Tag Archives: propaganda

After calling flying bugs “propaganda” and blue lasers “not real”, Helldivers 2 director crumbles as one soldier captures both in a single screenshot – Gamesradar

  1. After calling flying bugs “propaganda” and blue lasers “not real”, Helldivers 2 director crumbles as one soldier captures both in a single screenshot Gamesradar
  2. Helldivers 2 player photographs two myths—flying bugs and blue lasers—at the same time, like getting a shot of Bigfoot next to a UFO PC Gamer
  3. Helldivers 2 Players Are Convinced The Game’s Third Faction Has Secretly Arrived GameSpot
  4. Are the Illuminate Returning in Helldivers 2? Some Players are Convinced They’re Already Here MMORPG.com
  5. Helldivers 2 Is Filled With Odd Blue Lasers, Fans Have A Theory Kotaku

Read original article here

Helldivers 2 grunts capture sightings of a returning faction while the game’s director desperately restarts the propaganda machine: “The Illuminate are already here” – Gamesradar

  1. Helldivers 2 grunts capture sightings of a returning faction while the game’s director desperately restarts the propaganda machine: “The Illuminate are already here” Gamesradar
  2. As Blue Beams Rain In ‘Helldivers 2,’ There’s One Player On The Cyborg Homeworld Forbes
  3. Helldivers 2 Players Think The Illuminate Has Already Been Added TheGamer
  4. Helldivers 2 dev’s blue laser remarks fuel speculation of imminent new enemy race Destructoid
  5. Helldivers 2 players are preparing for the worst as clues suggest a classic enemy much bigger than Bile Titans could be about to rear its ugly head Gamesradar

Read original article here

Radio New Zealand Editor Busted Adding Secret Putin Propaganda – The Daily Beast

  1. Radio New Zealand Editor Busted Adding Secret Putin Propaganda The Daily Beast
  2. New Zealand’s national broadcaster probes ‘inappropriate’ editing of Ukraine war stories | WION WION
  3. New Zealand public radio apologizes for publishing ‘pro-Kremlin garbage’ after wire stories altered The Associated Press
  4. New Zealand’s national broadcaster probes ‘inappropriate’ editing of Ukraine war stories Yahoo News
  5. Radio New Zealand employee placed on leave amid investigation into pro-Russia editing of Ukraine reports The Guardian
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Twitter Aided Pentagon in Covert Propaganda Campaign

Twitter executives have claimed for years that the company makes concerted efforts to detect and thwart government-backed covert propaganda campaigns on its platform.

Behind the scenes, however, the social networking giant provided direct approval and internal protection to the U.S. military’s network of social media accounts and online personas, whitelisting a batch of accounts at the request of the government. The Pentagon has used this network, which includes U.S. government-generated news portals and memes, in an effort to shape opinion in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, and beyond.

The accounts in question started out openly affiliated with the U.S. government. But then the Pentagon appeared to shift tactics and began concealing its affiliation with some of these accounts — a move toward the type of intentional platform manipulation that Twitter has publicly opposed. Though Twitter executives maintained awareness of the accounts, they did not shut them down, but let them remain active for years. Some remain active.

The revelations are buried in the archives of Twitter’s emails and internal tools, to which The Intercept was granted access for a brief period last week alongside a handful of other writers and reporters. Following Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, the billionaire starting giving access to company documents, saying in a Twitter Space that “the general idea is to surface anything bad Twitter has done in the past.” The files, which included records generated under Musk’s ownership, provide unprecedented, if incomplete, insight into decision-making within a major social media company.

Twitter did not provide unfettered access to company information; rather, for three days last week, they allowed me to make requests without restriction that were then fulfilled on my behalf by an attorney, meaning that the search results may not have been exhaustive. I did not agree to any conditions governing the use of the documents, and I made efforts to authenticate and contextualize the documents through further reporting. The redactions in the embedded documents in this story were done by The Intercept to protect privacy, not Twitter.

The direct assistance Twitter provided to the Pentagon goes back at least five years.

On July 26, 2017, Nathaniel Kahler, at the time an official working with U.S. Central Command — also known as CENTCOM, a division of the Defense Department — emailed a Twitter representative with the company’s public policy team, with a request to approve the verification of one account and “whitelist” a list of Arab-language accounts “we use to amplify certain messages.”

“We’ve got some accounts that are not indexing on hashtags — perhaps they were flagged as bots,” wrote Kahler. “A few of these had built a real following and we hope to salvage.” Kahler added that he was happy to provide more paperwork from his office or SOCOM, the acronym for the U.S. Special Operations Command.

Twitter at the time had built out an expanded abuse detection system aimed in part toward flagging malicious activity related to the Islamic State and other terror organizations operating in the Middle East. As an indirect consequence of these efforts, one former Twitter employee explained to The Intercept, accounts controlled by the military that were frequently engaging with extremist groups were being automatically flagged as spam. The former employee, who was involved with the whitelisting of CENTCOM accounts, spoke with The Intercept under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

In his email, Kahler sent a spreadsheet with 52 accounts. He asked for priority service for six of the accounts, including @yemencurrent, an account used to broadcast announcements about U.S. drone strikes in Yemen. Around the same time, @yemencurrent, which has since been deleted, had emphasized that U.S. drone strikes were “accurate” and killed terrorists, not civilians, and promoted the U.S. and Saudi-backed assault on Houthi rebels in that country.

