previously reported by BuzzFeed News , some politicians who had decried Duterte ’ s use of fake Facebook accounts and trolling in 2016 had used social media manipulation services in their own campaigns .
Black PR services have become so lucrative in the Philippines that many PR firms feel pressured to offer them .
One agency director told BuzzFeed News it ’ s “ tempting ” to offer black PR services because of the potential profit .
It ’ s difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she added .
“ We 've had several campaigns where we were up against other firms that were willing to employ any kind of tactic to combat whatever we were putting out there if we were promoting a candidate and they were promoting an opposing candidate , for instance , ” said the agency director , who asked not to be named in order to speak freely about the industry .
Jonathan Corpus Ong , an associate professor of global digital media at the University of Massachusetts Amherst , has been studying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philippines for years .
“ The Philippines offers a cautionary tale for other countries for what happens when disinformation production within the PR industry has become so financially lucrative that they have moved from shady black market transactions to the professional respectability of the corporate boardroom , ” he told BuzzFeed News .
Ong said PR firms use industry jargon while communicating with clients to help “ neutralize the stigma of the real disinformation work that they do.
” “ For instance , they would use the terms ‘ supplemental pages ’ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is otherwise known as ‘ fake news sites ’ or ‘ paid trolls ’ when they pitch their services to prospective clients .
This lends an aura of respectability to the transaction and — crucially — gives politicians a level of plausible deniability , ” he said .
The rise of black PR firms is on the radar of the global PR industry , which has long battled problems of its own making .
In 2017 , the industry took a stand against social media manipulation when the Public Relations and Communications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London-based PR firm , after investigating its work in South Africa , where the firm stoked racial tensions in service of a billionaire client .
Bell Pottinger previously received a $ 500 million contract from the Pentagon to execute a top secret propaganda program in Iraq , according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism .
Global agencies often look to industry rules .
Jill Tannenbaum , the chief communications and marketing officer for PR giant Weber Shandwick , told BuzzFeed News that the company must “ engage audiences with campaigns that are rooted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ compete [ s ] in markets where dishonest tactics take place.
” “ We have a process in place to assess any client engagements that might not adhere to our values or include tactics that are not truthful or transparent , so we can counsel our teams and our clients accordingly , ” she said in a statement .
“ Our local leaders – in the Philippines and around the world – are empowered to turn away work that is of concern or that does not adhere to our values.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the International Communications Consultancy Organisation , an umbrella organization representing PR trade groups around the world , established 10 principles known as the Helsinki Declaration .
They require communication professionals to “ be aware of the power of social media , and use it responsibly ” and to “ never engage in the creation of or knowingly circulate fake news.
” Francis Ingham , director general of the PRCA and chief executive of the ICCO , told BuzzFeed News that black PR firms give ethical practitioners a bad name .
“ Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tainted with the stain of these people who operate outside of [ the industry 's ] ethical parameters , ” he said .
In spite of the increasing number of information operations being attributed to PR or marketing firms , Ingham said , these firms are the exception .
“ I recognize there will always be a tiny percentage of people who call themselves PR or marketing practitioners who operate in the gray or black area , ” he said .
While the legitimate PR industry works to differentiate itself from these practitioners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prune black PR from their ecosystems .
“ If the company is working on multiple platforms and has a wide range of business interests , we might not be able to completely destroy them , ” said Facebook ’ s Gleicher .
He said Facebook ’ s approach is to remove assets involved in a specific operation and ban the entire organization .
In some cases , Facebook also bans key employees from the platform .
“ The reason we do that is making it very clear that it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on our platform , ” Gleicher said .
“ You build a business around this , we will remove you.
” Peng , however , is undeterred .
He said it ’ s easy to evade Facebook ’ s controls , and that demand for his services remains strong .
“ I think cracking Facebook is quite easy .
My software is developed to constantly fight against Facebook , ” he said .
“ This is done because there are markets , customers , and needs , and people have money to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because there is a demand.
” ●

This story was reported in partnership with the Reporter, an investigative news site in Taiwan.
Peng Kuan Chin pulled out his phone, eager to show the future of online manipulation.
Unseen servers began crawling the web for Chinese articles and posts. The system quickly reorganized the words and sentences into new text. His screen displayed a rapidly increasing tally of the articles generated by his product, which he dubs the “Content Farm Automatic Collection System."
With the articles in hand, a set of websites that Peng controlled published them, and his thousands of fake social media accounts spread them across the internet, instantly sending manipulated content into news feeds, messaging app inboxes, and search results.
"I developed this for manipulating public opinion,” Peng told the Reporter, an investigative news site in Taipei, which partnered with BuzzFeed News for this article. He added that automation and artificial intelligence “can quickly generate traffic and publicity much faster than people.”
The 32-year-old wore Adidas Yeezy sneakers and a gold Rolex as he sat in a two-story office in the industrial part of Taichung that was filled with feng shui items such as a money frog and lucky bamboo. A riot gun, which uses compressed air to fire nonlethal projectiles, rested on his desk. Peng said he bought it for “recreational purposes.”
In the interview, he detailed his path from sending spam emails as a 14-year-old to, being recruited to help with the 2018 reelection campaign of Najib Razak, the former prime minister of Malaysia.
Peng’s clients are companies, brands, political parties, and candidates in Asia. “Customers have money, and I don't care what they buy," he said. They’re purchasing an end-to-end online manipulation system, which can influence people on a massive scale — resulting in votes cast, products sold, and perceptions changed.
Peng’s product is modeled on automation software he saw in China, which he believes no one else outside the mainland has. But while his technology may be unique, his company, Bravo-Idea, is not. There is now a worldwide industry of PR and marketing firms ready to deploy fake accounts, false narratives, and pseudo news websites for the right price.
If disinformation in 2016 was characterized by Macedonian spammers pushing pro-Trump fake news and Russian trolls running rampant on platforms, 2020 is shaping up to be the year communications pros for hire provide sophisticated online propaganda operations to anyone willing to pay. Around the globe, politicians, parties, governments, and other clients hire what is known in the industry as “black PR” firms to spread lies and manipulate online discourse.
A BuzzFeed News review — which looked at account takedowns by platforms that deactivated and investigations by security and research firms — found that since 2011, at least 27 online information operations have been partially or wholly attributed to PR or marketing firms. Of those, 19 occurred in 2019 alone.


