{"id":3926,"date":"2017-06-19T13:51:35","date_gmt":"2017-06-19T18:51:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thebozho.com\/?p=3926"},"modified":"2018-08-20T16:59:23","modified_gmt":"2018-08-20T21:59:23","slug":"andrew-feinberg-uw-grad-sputnik-politics-propaganda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thebozho.com\/andrew-feinberg-uw-grad-sputnik-politics-propaganda\/","title":{"rendered":"Ex-Sputnik reporter Andrew Feinberg, a UW grad, on the politics of propaganda"},"content":{"rendered":"

Like it or not, this is the age of fake news. From right-wing conspiracy rags like InfoWars<\/em> and Breitbart<\/em> to your crazy Uncle George\u2019s Facebook feed, these shoddily vetted, heavily distorted and often factually incorrect stories are becoming increasingly prevalent. This is creating a sense of distrust with the traditional mainstream media for many Americans. It\u2019s often difficult to see the lines between fact and fiction.<\/p>\n

Few know this better than Andrew Feinberg. A UW-Madison grad, Feinberg recently (and publicly<\/a>) left his post as White House correspondent for Sputnik<\/a>, a state-sponsored Russian news service. While there, Feinberg \u2014 who has also contributed to The Hill<\/em> \u2014 found himself immersed in a world of half-truths and repackages, of taking earnest reporting and turning it into Kremlin fairy tale.<\/p>\n

Feinberg now seeks to draw a clearer line for news consumers and journalists alike. Alternative perspectives are important, he says, but \u201cthere\u2019s a difference between an alternative perspective and a perspective that\u2019s based on bullshit.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is no wrong side of the narrative. There\u2019s truth and there\u2019s not truth,\u201d he emphasizes.<\/p>\n

The Bozho<\/em> recently caught up with Feinberg to discuss the politics of propaganda.<\/p>\n

When did you start at Sputnik, and when did you first get an inkling that something funky was going on?<\/strong>
\nI started the Monday after Trump took office, and pretty much the first thing that set off alarm bells was when I started filing stories and they kept taking my byline off of them. They don\u2019t have bylines. Their style guide says that the only stories that wouldn\u2019t get a byline are basically like if you would rewrite a press release. That kind of story. But other than that, you know, if you write something, you\u2019re supposed to be able to put your name on top of it. But they don\u2019t do that, and the reason they give is that, \u201cOh, if it\u2019s an exclusive, then we put a byline on it.\u201d Obviously, if you talk to someone for an exclusive story, and they know who they talked to, you can\u2019t not<\/em> put someone\u2019s name on it. But if you go to, say, a White House press briefing, and you write something based off of that, they don\u2019t put a name on it. Basically anything other than an interview with someone, they don\u2019t wish to have your name on top of it.<\/p>\n

So there was sort of a feeling that you were being used as a set of skills that they could twist however they please?<\/strong>
\nI wouldn\u2019t put it like that. What I say about it is that on one hand, the Russian reporters there told me that it\u2019s a Russian thing, and some independent Russian newspapers don\u2019t do that. So on one hand, it might be a cultural thing. But either way, it makes it easy to shape the truth because if you write something and there\u2019s no name on it, then there\u2019s no accountability for it. And if there\u2019s no accountability for it, you can write whatever you want because there\u2019s no one person to be singled out as the person writing the lies.<\/p>\n

\n

Here’s the full interview that I did on CNN’s @ReliableSources<\/a> with @brianstelter<\/a> about what @SputnikInt<\/a> is like. https:\/\/t.co\/6kVRz09D0d<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Andrew Feinberg (@agfhome) June 5, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n