Other accounts on the list were focused on promoting U.S.-supported militias in Syria and anti-Iran messages in Iraq. One account discussed legal issues in Kuwait. Though many accounts remained focused on one topic area, others moved from topic to topic. For instance, @dala2el, one of the CENTCOM accounts, shifted from messaging around drone strikes in Yemen in 2017 to Syrian government-focused communications this year.

On the same day that CENTCOM sent its request, members of Twitter’s site integrity team went into an internal company system used for managing the reach of various users and applied a special exemption tag to the accounts, internal logs show.

One engineer, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said that he had never seen this type of tag before, but upon close inspection, said that the effect of the “whitelist” tag essentially gave the accounts the privileges of Twitter verification without a visible blue check. Twitter verification would have bestowed a number of advantages, such as invulnerability to algorithmic bots that flag accounts for spam or abuse, as well as other strikes that lead to decreased visibility or suspension.

Kahler told Twitter that the accounts would all be “USG-attributed, Arabic-language accounts tweeting on relevant security issues.” That promise fell short, as many of the accounts subsequently deleted disclosures of affiliation with the U.S. government.

The Internet Archive does not preserve the full history of every account, but The Intercept identified several accounts that initially listed themselves as U.S. government accounts in their bios, but, after being whitelisted, shed any disclosure that they were affiliated with the military and posed as ordinary users.

This appears to align with a major report published in August by online security researchers affiliated with the Stanford Internet Observatory, which reported on thousands of accounts that they suspected to be part of a state-backed information operation, many of which used photorealistic human faces generated by artificial intelligence, a practice also known as “deep fakes.”

The researchers connected these accounts with a vast online ecosystem that included “fake news” websites, meme accounts on Telegram and Facebook, and online personalities that echoed Pentagon messages often without disclosure of affiliation with the U.S. military. Some of the accounts accuse Iran of “threatening Iraq’s water security and flooding the country with crystal meth,” while others promoted allegations that Iran was harvesting the organs of Afghan refugees.

The Stanford report did not definitively tie the sham accounts to CENTCOM or provide a complete list of Twitter accounts. But the emails obtained by The Intercept show that the creation of at least one of these accounts was directly affiliated with the Pentagon.

“It’s deeply concerning if the Pentagon is working to shape public opinion about our military’s role abroad and even worse if private companies are helping to conceal it.”

One of the accounts that Kahler asked to have whitelisted, @mktashif, was identified by the researchers as appearing to use a deep-fake photo to obscure its real identity. Initially, according to the Wayback Machine, @mktashif did disclose that it was a U.S. government account affiliated with CENTCOM, but at some point, this disclosure was deleted and the account’s photo was changed to the one Stanford identified as a deep fake.

The new Twitter bio claimed that the account was an unbiased source of opinion and information, and, roughly translated from Arabic, “dedicated to serving Iraqis and Arabs.” The account, before it was suspended earlier this year, routinely tweeted messages denouncing Iran and other U.S. adversaries, including Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Another CENTCOM account, @althughur, which posts anti-Iran and anti-ISIS content focused on an Iraqi audience, changed its Twitter bio from a CENTCOM affiliation to an Arabic phrase that simply reads “Euphrates pulse.”

The former Twitter employee told The Intercept that they were surprised to learn of the Defense Department’s shifting tactics. “It sounds like DOD was doing something shady and definitely not in line with what they had presented to us at the time,” they said.

Twitter and CENTCOM did not respond to requests for comment.

“It’s deeply concerning if the Pentagon is working to shape public opinion about our military’s role abroad and even worse if private companies are helping to conceal it,” said Erik Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, a nonprofit that works toward diplomatic solutions to foreign conflicts.

“Congress and social media companies should investigate and take action to ensure that, at the very least, our citizens are fully informed when their tax money is being spent on putting a positive spin on our endless wars,” Sperling added.

Nick Pickles, public policy director for Twitter, speaks during a full committee hearing on “Mass Violence, Extremism, and Digital Responsibility,” in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 18, 2019.

Photo: Olivier DoulieryAFP via Getty Images

For many years, Twitter has pledged to shut down all state-backed disinformation and propaganda efforts, never making an explicit exception for the U.S. In 2020, Twitter spokesperson Nick Pickles, in a testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, said that the company was taking aggressive efforts to shut down “coordinated platform manipulation efforts” attributed to government agencies.

“Combatting attempts to interfere in conversations on Twitter remains a top priority for the company, and we continue to invest heavily in our detection, disruption, and transparency efforts related to state-backed information operations. Our goal is to remove bad-faith actors and to advance public understanding of these critical topics,” said Pickles.

In 2018, for instance, Twitter announced the mass suspension of accounts tied to Russian government-linked propaganda efforts. Two years later, the company boasted of shutting down almost 1,000 accounts for association with the Thai military. But rules on platform manipulation, it appears, have not been applied to American military efforts.

The emails obtained by The Intercept show that not only did Twitter whitelist these accounts in 2017 explicitly at the behest of the military, but also that high-level officials at the company discussed the accounts as potentially problematic in the following years.