buzzfeed--2020-01-09--The House Voted To Tell Trump To End All Hostilities With Iran

WASHINGTON — The House passed a resolution Thursday evening calling on President Donald Trump to limit action against Iran following the US attack that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani without congressional authorization last week .
“ Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military , ” the resolution passed Thursday reads .
The resolution outlines two exceptions : First , if Congress has declared war or , second , if US forces are needed to defend against an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States.
” The resolution , however , is what ’ s known as a concurrent resolution , meaning it ’ s nonbinding and will not go to the president ’ s desk .
Still , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued Thursday morning at her weekly press conference that the resolution has “ real teeth.
” “ We ’ re taking this path because it does not require a signature of the president of the United States , ” she said , adding that the resolution is a serious statement from Congress and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a possible presidential veto .
The resolution passed on a 224–194 vote Thursday evening , with eight Democrats voting against it and three Republicans crossing party lines to support it .
Rep. Max Rose , a first-term New York Democrat , was one of the eight Democrats to vote against the measure .
He said in a statement ahead of the vote , “ I refuse to play politics with war and peace.
” Other Democrats who opposed the resolution included : Reps. Anthony Brindisi of New York , Ben McAdams of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Cunningham of South Carolina , Elaine Luria of Virginia , Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey , and Kendra Horn of Oklahoma .
Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida , one of the president ’ s closest allies in Congress , joined Reps. Thomas Massie and Francis Rooney of Florida in breaking with fellow Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution .
“ I support the president .
Killing Soleimani was the right decision , but engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the wrong decision .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution , ” Gaetz said in an announcement .
Rep. Justin Amash , who left the Republican Party and became an independent last year , also voted no .
While the war powers resolution attracted little Republican support in the House , a similar resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine in the Senate has garnered the support of Republican Sens .
Mike Lee and Rand Paul , who have criticized Trump ’ s justification for his actions in Iran .
The resolution was led by Rep. Elissa Slotkin , a first-term lawmaker who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department of Defense .
Trump and his allies have argued that the killing of Soleimani was , in fact , a response to an imminent attack .
They presented their case to members of Congress in briefings on Wednesday , just hours after Iran retaliated by striking Iraqi air bases housing US troops .
In an address to the nation Wednesday morning , Trump said no Americans and Iraqis were killed and that he believes Iran “ appears to be standing down.
” Democrats say they are not convinced ; when pressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said only that they are classified .
Many congressional progressives were pushing for a resolution even before Wednesday ’ s briefing .
Ahead of Thursday ’ s vote , Rep. Pramila Jayapal said the briefing “ didn ’ t change [ her ] view on anything at all ” and said she was hopeful it would attract Republican votes .
“ I started off as being a skeptic of the concurrent , but I now actually think it 's a stronger way to send a message than ending up relying on the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What we 're really saying is look we 've got a bicameral bipartisan support to rein you in and make sure that you follow the Constitution and respect our powers , and we 're not asking you for anything .
We 're telling you : This is what you must do if you believe in the Constitution.
” As of Wednesday morning , when and if Democrats introduce a war powers resolution to limit Trump ’ s actions in Iran remained an open question .
But almost immediately following the administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , Pelosi announced the chamber would quickly move forward with the measure .
“ What happened in the view of many of us is not promoting peace but an escalation , ” Pelosi said Thursday .
“ [ It ’ s ] not that we have any confidence in the goodness or the good intentions of Iran and we certainly do not respect — and I from my intelligence background know how bad Soleimani was — it ’ s not that we expect good things from them , but we expect great @ @ @ @ @

WASHINGTON — The House passed a resolution Thursday evening calling on President Donald Trump to limit action against Iran following the US attack that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani without congressional authorization last week.
“Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military,” the resolution passed Thursday reads. The resolution outlines two exceptions: First, if Congress has declared war or, second, if US forces are needed to defend against an “imminent armed attack upon the United States.”
The resolution, however, is what’s known as a concurrent resolution, meaning it’s nonbinding and will not go to the president’s desk. Still, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued Thursday morning at her weekly press conference that the resolution has “real teeth.”
“We’re taking this path because it does not require a signature of the president of the United States,” she said, adding that the resolution is a serious statement from Congress and that she does not want that statement diminished by a possible presidential veto.
The resolution passed on a 224–194 vote Thursday evening. Eight Democrats voted against it, and three Republicans crossed party lines to support it. Rep. Justin Amash, who left the Republican Party and became an independent last year, also voted in favor of the resolution.
Rep. Max Rose, a first-term New York Democrat, was one of the eight Democrats to vote against the measure. He said in a statement ahead of the vote, “I refuse to play politics with war and peace.” Other Democrats who opposed the resolution included: Reps. Anthony Brindisi of New York, Ben McAdams of Utah, Stephanie Murphy of Florida, Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, and Kendra Horn of Oklahoma.
Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, one of the president’s closest allies in Congress, joined Reps. Thomas Massie and Francis Rooney of Florida in breaking with fellow Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution. “I support the president. Killing Soleimani was the right decision, but engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the wrong decision. And that's why I'm voting for this resolution,” Gaetz said in an announcement.
While the war powers resolution attracted little Republican support in the House, a similar resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine in the Senate has garnered the support of Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul, who have criticized Trump’s justification for his actions in Iran.
The resolution was led by Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a first-term lawmaker who previously served in the CIA and with the Department of Defense.
Trump and his allies have argued that the killing of Soleimani was, in fact, a response to an imminent attack. They presented their case to members of Congress in briefings on Wednesday, just hours after Iran retaliated by striking Iraqi air bases housing US troops. In an address to the nation Wednesday morning, Trump said no Americans and Iraqis were killed and that he believes Iran “appears to be standing down.”
Democrats say they are not convinced; when pressed for details, Republicans in Congress have said only that they are classified.
Many congressional progressives were pushing for a resolution even before Wednesday’s briefing. Ahead of Thursday’s vote, Rep. Pramila Jayapal said the briefing “didn’t change [her] view on anything at all” and said she was hopeful it would attract Republican votes.
“I started off as being a skeptic of the concurrent, but I now actually think it's a stronger way to send a message than ending up relying on the president,” Jayapal told reporters. “What we're really saying is: Look, we've got a bicameral bipartisan support to rein you in and make sure that you follow the Constitution and respect our powers, and we're not asking you for anything. We're telling you: This is what you must do if you believe in the Constitution.”
As of Wednesday morning, when and if Democrats introduce a war powers resolution to limit Trump’s actions in Iran remained an open question. But almost immediately following the administration’s briefing on Iran for members of the House, Pelosi announced the chamber would quickly move forward with the measure.
“What happened in the view of many of us is not promoting peace but an escalation,” Pelosi said Thursday. “[It’s] not that we have any confidence in the goodness or the good intentions of Iran. ... And I from my intelligence background know how bad Soleimani was. It’s not that we expect good things from them, but we expect great things from us.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-09--Sherrod Brown Is Still Having An Impact On The 2020 Campaign

