If there is one common thread in the Kremlin’s many narratives it is the use of conspiratorial discourse and a strategic use of disinformation to trash the information space, break trust, increase polarization and undermine the public space for democratic debate: This is a war on information rather than an “information war.”
Anne Applebaum and the other contributes to this piece blame the Russians for fracturing the agreement on truth in the West but I feel it much more likely that the Washington Post (for whom Applebaum writes) and the State Department (among others) have a much greater share of the blame in the mistrust. Case in point, the huge number of stories in Washington Post promoting the second Iraq war. Or more recently, the Hillary promotion and Trump slamming campaign. I saw a very apt name for Washington Post in a comment section "Pravda on the Potomac".
They really should clean up their act and stop the (obviously not working at this point) propaganda before pointing fingers.
Claims of propaganda, rather than simply disagreeing with your political beliefs, require a bit more than simple say so. Otherwise, one could just point the finger back at you.
I assume the examples you're referring to both the Hillary support and the Trump bashing, which are simply political stances not propaganda... since if you have to go back 13 years for broken trust, to the Iraq war, which was supported primarily by NeoCons in the White House and DNI (not State), and based on leaks to almost every newspaper and politician of the time in the terrified aftermath of 9/11, it's not much to stand on for claims of Propaganda. Colin Powell (of State) was the only one who even bothered to apologize for believing the intelligence presented to him. Trump certainly agreed on live TV.
Frankly, I thought the evidence edit-against- for war (faked bio-warfare photos, questionable yellow cake, etc) was pretty weak, but it's not like it not like WaPo was some amazing outlier.
Pravda on the Potomac :-) Ahhh... for the days when Zerohedge discussed economics.
As for the Washington Post, I don't think it is always correct, but I do believe that it usually is sincerely trying to get at the truth.
Good intentions are neither good outcomes nor good conduct. Incentives seem to trump intentions, and seem poorly aligned with the public interest.
Is this WP version[1] less bad than the LA Times version[2]? Yes. And it's in the entertainment, not the business section. But they still published it. And to be fair to the author, "Hollywood" is good at this game, and regularly suckers some journalist, sometimes quite senior ones, into doing one of these. But they still published it. And to be fair to Hollywood, a former Obama White House official described them as "extremists are people who talk only among themselves". But they still published it.
"Pravda on the Potomac" and "it usually is sincerely trying to get at the truth", do not seem necessarily inconsistent observations.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/with-chan... [2] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-copyright-office-20161...
That is the goal they seek isn't it?