In the summer of 2020, officials from Facebook reportedly identified fake accounts attributed to CENTCOM’s influence operation on its platform and warned the Pentagon that if Silicon Valley could easily out these accounts as inauthentic, so could foreign adversaries, according to a September report in the Washington Post.

Twitter emails show that during that time in 2020, Facebook and Twitter executives were invited by the Pentagon’s top attorneys to attend classified briefings in a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as a SCIF, used for highly sensitive meetings.

“Facebook have had a series of 1:1 conversations between their senior legal leadership and DOD’s [general counsel] re: inauthentic activity,” wrote Yoel Roth, then the head of trust and safety at Twitter. “Per FB,” continued Roth, “DOD have indicated a strong desire to work with us to remove the activity — but are now refusing to discuss additional details or steps outside of a classified conversation.”

Stacia Cardille, then an attorney with Twitter, noted in an email to her colleagues that the Pentagon may want to retroactively classify its social media activities “to obfuscate their activity in this space, and that this may represent an overclassification to avoid embarrassment.”

Jim Baker, then the deputy general counsel of Twitter, in the same thread, wrote that the Pentagon appeared to have used “poor tradecraft” in setting up various Twitter accounts, sought to potentially cover its tracks, and was likely seeking a strategy for avoiding public knowledge that the accounts are “linked to each other or to DoD or the USG.” Baker speculated that in the meeting the “DoD might want to give us a timetable for shutting them down in a more prolonged way that will not compromise any ongoing operations or reveal their connections to DoD.”

What was discussed at the classified meetings — which ultimately did take place, according to the Post — was not included in the Twitter emails provided to The Intercept, but many of the fake accounts remained active for at least another year. Some of the accounts on the CENTCOM list remain active even now — like this one, which includes affiliation with CENTCOM, and this one, which does not — while many were swept off the platform in a mass suspension on May 16.

In a separate email sent in May 2020, Lisa Roman, then a vice president of the company in charge of global public policy, emailed William S. Castle, a Pentagon attorney, along with Roth, with an additional list of Defense Department Twitter accounts. “The first tab lists those accounts previously provided to us and the second, associated accounts that Twitter has discovered,” wrote Roman. It’s not clear from this single email what Roman is requesting – she references a phone call preceding the email — but she notes that the second tab of accounts — the ones that had not been explicitly provided to Twitter by the Pentagon — “may violate our Rules.” The attachment included a batch of accounts tweeting in Russian and Arabic about human rights violations committed by ISIS. Many accounts in both tabs were not openly identified as affiliated with the U.S. government.

Twitter executives remained aware of the Defense Department’s special status. This past January, a Twitter executive recirculated the CENTCOM list of Twitter accounts originally whitelisted in 2017. The email simply read “FYI” and was directed to several Twitter officials, including Patrick Conlon, a former Defense Department intelligence analyst then working on the site integrity unit as Twitter’s global threat intelligence lead. Internal records also showed that the accounts that remained from Kahler’s original list are still whitelisted.

Following the mass suspension of many of the accounts this past May, Twitter’s team worked to limit blowback from its involvement in the campaign.

Shortly before publication of the Washington Post story in September, Katie Rosborough, then a communications specialist at Twitter, wrote to alert Twitter lawyers and lobbyists about the upcoming piece. “It’s a story that’s mostly focused on DoD and Facebook; however, there will be a couple lines that reference us alongside Facebook in that we reached out to them [DoD] for a meeting. We don’t think they’ll tie it to anything Mudge-related or name any Twitter employees. We declined to comment,” she wrote. (Mudge is a reference to Peiter Zatko, a Twitter whistleblower who filed a complaint with federal authorities in July, alleging lax security measures and penetration of the company by foreign agents.)

After publication, the Twitter team congratulated one another because the story minimized Twitter’s role in the CENTCOM psyop campaign. Instead, the story largely revolved around the Pentagon’s decision to begin a review of its clandestine psychological operations on social media.

“Thanks for doing all that you could to manage this one,” wrote Rebecca Hahn, another former Twitter communications official. “It didn’t seem to get too much traction beyond verge, cnn and wapo editors promoting.”

The U.S. military and intelligence community have long pursued a strategy of fabricated online personas and third parties to amplify certain narratives in foreign countries, the idea being that an authentic-looking Persian-language news portal or a local Afghan woman would have greater organic influence than an official Pentagon press release.

Military online propaganda efforts have largely been governed by a 2006 memorandum. The memo notes that the Defense Department’s internet activities should “openly acknowledge U.S. involvement” except in cases when a “Combatant Commander believes that it will not be possible due to operational considerations.” This method of nondisclosure, the memo states, is only authorized for operations in the “Global War on Terrorism, or when specified in other Secretary of Defense execute orders.”

In 2019, lawmakers passed a measure known as Section 1631, a reference to a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, further legally affirming clandestine psychological operations by the military in a bid to counter online disinformation campaigns by Russia, China, and other foreign adversaries.

In 2008, the U.S. Special Operations Command opened a request for a service to provide “web-based influence products and tools in support of strategic and long-term U.S. Government goals and objectives.” The contract referred to the Trans-Regional Web Initiative, an effort to create online news sites designed to win hearts and minds in the battle to counter Russian influence in Central Asia and global Islamic terrorism. The contract was initially carried out by General Dynamics Information Technology, a subsidiary of the defense contractor General Dynamics, in connection with CENTCOM communication offices in the Washington, D.C., area and in Tampa, Florida.