Sen. Sherrod Brown , an Ohio Democrat who almost ran for president but sat out in hopes that someone else would adopt his “ dignity of work ” message , got a little validation last month .
A proposed trade deal involving the US , Mexico , and Canada — known as USMCA — had just passed the House , after Brown helped negotiate new language that would make it friendlier to organized labor .
At a presidential debate that night , two senators on stage were asked if they would vote for it .
Bernie Sanders of Vermont went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the changes Brown had won — “ a modest improvement ” — he was a hard no .
Next came Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota , who basically said if it was good enough for Brown , it was good enough for her .
“ I 'll go with my friend , Sherrod Brown , ” said Klobuchar , who noted that Brown has voted against every trade deal that has come up during his time in Washington .
“ He 's voting for this , and I am , too.
” The moderate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signal to the left .
Brown ’ s opposition to NAFTA , the North American Free Trade Agreement that USMCA would replace , is the signature issue of his career .
And even from the sidelines , he remains an influential force on labor and trade .
The provisions advanced by Brown and Sen. Ron Wyden , an Oregon Democrat , aim to make it easier for Mexican workers to unionize and collectively bargain .
The US would monitor Mexico ’ s compliance , have the ability to quickly respond to reported violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imports made in plants with repeated violations .
“ If Mexican workers do better , two things happen , ” Brown said in a telephone interview Thursday .
“ One , American companies are less likely to move there .
… Second , it means Mexican workers will have more buying power and be able to buy American products.
” Brown told BuzzFeed News he didn ’ t watch last month ’ s debate but quickly learned about Klobuchar ’ s credit from his brother .
As pleased as he was , Brown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn that another Democrat from the industrial Midwest agreed with him .
He also name-checked Sanders and another senator in the race , Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts .
Warren has said she will vote for the USCMA , citing the provisions Brown negotiated .
Sanders remains skeptical .
He and Brown long have been known as two of the most liberal members of Congress .
They jumped from the House to the Senate in 2006 with mutual populist and progressive ideals .
But the 2020 election has brought a slight ideological split between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brown , during his travels last year to suss out the possibility of a presidential bid , came out against the Sanders-backed Medicare for All . )
“ It would allow , hopefully , Mexican workers to organize into unions , independent unions , and be able to negotiate decent contracts , ” Sanders said of the USMCA deal when it came up at the debate .
“ But at the end of the day , in my view , it is not going to stop outsourcing .
It is not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where manufacturing workers make less than $ 2 an hour.
” “ Bernie ’ s going to make his decisions based on a lot of things , ” he said .
“ I did not talk to him about it .
We ’ ve worked on these issues .
We worked against NAFTA together ; we worked against PNTR together , with China .
But I did not personally try to persuade him .
When you run for president , your decisions are made all kinds of ways .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will have the votes in big numbers to pass the Senate , and I ’ m happy with that.
” He added that he does not doubt Sanders ’ commitment to workers .
“ I think Bernie ’ s position on trade through his whole career will help him if he ’ s the general election candidate .
It ’ s not like he ’ s against the labor stuff .
He just thought there should have been other stuff , too . ''
Brown has no immediate plans to endorse a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or February ” — but said he hears “ pretty often ” from candidates hoping for his support .
“ I don ’ t want to talk about who ’ s called me and who hasn ’ t and what we ’ ve said , ” Brown said .
“ I just don ’ t think that ’ s fair .
”

Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat who almost ran for president but sat out in hopes that someone else would adopt his “dignity of work” message, got a little validation last month.
A proposed trade deal involving the US, Mexico, and Canada — known as USMCA — had just passed the House, after Brown helped negotiate new language that would make it friendlier to organized labor. At a presidential debate that night, two senators on stage were asked if they would vote for it.
Bernie Sanders of Vermont went first, and though he alluded to the changes Brown had won — “a modest improvement” — he was a hard no. Next came Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who basically said if it was good enough for Brown, it was good enough for her.
“I'll go with my friend, Sherrod Brown,” said Klobuchar, who noted that Brown has voted against every trade deal that has come up during his time in Washington. “He's voting for this, and I am, too.”
The moderate Klobuchar’s shoutout was a virtue signal to the left. Brown’s opposition to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement that USMCA would replace, is the signature issue of his career. And even from the sidelines, he remains an influential force on labor and trade.
The provisions advanced by Brown and Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, aim to make it easier for Mexican workers to unionize and collectively bargain. The US would monitor Mexico’s compliance, have the ability to quickly respond to reported violations, and have the option to block imports made in plants with repeated violations.
“If Mexican workers do better, two things happen,” Brown said in a telephone interview Thursday. “One, American companies are less likely to move there. … Second, it means Mexican workers will have more buying power and be able to buy American products.”
Brown told BuzzFeed News he didn’t watch last month’s debate but quickly learned about Klobuchar’s credit from his brother. As pleased as he was, Brown said he wasn’t surprised to learn that another Democrat from the industrial Midwest agreed with him. He also name-checked Sanders and another senator in the race, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
“Warren understands it,” Brown said. “Sanders understands it.”
Warren has said she will vote for the USCMA, citing the provisions Brown negotiated.
Sanders remains skeptical. He and Brown long have been known as two of the most liberal members of Congress. They jumped from the House to the Senate in 2006 with mutual populist and progressive ideals. But the 2020 election has brought a slight ideological split between old friends. (In another contrast, Brown, during his travels last year to suss out the possibility of a presidential bid, came out against the Sanders-backed Medicare for All.)
“It would allow, hopefully, Mexican workers to organize into unions, independent unions, and be able to negotiate decent contracts,” Sanders said of the USMCA deal when it came up at the debate.
“But at the end of the day, in my view, it is not going to stop outsourcing. It is not going to stop corporations from moving to Mexico, where manufacturing workers make less than $2 an hour.”
Brown on Thursday attributed Sanders’ continued opposition to presidential politics.
“Bernie’s going to make his decisions based on a lot of things,” he said. “I did not talk to him about it. We’ve worked on these issues. We worked against NAFTA together; we worked against PNTR together, with China. But I did not personally try to persuade him. When you run for president, your decisions are made all kinds of ways. I don’t interfere with that. I know we will have the votes in big numbers to pass the Senate, and I’m happy with that.”
He added that he does not doubt Sanders’ commitment to workers. “I think Bernie’s position on trade through his whole career will help him if he’s the general election candidate. It’s not like he’s against the labor stuff. He just thought there should have been other stuff, too."
Brown has no immediate plans to endorse a candidate — “possibly in early March or February” — but said he hears “pretty often” from candidates hoping for his support.
“I don’t want to talk about who’s called me and who hasn’t and what we’ve said,” Brown said. “I just don’t think that’s fair.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-09--The Spy Museum Is Now Planning To Overhaul Its Controversial Torture Exhibit