A program known as “WebOps,” run by a defense contractor known as Colsa Corp., was used to create fictitious online identities designed to counter online recruitment efforts by ISIS and other terrorist networks.

The Intercept spoke to a former employee of a contractor — on the condition of anonymity for legal protection — engaged in these online propaganda networks for the Trans-Regional Web Initiative. He described a loose newsroom-style operation, employing former journalists, operating out of a generic suburban office building.

“Generally what happens, at the time when I was there, CENTCOM will develop a list of messaging points that they want us to focus on,” said the contractor. “Basically, they would, we want you to focus on say, counterterrorism and a general framework that we want to talk about.”

From there, he said, supervisors would help craft content that was distributed through a network of CENTCOM-controlled websites and social media accounts. As the contractors created content to support narratives from military command, they were instructed to tag each content item with a specific military objective. Generally, the contractor said, the news items he created were technically factual but always crafted in a way that closely reflected the Pentagon’s goals.

“We had some pressure from CENTCOM to push stories,” he added, while noting that he worked at the sites years ago, before the transition to more covert operations. At the time, “we weren’t doing any of that black-hat stuff.”



Read original article here

Germany’s disastrous ‘Titanic’ film spread Nazi propaganda, cost lives

Comment

Twenty-five years ago Monday, the blockbuster film “Titanic” premiered in the United States, kicking off a historic run that would bring in a record $1.85 billion worldwide and win 11 Oscars.

But 54 years earlier, in 1943, another film titled “Titanic” hit cinemas. It made history in a different way — by spreading Nazi propaganda, costing the director his life and using a ship for filming that would itself sink and kill far more people than the actual Titanic disaster.

The story of the RMS Titanic has been told many times on-screen, from Roy Ward Baker’s relatively accurate “A Night to Remember” (1958), made with input from surviving Titanic passengers and crew, to the animated octopus heroics of “The Legend of the Titanic” (1999) and the horror-themed “Titanic 666” (2022).

The 1943 “Titanic,” made by the Nazis during the height of World War II to show off the Germans’ superior morals and moviemaking skills, was actually the country’s third take on the disaster, following “In Nacht und Eis (Shipwrecked in Icebergs)” (1912) and “Atlantic” (1929). With this latest retelling, the filmmakers sought to frame the ship’s sinking as the fault of imperialist Western arrogance.

The movie doesn’t make this point subtly. Joseph Bruce Ismay, the English chairman of the White Star Line, which owned the Titanic, is played with evil relish by E.F. Fürbringer, made up to look like a villain from a Western. At the ship’s banquet, all the wealthy guests are announced alongside their net worth. Ismay’s business buddies look on and cackle about jewels, power and profits.

It’s this single-minded obsession with stock markets that causes the liner to speed dangerously through Iceberg Alley, as Ismay seeks to break transatlantic crossing records so that his shares in the company rocket in value.

Long-lost operetta by Jewish WWII refugees gets first performance since 1945

But it seems the Nazis were equally money-minded, as documented by Robert P. Watson in his 2016 book “The Nazi Titanic: The Incredible Untold Story of a Doomed Ship in World War II.” With a 4 million reichsmark budget — the equivalent of roughly $180 million today — the German “Titanic” was one of the most expensive films of the 20th century, though it’s not obvious from the results on-screen. The ship, for example, is alternately tilted and level after the collision, and censorship by Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, who commissioned the film, may be responsible for some of the awkward dialogue.

Location shooting began in May 1942 in a German-occupied Baltic Sea port and onboard the SS Cap Arcona, a former ocean liner requisitioned by the German navy. From the outset, there were signs of trouble. The movie’s director, the veteran Herbert Selpin, fell afoul of German navy officials by requesting more technically complex sets, a move seen as siphoning off funds from the war economy. Serving soldiers were removed from front line fighting to work as extras — and proceeded to hassle the actresses.

Meanwhile, fog reduced visibility in the Baltic Sea; Goebbels ordered a central character to be rewritten; and German officials expressed concern that the heavily lit nighttime shots presented a bombing risk during Allied air raids.

The film took significant liberties with the truth, most notably the insertion of a fictional German first officer, the heroic Petersen, played by Hans Nielsen. During the sinking, he and his German ex-companion Sigrid Olinsky (played by Sybille Schmitz), are the only composed passengers, with Olinsky calmly rebuffing English cads and Petersen rescuing several children, including a girl left to drown by her money-mad parents, who have absconded with suitcases of cash.

The Holocaust survivor who fell in love with her American liberator

The movie’s twisting of facts to suit the Nazis’ agenda meant major creative differences behind the scenes. Selpin, frustrated with the interference of military officials on set and the fact each day’s rushes had to be sent to Berlin for approval, made remarks critical of the Nazi regime. He was denounced by the film’s screenwriter to the authorities, arrested, interrogated by Goebbels, and found hanged in his prison cell the next morning.

The film had to be completed by an uncredited director, Werner Klinger. On the night before its scheduled premiere, the British Royal Air Force bombed the theater that was housing the movie’s answer print.

“Titanic” eventually made its public debut in November 1943. But its most important critic — Goebbels — was distinctly unimpressed. He’d seen the film in December 1942 and ordered it banned in Germany; it premiered in Prague instead.

The propaganda minister believed the film’s scenes of panic, drowning and death wouldn’t sit well with an audience living through regular bombing raids. He also feared that a film about a doomed vessel captained by incompetents might send the wrong message about the German war effort, which by 1943 was struggling. Goebbels’s compatriots further objected to Petersen’s recklessness, which flew in the face of the Nazis’ “Führerprinzip,” a requirement to obey orders.

“Titanic” was a commercial disaster that wouldn’t be released in Germany for almost 50 years, though due to its anti-capitalist sentiments, it was dubbed into Russian after the war and screened in parts of the Eastern Bloc.

But the worst crisis came after the film was completed, and it had nothing to do with artistic choices.

‘Casablanca’ had a rocky start. Its stars never expected it to become a classic.

After shooting wrapped, the boat that stood in for the Titanic, the Cap Arcona, was briefly used to move troops around the Baltic before being reclassified as a prison ship and docked in the Bay of Lübeck.

On May 3, 1945, three days after Adolf Hitler’s suicide, it was holding a reported 6,000 prisoners from the Neuengamme concentration camp, driven there by Nazis anxious to conceal their atrocities from the advancing Allies. (Some estimates put the number of prisoners as high as 7,000.)

Western intelligence had discovered that SS leaders were amassing in the German harbor city of Flensburg, plotting a potential sea escape to Norway. Believing the Cap Arcona to be filled with fleeing Nazi military elite, the British Royal Air Force bombed the ship, which capsized and sank. Pilots then shot at survivors in the water.

The death toll from the ship that had once masqueraded as the Titanic is estimated to be between 4,500 and 7,000 lives. The real Titanic claimed 1,517.

In a final twist worthy of James Cameron’s romanticized 1997 film, star-crossed lovers were united at the height of the tragedy. One of the 350 survivors of the Cap Arcona tragedy was German communist prisoner Willi Neurath. His wife, who was stationed nearby as a navy assistant at Neustadt submarine school, found her husband on the beach by sheer luck, exhausted but alive. Unable to swim, he’d survived by remaining on the burning ship, and was rescued by a British reconnaissance regiment once the Royal Air Force had learned the fatal error of its attack.

Read original article here

Russian LGBT propaganda law: State Duma passes amendments



CNN
 — 

Russia’s lower house of parliament passed in the third reading amendments to a law on so-called “LGBT propaganda” on Thursday, expanding liability to all ages.

The discriminatory law proposes to ban all Russians from promoting or “praising” homosexual relationships or publicly suggesting that they are “normal.”

The original version of the law adopted in 2013 banned “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” among minors. The new iteration would apply the law to adults as well.

Individuals who spread or attempt to distribute what the bill calls “LGBT propaganda” will be fined up to 400,000 roubles ($6,600). Legal entities can be fined up to 5 million rubles ($82,100). Foreigners can be arrested for up to 15 days or deported, according to the bill.

It will now be forwarded to the Federation Council, Russia’s upper house of Parliament, before being signed into law by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2017 that Russia’s so-called “gay propaganda law” is discriminatory, promotes homophobia and violates the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court found that the law “served no legitimate public interest,” rejecting suggestions that public debate on LGBT issues could influence children to become homosexual, or that it threatened public morals.

Homosexuality was decriminalized in Russia in 1993, but homophobia and discrimination is still rife. It is ranked 46th out of 49 European countries for LGBTQ+ inclusion by watchdog ILGA-Europe.

Read original article here

Planned Parenthood blasts Blonde as “anti-abortion propaganda”

Planned Parenthood has joined the chorus of voices with nothing much positive to say about Netflix’s new Marilyn Monroe biopic Blonde, giving an interview today that blasts the film as “anti-abortion propaganda.”

This is per THR, which reached out to the reproductive rights organization for comment on Andrew Dominik’s new film, which stars Ana De Armas as a version of the legendary Hollywood star, and which depicts two illegal abortions as part of the web of trauma that led to Monroe’s death. (Including CGI talking fetuses that say things like, “You won’t hurt me this time, will you?”)

In response, Caren Spruch, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s national director of arts and entertainment engagement, told THR that, “As film and TV shapes many people’s understanding of sexual and reproductive health, it’s critical these depictions accurately portray women’s real decisions and experiences. While abortion is safe, essential health care, anti-abortion zealots have long contributed to abortion stigma by using medically inaccurate descriptions of fetuses and pregnancy. Andrew Dominik’s new film, Blonde, bolsters their message with a CGI-talking fetus, depicted to look like a fully formed baby.”

Spruch added:

Planned Parenthood respects artistic license and freedom. However, false images only serve to reinforce misinformation and perpetuate stigma around sexual and reproductive health care. Every pregnancy outcome — especially abortion — should be portrayed sensitively, authentically and accurately in the media. We still have much work to do to ensure that everyone who has an abortion can see themselves onscreen. It is a shame that the creators of Blonde chose to contribute to anti-abortion propaganda and stigmatize people’s health care decisions instead.