As it stands , the museum ’ s so-called interrogation exhibit focuses on physical torture methods used in centuries past , as well as the techniques — such as waterboarding — used by the CIA after the 9/11 attacks .
It also leaves open the question of whether torture works , despite the committee ’ s findings .
In a newly obtained letter sent to lawmakers a day after BuzzFeed News ’ report , the museum ’ s president described the planned changes to the exhibit , which include adding the executive summary of the committee ’ s torture report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhibit will focus more broadly on the history of interrogation , to include both coercive methods ( physical and psychological ) and non-coercive methods ( such as rapport building ) , ” reads the Dec. 20 letter to Sens .
Dianne Feinstein , Martin Heinrich , and Ron Wyden .
“ We also intend to add content on scientific and technical innovations to detect deceit ( to include a polygraph artifact ) , as well as legal definitions of torture.
” Last month , three Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanitizing ” the CIA ’ s torture program and requesting information about proposed changes to the exhibit , BuzzFeed News first reported .
In 2014 , the committee released an executive summary of a classified report concluding that the Bush-era program failed to produce `` unique '' or `` valuable '' intelligence and that the CIA misled lawmakers about the program ’ s effectiveness .
WASHINGTON — The International Spy Museum is working on sweeping changes to its controversial torture exhibit following backlash from lawmakers , national security and human rights experts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which counts a handful of former CIA officials who were staunch defenders of the torture program as advisers , has been harshly criticized since it reopened last spring and unveiled the new exhibit .
Experts railed against the museum for the exhibit ’ s both-sides approach , depictions of the agency ’ s brutal torture techniques , and inclusion of a poll asking visitors if they would support torturing suspected terrorists .
Torture is banned under the Geneva Conventions , and President Barack Obama signed legislation authored by Feinstein and Sen. John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ techniques used by the CIA after the 9/11 attacks .
Feinstein and Sen. Mark Warner , the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee , wrote to the museum in May asking that it include the committee ’ s study in the exhibit and the prohibitions against the use of torture in interrogations .
After that , committee staff toured the museum and addressed “ mischaracterizations and inaccuracies that were present in the exhibit , ” a committee spokesperson previously said .
At the time , the museum said it was revising the exhibit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the planned changes .
The new exhibit will feature “ an expanded timeline of the history of the [ CIA ] program , ” according to the Dec. 20 letter from museum president Tamara Christian , in addition to the inclusion of the committee ’ s report .
“ As you know , the Museum is an independent , educational organization , and as such is ultimately responsible for the integrity , accuracy and balance of its own exhibits , ” Christian wrote .
“ We welcome input from all quarters .
Input @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Central Intelligence Agency ’ s Detention and Interrogation Program has been of particular value.
” Christian said the museum ’ s board has been updated on the planned changes and that the goal is to implement them by March .
Christian also offered to provide the senators with further updates about the progress .
A spokesperson for the museum declined to comment .
In a statement , Heinrich , Feinstein , and Wyden said they were “ pleased that the museum has confirmed it is moving forward with changes to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcomed an invitation from the museum to meet its “ leadership , historians , and curators to ensure that the changes being implemented reflect the truth about the brutality and ineffectiveness of torture.
” One of the Intelligence Committee staffers who has been involved in the effort to change the exhibit is Evan Gottesman , who served on the committee during the torture program study and worked on the 6,700-page classified report .
The museum provided Gottesman an update on the proposed changes in the fall , according to the Dec. 20 letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief investigator on the committee ’ s study , said he remains doubtful of the museum .
“ The museum ’ s promotion of the CIA ’ s torture program , blind allegiance to the CIA ’ s talking points , and willful avoidance of the documented facts is appalling , ” Jones , who has not visited the museum but has seen videos of photos of the exhibit , told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday .
“ Even more so when you consider the museum ’ s main audience — our nation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve seen so far — how far they ’ re off the mark — I ’ m more than a little skeptical that they can make the necessary corrections to this exhibit .
But we will see in March if they ’ re serious , ” he said .
Jones , who is portrayed by Adam Driver in The Report — the critically acclaimed movie about his work — noted that the “ CIA ’ s own secret internal review echoed the Senate ’ s findings.
” The CIA has blocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as the Panetta Review and named after then–CIA director Leon Panetta , saying it was incomplete and never meant to be seen by the Senate .
“ The same individuals that should have faced legal and professional accountability continue to spread the same misinformation and defend the use of torture , ” Jones said .
“ The Spy Museum has been so careless with the facts here that it should cast doubt on the integrity of their entire enterprise .
Absent a major reversal , our nation ’ s school leaders should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their students ’ class trip agendas .
”

The museum, which counts a handful of former CIA officials who were staunch defenders of the torture program as advisers, has been harshly criticized since it reopened last spring and unveiled the new exhibit.
Experts railed against the museum for the exhibit’s both-sides approach, depictions of the agency’s brutal torture techniques, and inclusion of a poll asking visitors if they would support torturing suspected terrorists. Torture is banned under the Geneva Conventions, and President Barack Obama signed legislation authored by Feinstein and Sen. John McCain into law that specifically prohibited the techniques used by the CIA after the 9/11 attacks.
Feinstein and Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, wrote to the museum in May asking that it include the committee’s study in the exhibit and the prohibitions against the use of torture in interrogations.
After that, committee staff toured the museum and addressed “mischaracterizations and inaccuracies that were present in the exhibit,” a committee spokesperson previously said. At the time, the museum said it was revising the exhibit, but did not provide details on the planned changes.
The new exhibit will feature “an expanded timeline of the history of the [CIA] program,” according to the Dec. 20 letter from museum president Tamara Christian, in addition to the inclusion of the committee’s report.
“As you know, the Museum is an independent, educational organization, and as such is ultimately responsible for the integrity, accuracy and balance of its own exhibits,” Christian wrote. “We welcome input from all quarters. Input from those responsible for the Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program has been of particular value.”
Christian said the museum’s board has been updated on the planned changes and that the goal is to implement them by March. Christian also offered to provide the senators with further updates about the progress. A spokesperson for the museum declined to comment.
In a statement, Heinrich, Feinstein, and Wyden said they were “pleased that the museum has confirmed it is moving forward with changes to its interrogation exhibit.” They also said they welcomed an invitation from the museum to meet its “leadership, historians, and curators to ensure that the changes being implemented reflect the truth about the brutality and ineffectiveness of torture.”
One of the Intelligence Committee staffers who has been involved in the effort to change the exhibit is Evan Gottesman, who served on the committee during the torture program study and worked on the 6,700-page classified report. The museum provided Gottesman an update on the proposed changes in the fall, according to the Dec. 20 letter.
But Daniel J. Jones, the chief investigator on the committee’s study, said he remains doubtful of the museum. “The museum’s promotion of the CIA’s torture program, blind allegiance to the CIA’s talking points, and willful avoidance of the documented facts is appalling,” Jones, who has not visited the museum but has seen videos of photos of the exhibit, told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday. “Even more so when you consider the museum’s main audience — our nation’s schoolchildren.”
“Based on what I’ve seen so far — how far they’re off the mark — I’m more than a little skeptical that they can make the necessary corrections to this exhibit. But we will see in March if they’re serious,” he said.
Jones, who is portrayed by Adam Driver in The Report — the critically acclaimed movie about his work — noted that the “CIA’s own secret internal review echoed the Senate’s findings.” The CIA has blocked attempts to release the top-secret document, known as the Panetta Review and named after then–CIA director Leon Panetta, saying it was incomplete and never meant to be seen by the Senate.
“The same individuals that should have faced legal and professional accountability continue to spread the same misinformation and defend the use of torture,” Jones said. “The Spy Museum has been so careless with the facts here that it should cast doubt on the integrity of their entire enterprise. Absent a major reversal, our nation’s school leaders should think twice before adding the Spy Museum to their students’ class trip agendas.”


buzzfeed--2020-01-09--An Interracial, Intergenerational Battle Is Brewing In The Race To Replace Mitch McConnell

WASHINGTON — A Kentucky state lawmaker who is trying to take down Sen. Mitch McConnell said the establishment-backed Democrat he 's running against in the state 's primary is the wrong candidate to alleviate the Senate majority leader 's `` stranglehold '' on power .
As he seeks to gain name recognition against steep competition , Kentucky state Rep. Charles Booker said that “ grossly substantial ” racial and economic inequality in the state requires a Senate candidate who is eager and ready to engage a new Democratic coalition in the state , especially among the tens of thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive order last year .
Allies who publicly support marginalized groups but are not part of the communities themselves are not enough at a time when Kentuckians are impatient for change , Booker said .
Booker told BuzzFeed News in an interview that he didn ’ t think the “ realities ” of structural racism that he ’ s lived with his whole life were necessarily on the radar of his chief Democratic opponent , Amy McGrath .
McGrath ’ s campaign hit back at Booker ’ s characterization in an email .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ persistence ” to become a Marine fighter pilot was passed down from her mother and that their struggles were equally important for voters to consider in the political fray of 2020 .
“ It ’ s not a zero-sum game , ” he said .
Booker is a 35-year-old state representative from Louisville .
He traversed the state on an exploratory basis before officially launching his Senate effort this past Sunday .
Booker ’ s biography as Kentucky ’ s youngest black lawmaker alone will draw interest , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anywhere near enough to overcome McGrath ’ s standing .
He will have to work to convince Democrats that recent trends — including the emergence of newly elected Democratic Gov .
Andy Beshear , and the signing of an executive order to restore the right to vote to nearly 150,000 nonviolent offenders — are markers that Kentucky is heading in a new direction .
McGrath is still the establishment ’ s choice despite losing her 2018 House race in Kentucky ’ s 6th Congressional District to Rep. Andy Barr .
McGrath , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the last quarter of 2019 , also already has the backing of the super PAC Fire Mitch Save America .
Booker said he won ’ t be accepting money from a super PAC because of his “ conviction ” that big money ostracizes regular people from the political process .
“ The majority of us in Kentucky are broke , ” he said .
He believes he has a more powerful message for the time than McGrath does — on guns , for instance , Booker said he will keep a mandate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms as protected in the Constitution and a moral obligation to keep Kentucky families safe .
Booker said what excites him most is the response from voters who trust him to advance the struggle of everyday Kentuckians .
Without naming names , in one moment of candor over the phone , Booker said he was perplexed by leaders who say they want to beat Trump , but are unable to engage in the complex range of the political left ’ s thoughts , opinions , and anxieties — to answer with their representation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writer Anand Giridharadas asked in a 2015 speech , there is room among the “ woke ” for the “ still waking.
” Booker wants to be that leader for Kentucky because when McConnell leaves office , “ we ’ ve still got a whole lot of work to do , ” he said .