Dominik has come under fire both for the content of the film itself—based on the book by Joyce Carol Oates—and for the press he’s given around it, in which he’s suggested a sort of baseline contempt for Monroe’s various films. Addressing the abortion issue in a recent interview with The Wrap, he suggested that the film is not anti-choice, and that unhappiness at its depiction of abortion was rooted in the Supreme Court’s recent overturn of Roe v. Wade. “No one would have given a shit about that if I’d made the movie in 2008, and probably no one’s going to care about it in four years’ time.”

Read original article here

‘Blonde’ Is “Anti-Abortion Propaganda” – The Hollywood Reporter

Andrew Dominik’s Blonde, the Marilyn Monroe biopic starring Ana de Armas as the screen legend, has been sparking strong reactions since it premiered at the Venice Film Festival on Sept. 8 and made its Netflix debut Sept. 28. Film critics have called the movie, which is based on Joyce Carol Oates’ 2000 novel of the same title, cruel and exploitative for its portrayal of Monroe’s life.

One thread of that criticism has been the way Blonde deals with abortion. The film depicts Monroe as having had two illegal abortions, which were imposed upon her against her will and which tormented her. Via photoreal CGI, the film portrays Monroe’s fetuses speaking to her. “You won’t hurt me this time, will you?” a fetus asks Monroe.

Arriving three months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Blonde comes as many in the entertainment industry have been considering their own roles in the way abortion is understood by the public. 

As far as abortion rights activists are concerned, Blonde is a step in the wrong direction. “As film and TV shapes many people’s understanding of sexual and reproductive health, it’s critical these depictions accurately portray women’s real decisions and experiences,” Caren Spruch, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s national director of arts and entertainment engagement, tells The Hollywood Reporter. “While abortion is safe, essential health care, anti-abortion zealots have long contributed to abortion stigma by using medically inaccurate descriptions of fetuses and pregnancy. Andrew Dominik’s new film, Blonde, bolsters their message with a CGI-talking fetus, depicted to look like a fully formed baby.”

Spruch went on to say, “Planned Parenthood respects artistic license and freedom. However, false images only serve to reinforce misinformation and perpetuate stigma around sexual and reproductive health care. Every pregnancy outcome — especially abortion — should be portrayed sensitively, authentically and accurately in the media. We still have much work to do to ensure that everyone who has an abortion can see themselves onscreen. It is a shame that the creators of Blonde chose to contribute to anti-abortion propaganda and stigmatize people’s health care decisions instead.” 

In an interview with The Wrap, Dominik said he doesn’t see the movie as anti-choice and that the perception of it as such stems in part from the timing of its release so soon after the overturn of Roe. “People are obviously concerned with losses of freedoms,” he said. “But, I mean, no one would have given a shit about that if I’d made the movie in 2008, and probably no one’s going to care about it in four years’ time. And the movie won’t have changed. It’s just what’s sort of going on.”



Read original article here

Darya Dugina’s death sheds light on the women fronting Russia’s propaganda machine

But Dugina herself played a smaller, public role in advancing Russian soft power — assailing the West in TV appearances at home, while operating a disguised English-language online platform that pushed a pro-Kremlin worldview to Western readers.

In recent years, she had sought to build influence publicly, often with an international audience in mind.

And she was not alone. Dugina was one of a number of influential Russian women on the front lines of Russia’s disinformation war, representing the public face of the wider propaganda effort, both at home and abroad.

“There is a huge machine that works for this propagandistic effort, (and) she was a part of this machine,” said Roman Osadchuk, a Ukraine-based research associate at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), who has investigated Dugina’s writings and digital output since 2020.

“She probably had potential to become an important player,” Osadchuk told CNN.

Her death provides a window into that vast operation, which exists on multiple levels; Dugina emulated the work of high-ranking Kremlin spokespeople, firebrand TV anchors, activists and countless content creators who — like her — pumped out Kremlin-friendly content on Western-facing blogs and websites, many of which have camouflaged origins.

Whatever their reach, “the thing that is similar for all of them is the direction of their effort,” Osadchuk said. “The main idea is (to) sow division and distrust towards the governments in the Western world … (to) create further polarization, or to expose problems and divisions in Western societies.”

A shady website that lambasted the West

For much of her life, Dugina had “followed in her father’s footsteps,” according to Osadchuk.

She used her public speeches, media appearances and website to advance a worldview similar to her father’s, which placed a “heavy-handed basis of the power of traditions,” and saw religion as “a primary part of governance itself.”

“They juxtaposed themselves against the West, which (they argued) is fighting not for family values but for sodomy, sin and represent the worst in people,” he added. Central to her beliefs was a steadfast commitment to Russian imperial objectives.

Dugina’s own appearances on domestic television placed her firmly in the group of analysts and talking heads who advocated for Russia’s war aims on a nightly basis. In one televised discussion before her death, she said the West needed to be “nourished” by Russia’s war in Ukraine in order to “wake up” from its uneducated worldview, according to a clip posted online by BBC Monitoring.
“Many are calling her a ‘child,’ But she wasn’t,” wrote Kamil Galeev, an independent researcher and former fellow at the Wilson Center, a non-partisan policy think tank in Washington, DC, in a lengthy Twitter thread that described Dugina as a “propagandist” and likened her appearances to a number of Russian male pundits.
According to the US State Department, Dugina in 2020 became chief editor of United World International (UWI) — an English and Turkish-language foreign affairs site created by the corporatized propaganda effort “Project Lakhta,” which the department says used fictitious online personas to interfere in US elections.