WASHINGTON — A Kentucky state lawmaker who is trying to take down Sen. Mitch McConnell said the establishment-backed Democrat he's running against in the state's primary is the wrong candidate to alleviate the Senate majority leader's "stranglehold" on power.
As he seeks to gain name recognition against steep competition, Kentucky state Rep. Charles Booker said that “grossly substantial” racial and economic inequality in the state requires a Senate candidate who is eager and ready to engage a new Democratic coalition in the state, especially among the tens of thousands of Kentuckians granted the franchise to vote by executive order last year.
Allies who publicly support marginalized groups but are not part of the communities themselves are not enough at a time when Kentuckians are impatient for change, Booker said.
Booker told BuzzFeed News in an interview that he didn’t think the “realities” of structural racism that he’s lived with his whole life were necessarily on the radar of his chief Democratic opponent, Amy McGrath.
McGrath’s campaign hit back at Booker’s characterization in an email. Her campaign manager Mark Nickolas said McGrath’s “persistence” to become a Marine fighter pilot was passed down from her mother and that their struggles were equally important for voters to consider in the political fray of 2020. “It’s not a zero-sum game,” he said.
Booker is a 35-year-old state representative from Louisville. He traversed the state on an exploratory basis before officially launching his Senate effort this past Sunday.
Booker’s biography as Kentucky’s youngest black lawmaker alone will draw interest, but it’s unclear if that will be anywhere near enough to overcome McGrath’s standing. He will have to work to convince Democrats that recent trends — including the emergence of newly elected Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, and the signing of an executive order to restore the right to vote to nearly 150,000 nonviolent offenders — are markers that Kentucky is heading in a new direction. McGrath is still the establishment’s choice despite losing her 2018 House race in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District to Rep. Andy Barr.
McGrath, who said she raised over $6 million in the last quarter of 2019, also already has the backing of the super PAC Fire Mitch Save America.
Booker said he won’t be accepting money from a super PAC because of his “conviction” that big money ostracizes regular people from the political process.
“The majority of us in Kentucky are broke,” he said.
He believes he has a more powerful message for the time than McGrath does — on guns, for instance, Booker said he will keep a mandate to both respect the right to bear arms as protected in the Constitution and a moral obligation to keep Kentucky families safe.
Booker said what excites him most is the response from voters who trust him to advance the struggle of everyday Kentuckians. Without naming names, in one moment of candor over the phone, Booker said he was perplexed by leaders who say they want to beat Trump, but are unable to engage in the complex range of the political left’s thoughts, opinions, and anxieties — to answer with their representation the question of whether, as the writer Anand Giridharadas asked in a 2015 speech, there is room among the “woke” for the “still waking.”
Booker wants to be that leader for Kentucky because when McConnell leaves office, “we’ve still got a whole lot of work to do,” he said.


buzzfeed--2020-01-09--Facebook Said It Won't Change Its Policies On Allowing Lies In Political Ads

Facebook will not make any changes to its policies around political advertising , including ones that allow politicians to lie in ads and micro-target specific audiences , the company announced on Thursday .
Facebook ’ s announcement follows intense pressure from lawmakers in the last few months over the company ’ s decisions to allow politicians to lie in Facebook ads .
Other large internet companies have changed their policies .
In October 2019 , Twitter banned all political advertising from its platform , and Google restricted micro-targeting of political ads on certain products .
“ Ultimately , we don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be made by private companies , which is why we are arguing for regulation that would apply across the industry , ” wrote Rob Leathern , Facebook ’ s director of product management , in a blog post announcing the company ’ s decision .
“ In the absence of regulation , Facebook and other companies are left to design their own policies .
We have based ours on the principle that people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them , warts and all , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debated in public . ''
The social media giant will instead add transparency features to its `` ad library '' — a public archive that the company set up in 2018 , which allows anyone to see all the ads political campaigns run on Facebook and Instagram .
Some of the features that Facebook will add to its ad library over the next few months include letting people see the estimated target audience size for each political , electoral , or social issue advertisement , and the ability to search for those containing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to see fewer political ads on Facebook and Instagram , something the company claims is a common request it hears from users .
Facebook has faced global scrutiny over political advertising on its platform .
In an internal memo obtained by the New York Times earlier this week , longtime Facebook executive Andrew “ Boz ” Bosworth credited Facebook with Donald Trump ’ s success in the 2016 election and said that Trump won because “ he ran the single best digital ad campaign I ’ ve ever seen from any advertiser.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , the company said it is `` not deaf '' to criticism and will work with policymakers `` in our ongoing efforts to help protect elections . ''

Facebook will not make any changes to its policies around political advertising, including ones that allow politicians to lie in ads and micro-target specific audiences, the company announced on Thursday.
Facebook’s announcement follows intense pressure from lawmakers in the last few months over the company’s decisions to allow politicians to lie in Facebook ads.
Other large internet companies have changed their policies. In October 2019, Twitter banned all political advertising from its platform, and Google restricted micro-targeting of political ads on certain products.
“Ultimately, we don’t think decisions about political ads should be made by private companies, which is why we are arguing for regulation that would apply across the industry,” wrote Rob Leathern, Facebook’s director of product management, in a blog post announcing the company’s decision. “In the absence of regulation, Facebook and other companies are left to design their own policies. We have based ours on the principle that people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them, warts and all, and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public."
The social media giant will instead add transparency features to its "ad library" — a public archive that the company set up in 2018, which allows anyone to see all the ads political campaigns run on Facebook and Instagram.
Some of the features that Facebook will add to its ad library over the next few months include letting people see the estimated target audience size for each political, electoral, or social issue advertisement, and the ability to search for those containing specific phrases. It will also allow people to see fewer political ads on Facebook and Instagram, something the company claims is a common request it hears from users.
Facebook has faced global scrutiny over political advertising on its platform.
In an internal memo obtained by the New York Times earlier this week, longtime Facebook executive Andrew “Boz” Bosworth credited Facebook with Donald Trump’s success in the 2016 election and said that Trump won because “he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser.”
In the blog post announcing the decision, the company said it is "not deaf" to criticism and will work with policymakers "in our ongoing efforts to help protect elections."


buzzfeed--2020-01-10--The House Voted To Tell Trump To End All Hostilities With Iran

WASHINGTON — The House passed a resolution Thursday evening calling on President Donald Trump to limit action against Iran following the US attack that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani without congressional authorization last week .
“ Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military , ” the resolution passed Thursday reads .
The resolution outlines two exceptions : First , if Congress has declared war or , second , if US forces are needed to defend against an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States.
” The resolution , however , is what ’ s known as a concurrent resolution , meaning it ’ s nonbinding and will not go to the president ’ s desk .
Still , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued Thursday morning at her weekly press conference that the resolution has “ real teeth.
” “ We ’ re taking this path because it does not require a signature of the president of the United States , ” she said , adding that the resolution is a serious statement from Congress and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a possible presidential veto .
The resolution passed on a 224–194 vote Thursday evening .
Eight Democrats voted against it , and three Republicans crossed party lines to support it .
Rep. Justin Amash , who left the Republican Party and became an independent last year , also voted in favor of the resolution .
Rep. Max Rose , a first-term New York Democrat , was one of the eight Democrats to vote against the measure .
He said in a statement ahead of the vote , “ I refuse to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats who opposed the resolution included : Reps. Anthony Brindisi of New York , Ben McAdams of Utah , Stephanie Murphy of Florida , Joe Cunningham of South Carolina , Elaine Luria of Virginia , Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey , and Kendra Horn of Oklahoma .
Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida , one of the president ’ s closest allies in Congress , joined Reps. Thomas Massie and Francis Rooney of Florida in breaking with fellow Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution .
“ I support the president .
Killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the wrong decision .
And that 's why I 'm voting for this resolution , ” Gaetz said in an announcement .
While the war powers resolution attracted little Republican support in the House , a similar resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine in the Senate has garnered the support of Republican Sens .
Mike Lee and Rand Paul , who have criticized Trump ’ s justification for his actions in Iran .
The resolution was led by Rep. Elissa Slotkin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CIA and with the Department of Defense .
Trump and his allies have argued that the killing of Soleimani was , in fact , a response to an imminent attack .
They presented their case to members of Congress in briefings on Wednesday , just hours after Iran retaliated by striking Iraqi air bases housing US troops .
In an address to the nation Wednesday morning , Trump said no Americans and Iraqis were killed and that he believes Iran “ appears to be standing down.
” Democrats say they are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans in Congress have said only that they are classified .
Many congressional progressives were pushing for a resolution even before Wednesday ’ s briefing .
Ahead of Thursday ’ s vote , Rep. Pramila Jayapal said the briefing “ didn ’ t change [ her ] view on anything at all ” and said she was hopeful it would attract Republican votes .
“ I started off as being a skeptic of the concurrent , but I now actually think it 's a stronger way to send a message than ending up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told reporters .
“ What we 're really saying is : Look , we 've got a bicameral bipartisan support to rein you in and make sure that you follow the Constitution and respect our powers , and we 're not asking you for anything .
We 're telling you : This is what you must do if you believe in the Constitution.
” As of Wednesday morning , when and if Democrats introduce a war powers resolution to limit Trump ’ s actions in Iran remained an open question .
But almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Iran for members of the House , Pelosi announced the chamber would quickly move forward with the measure .
“ What happened in the view of many of us is not promoting peace but an escalation , ” Pelosi said Thursday .
“ [ It ’ s ] not that we have any confidence in the goodness or the good intentions of Iran .
... And I from my intelligence background know how bad Soleimani was .
It ’ s not that we expect good things from them , but we expect @ @ @ @ @ @


buzzfeed--2020-01-10--Trump Is Running Hundreds Of Facebook Ads Praising Himself For The Killing Of Iranian Gen. Qassem So

Trump Is Running Hundreds Of Facebook Ads Praising Himself For The Killing Of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani

President Donald Trump ’ s reelection campaign is wasting little time capitalizing on the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Just three days after the death of the head of Iran ’ s Quds Force , the president ’ s reelection campaign began to run hundreds of ads praising Trump for ordering the killing — a decision that had been declined by presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama .
As of Tuesday , Facebook had taken down a few dozen of the ads , some of which appeared to violate the site ’ s policy against using fake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to a request for clarification .
“ Thanks to the swift actions of our Commander-in-Chief , Iranian General Qassem Soleimani is no longer a threat to the United States , or to the world , '' read one ad .
“ Take the Official Trump Military Survey TODAY to let me know what you think of my leadership as Commander-in-Chief.
” The survey , meant to collect contact information for future outreach , contained questions like “ Do you stand by President Trump in his decision to take out the very dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” At the end , it asks respondents for their name , zip code , email , and phone number .
Those who provided their phone number , according to a footnote , consented to receive texts , automated calls , and phone calls from the president ’ s reelection campaign and the Republican National Committee .
The Trump campaign did not return a request for comment .
It is typically very active on Facebook , having spent $ 2.3 million on more than 33,000 different ads over the past 30 days , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Active ads about the Soleimani killing , as of Tuesday , made up 590 of those placements at an undetermined cost .
Over the past 30 days , the Trump campaign has far outpaced its Democratic rivals in terms of the number of ads placed on Facebook .
The nearest challenger is Pete Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , who has paid for approximately 14,000 ad placements , followed by billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer .

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign is wasting little time capitalizing on the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Just three days after the death of the head of Iran’s Quds Force, the president’s reelection campaign began to run hundreds of ads praising Trump for ordering the killing — a decision that had been declined by presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
As of Tuesday, Facebook had taken down a few dozen of the ads, some of which appeared to violate the site’s policy against using fake buttons in ads. Facebook did not respond to a request for clarification.
“Thanks to the swift actions of our Commander-in-Chief, Iranian General Qassem Soleimani is no longer a threat to the United States, or to the world,'' read one ad. “Take the Official Trump Military Survey TODAY to let me know what you think of my leadership as Commander-in-Chief.”
The survey, meant to collect contact information for future outreach, contained questions like “Do you stand by President Trump in his decision to take out the very dangerous Iranian terrorist leader, Qassem Soleimani?” At the end, it asks respondents for their name, zip code, email, and phone number. Those who provided their phone number, according to a footnote, consented to receive texts, automated calls, and phone calls from the president’s reelection campaign and the Republican National Committee.
The Trump campaign did not return a request for comment. It is typically very active on Facebook, having spent $2.3 million on more than 33,000 different ads over the past 30 days, according to the Facebook ad library report. Active ads about the Soleimani killing, as of Tuesday, made up 590 of those placements at an undetermined cost.
Over the past 30 days, the Trump campaign has far outpaced its Democratic rivals in terms of the number of ads placed on Facebook. The nearest challenger is Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has paid for approximately 14,000 ad placements, followed by billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer.


buzzfeed--2020-01-11--Pro-Iran Sources Have Flooded Twitter With Lies — Likely To Prevent A War With The United States