The website mimics the format of Western think tanks and news blogs, featuring articles by guest contributors from around the world, and aside from the occasional mistranslation, it bears few traces of its Russian origin.

“On the surface it looks like (it holds) a fringe view of the world, but you couldn’t immediately tell that this is something Russian,” said Osadchuk, whose investigation in 2020 revealed that social media accounts owned by Dugina were responsible for creating UWI’s Facebook presence.

“But if you go into the articles themselves, you could read it and see the Russian position all over,” he added.

“If Ukraine is admitted to NATO, it will perish as a state,” one headline on its site declared. A story published four days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine baselessly claimed that Putin was acting in defense of his country after receiving information of an imminent Ukrainian attack on Russia; another claims that “Ukraine’s accession to NATO would lead to the disappearance of the state called Russian Federation from the world map.” Other op-eds are focused on European affairs; often scathing of Western leaders or emphasizing the growth of far-left and far-right groups in the West.

The site worked to give a platform to fringe academics and thinkers, while also nudging Western readers skeptical of mainstream political institutions towards Moscow’s worldview, Osadchuk said.

“The Kremlin propaganda machine has different target audiences. They have their own citizens … (but) at the same time they need to find allies abroad,” he added. “This is where Dugina comes in.”

Facebook said it had removed UWI from the platform in September 2020, after it received information from the FBI about its activity on other parts of the web.
“The people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identity and coordination,” a Facebook statement said, adding that its probe had uncovered links to people previously involved with the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA), a notorious Russian troll farm known for meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Dugina was also sanctioned by the US and the United Kingdom, along with her father, for her involvement with UWI. The UK government concluded that she was a “frequent and high-profile contributor of disinformation in relation to Ukraine and the Russian invasion of Ukraine on various online platforms,” and therefore “provided support for and promoted policies or actions which destabilise Ukraine or undermine or threaten (its) territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence.”

But UWI remains accessible across the internet, frequently posting Russian-friendly opinion articles on foreign affairs. Its website made no mention of its chief editor’s death in the days following the explosion, despite the event dominating global and Russian news channels, nor has it ever acknowledged Dugina or her position on the site.

UWI’s reach is decidedly middling; it had around 5,000 followers each on Facebook and Instagram before being banned, while a cached version of its also-banned Twitter account had around 6,800 followers. (A new account which posts articles from the site is still live and has about 4,200 followers).

“The problem is that it always could be cascading,” Osadchuk said. “Even if the website itself isn’t that influential, it still provides the ideas and the platform for others to cite it as a credible source.”

Russia’s ‘disarming’ young activists in Europe

Websites like Dugina’s are not uncommon, according to Olga Lautman, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), who labeled their output “extremely important” to Russia’s soft power objectives.

“It’s a very systemic method … you will see all these sites pumping out the same identical message, the same talking points,” she said.

“The reader reads it in their language, they’re comfortable reading it, but they’re not necessarily sure where the information is stemming from,” Lautman added. “The whole point on a bigger scale is to shift the balance of power from the United States to Russia, and to allow the rise of authoritarianism and the subversion of democracy.”

Dugina’s interest extended beyond Russia and Ukraine; her website and talks frequently focused on elections across Europe, and in 2017 she was particularly involved in promoting far-right French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen

In a public appearance before the first vote round of voting in 2017, Dugina told a Moscow crowd during a talk that Le Pen was a “leader for the people” while criticizing eventual winner Emmanuel Macron, according to a write-up by nationalist Russian group Rodina.
The fringes of European politics were a space Dugina shared with a number of other young Russian activists and provocateurs, including Maria Katasonova — a content creator who set up an online “Women for Marine” movement and greeted Le Pen when she visited Moscow to meet Putin in 2017.

And Lautman suggests it is no coincidence that young women often find themselves on the frontlines of the global information war. “Russia has always known to use women as operatives,” she said. “Women happen to appeal to a bigger crowd … “they are more disarming, (in the case of Dugina and Katasonova) they are younger, they can relate to the younger population.”

“I can’t picture a group of 20-, 30-year-olds hanging on every word of (Alexander) Dugin, whereas Dugina is more energetic and can engage more with that age group.”

The domestic front

At home, the fruits of Russia’s communications campaign are pumped into living rooms via TV sets every evening on a scale that vastly dwarfs the output of younger, largely digital activists like Dugina.

State media spin-doctors such as Vladimir Solovyov, a popular talk-show host singled out by the US State Department as perhaps being the Russian government’s “most energetic” propagandist, figure prominently in the Kremlin’s information war.

But that effort, too, is frequently helmed by prominent female personalities, experts note, many of whom rushed to pay tribute to Dugina and called for harsh retaliation against Ukraine for her death, despite Kyiv’s repeated denials that it was involved in her murder.

Lautman pointed to several high-profile women at the top of Russia’s news and media apparatus — starting with Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of state TV channel RT (formerly Russia Today), which was banned from broadcasting in several Western countries following Moscow’s invasion.

Following Dugina’s death, Simonyan said on her Telegram channel that Russia should target “Decision Centers!” in Ukraine.