These fabrications are not intended to confuse an audience in the United States , or around the globe — but rather an audience in Iran .
Although the Iranian government has one of the world 's most active state-sponsored cybersecurity programs , the evidence is not yet clear who is behind the disinformation .
But the goal , experts told BuzzFeed News , is to satisfy an unsettled Iranian public by making it believe its government responded harshly to the death of Soleimani , preventing the need for the country to escalate the conflict further .
In the week following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pro-Iranian disinformation has inundated Twitter , exaggerating the number of Americans injured by the Iranian counterattack on Jan. 8 and falsely claiming that US forces were retreating from Kuwait .
“ Iran is engaged in a conflict with the US , but it ’ s also engaged in an information struggle , and the primary audience is actually its own people.
” “ If you tell your people , ‘ Hey , we killed 80 Americans and wounded 200 , ’ it means you don ’ t need to do anything else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fellow in the Institute of Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews and author of War in 140 Characters and Nuclear Iran , told BuzzFeed News .
“ Iran is engaged in a conflict with the US , but it ’ s also engaged in an information struggle , and the primary audience is actually its own people.
” On Twitter , online propagandists impersonated a reporter from the Israeli news outlet Haaretz to push false claims that the Iranian missile strike injured hundreds of US service members .
They also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporter to share pro-Iranian propaganda .
They hacked the Kuwait state news agency to share inaccurately that US military forces would withdraw from Kuwait .
Twitter suspended the fake accounts .
Pro-Iranian rumor campaigns were flying prior to the missile strikes as well .
On Monday , a US general was forced to deny false claims that he ’ d been killed , adding that Iran might be behind the social media accounts that claimed he died the day before in Kenya .
“ Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US Africa Command , said .
“ This is yet another example of the lies , propaganda and fake news coming from al-Shabaab and other malign actors such as Iran and its proxies.
” Aviv Ovadya , the founder of the Thoughtful Technology Project and a fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy , explained why pro-Iranian propagandists might attempt such a campaign : to avoid war .
“ Misinformation is also used to de-escalate conflicts , ” he told BuzzFeed News , “ by saying to a population that you have retaliated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious harm.
” And Iran ’ s government had good reason to send that message to its people .
Prior to the drone strikes that killed Soleimani , the deadliest demonstrations since Iran ’ s Islamic Revolution 40 years ago rocked the country .
Between November and December 2019 , Iranian security forces killed more than 180 people protesting against their government after a spike in gas prices .
Soleimani ’ s death brought the country together , said Patrikarakos , a rally-around-the-flag effect that the Iranian government may be attempting to capitalize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
But Iran is using it now for maximum domestic gain , ” he said .
“ When people are out in the streets mourning Soleimani , they aren ’ t there protesting the regime .
That ’ s a big win for them.
” Whatever the provenance , or intent , of the disinformation campaign , it does risk further destabilizing already jittery politicians in both nations .
“ In this particular political moment that we ’ re in , I would worry about making sure people in policy-making positions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s coming from trusted sources and not just random people on the internet , ” Nina Jankowicz , a researcher at the Wilson Center think tank , told BuzzFeed News .
A Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News on Friday that it had not yet seen evidence of state-backed activity .
But the company ’ s investigations can take many months , sometimes building off clues provided by government agencies after the fact .
When Twitter is confident that a disinformation campaign is backed by a state , it will publish data sets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it did last June with Iran and Russia .
Twitter publishes the data , hoping that exposing malicious behavior will deter similar actions in the future .
`` We 're committed to protecting the integrity of information on Twitter during every peak in global conversations , ” a Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News .
“ We 'll continue to closely track any suspicious activity that could potentially manipulate the public conversation and take swift action if and when it does . ''

“If you tell your people, ‘Hey, we killed 80 Americans and wounded 200,’ it means you don’t need to do anything else, right?” David Patrikarakos, a fellow in the Institute of Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews and author of War in 140 Characters and Nuclear Iran, told BuzzFeed News. “Iran is engaged in a conflict with the US, but it’s also engaged in an information struggle, and the primary audience is actually its own people.”
On Twitter, online propagandists impersonated a reporter from the Israeli news outlet Haaretz to push false claims that the Iranian missile strike injured hundreds of US service members. They also pretended to be a New York Post reporter to share pro-Iranian propaganda. They hacked the Kuwait state news agency to share inaccurately that US military forces would withdraw from Kuwait. Twitter suspended the fake accounts.
Pro-Iranian rumor campaigns were flying prior to the missile strikes as well. On Monday, a US general was forced to deny false claims that he’d been killed, adding that Iran might be behind the social media accounts that claimed he died the day before in Kenya.
“Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated,” Gen. Stephen Townsend, the head of US Africa Command, said. “This is yet another example of the lies, propaganda and fake news coming from al-Shabaab and other malign actors such as Iran and its proxies.”
Aviv Ovadya, the founder of the Thoughtful Technology Project and a fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, explained why pro-Iranian propagandists might attempt such a campaign: to avoid war. “Misinformation is also used to de-escalate conflicts,” he told BuzzFeed News, “by saying to a population that you have retaliated in a way that caused the aggressor serious harm.”
And Iran’s government had good reason to send that message to its people. Prior to the drone strikes that killed Soleimani, the deadliest demonstrations since Iran’s Islamic Revolution 40 years ago rocked the country. Between November and December 2019, Iranian security forces killed more than 180 people protesting against their government after a spike in gas prices. Soleimani’s death brought the country together, said Patrikarakos, a rally-around-the-flag effect that the Iranian government may be attempting to capitalize on.
“The conflict is real enough. But Iran is using it now for maximum domestic gain,” he said. “When people are out in the streets mourning Soleimani, they aren’t there protesting the regime. That’s a big win for them.”
Whatever the provenance, or intent, of the disinformation campaign, it does risk further destabilizing already jittery politicians in both nations.
“In this particular political moment that we’re in, I would worry about making sure people in policy-making positions are vetting their information and making sure it’s coming from trusted sources and not just random people on the internet,” Nina Jankowicz, a researcher at the Wilson Center think tank, told BuzzFeed News.
A Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News on Friday that it had not yet seen evidence of state-backed activity. But the company’s investigations can take many months, sometimes building off clues provided by government agencies after the fact. When Twitter is confident that a disinformation campaign is backed by a state, it will publish data sets showing what it’s found, as it did last June with Iran and Russia. Twitter publishes the data in the hopes that exposing malicious behavior will deter similar actions in the future.
"We're committed to protecting the integrity of information on Twitter during every peak in global conversations,” a Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. “We'll continue to closely track any suspicious activity that could potentially manipulate the public conversation and take swift action if and when it does."