A January report by the US State Department outlined “close ties between Russian government officials and RT” and concluded that “on RT’s television shows, disinformation and propaganda that makes the Kremlin look good (and its perceived adversaries look bad) is repeatedly stated as fact.”

Simonyan herself has been front and center during many of the Kremlin’s spats with Western powers. She conducted the much-derided interview with the two men identified by the British government as suspects in the 2018 poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, in which the men claimed they were merely visiting the English city of Salisbury to admire the cathedral and its tall spire.

After Russia’s government claimed to have identified Dugina’s killer and said the person responsible had fled to Estonia, Simonyan appeared to reference what the two Salisbury suspects told her — joking on Twitter that Russia has professionals who “want to admire the spires near Tallinn.”

Lautman described the media empire that Simonyan oversees as “very influential,” particularly in appealing to older viewers nostalgic for the former Soviet Union.

Simonyan told Time magazine in 2015 that she has a yellow telephone on her desk with a direct line to the Kremlin, which is installed “to discuss secret things.” “There is no objectivity,” she told Russian newspaper Kommersant in 2012. “When Russia is at war, we are, of course, on the side of Russia.”
The heavily slanted, jingoistic world of Russian state-run TV is perhaps most forcefully occupied by Olga Skabeyeva, a firebrand TV presenter who regularly calls for dramatic escalations in Russian attacks on Ukraine and has urged Moscow to “demilitarize all of NATO too.”
She has elsewhere said that the rise in the LGBTQ+ population in the West will ultimately mean “people will run out” in the West as they “stop reproducing,” and has said Russia will “have to de-nazify ‘trans-fascists’ too,” according to clips compiled by BBC Monitoring correspondent Francis Scarr. During Europe’s recent heatwave, she said “nature is on Russia’s side too!”

“Their role is specifically to push Kremlin talking points for (Russians),” Lautman said. “Whatever it is, that’s what they will repeat from morning to night.”

Often, those talking points will first be sounded by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who frequently issues fierce statements attacking Western countries alongside the Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

“They want to make sure to cover everyone; Lavrov will appeal to some generational older men (but) they have someone for every crowd, and having her as a press secretary is powerful,” said Lautman. “Here you have this younger woman who’s taking on these (Western) powers, and isn’t afraid of challenging them.”

Though Dugina and many other women in Russia’s misinformation machine operate on dramatically different levels and in contrasting spheres, “they definitely look at each other as examples of what and how they could actually work on this,” Osadchuk said.

Dugina’s death has shone a light on one aspect of this operation. “They are doing this task differently,” he said. “(But) they are different parts of the same body.”

CNN’s Eliza Mackintosh contributed to this article.



Read original article here

Moon Knight Gets Review Bombed for Alleged Propaganda

Moon Knight saw great praise from critics prior to its release, and audiences appear to be in agreement. With only one episode out in the open, the premiere has teased how Egyptian mythology will play into the series. Moon Knight’s powers famously stem from the God Khonshu, but Ethan Hawke’s villainous Arthur Harrow appears to have an interest in another Egyptian legend.

Harrow was shown to have a large following in his cult, which worships the Egyptian deity Ammit. The mythological God supposedly believed in judging people for their crimes before they commit them, surveying their entire lives. Hawke’s antagonist appears to have been carrying this out himself as he killed an elderly woman, seemingly judged to be a sinner.

ADVERTISEMENT

Marvel

In explaining the legend of Ammit, Arthur Harrow made reference to numerous historical events including Hitler’s regime, the Armenian Genocide, and more, one of which has led to Moon Knight being review bombed online.

Moon Knight Review Bombed for Historical Reference

Moon Knight has been bombarded with negative one-star reviews on IMDB due to the premiere’s acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, a historical event that the Turkish government still denies the scope of.

Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Genocide involved the killing and deportation of the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I from 1915 to 1917. The total deaths are said to be between 600,000 and 1.5 million, but the Turkish Government still calls the deportation of the Armenians to be a legitimate action that cannot be considered genocide. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The Turkish-Armenian historical event is referred to by Ethan Hawke’s Arthur Harrow as he lists the historical tragedy that the Egyptian deity Ammit could have prevented had she been free:

“Had Ammit been free, she would have prevented Hitler and the destruction he wrought. Nero, the Armenian Genocide, Pol Pot.”

IMDB review bombers shared a multitude of one-star ratings in response to the reference, with one user claiming “there is no Armenian Genocide” and sharing his exhaustion for the “lies and ignorance:”

“Stop Telling Lies
There is no Armenian Genocide, you historical ignorants. Are you all illiterate or anything else? Don’t you ever read a real historical document? We are really really and really tired of your lies and ignorance. That is really enough.”

Another passionate reviewer described Moon Knight as “expensive crappy propaganda garbage” and suggested audiences “watch something else:” 

ADVERTISEMENT

“Another expensive crappy propaganda garbage
It’s like a Netflix propaganda series but more expensive and more political. Don’t waste your time with this crap and watch something else. Penguin documentary would be better.”

One review called the series out for “racism and vilification of a nation” and referred to a “special effort in recent years to vilify a nation and society:”  

“A bad series
There are too many scenes that contain elements of racism and vilification of a nation. There has been a special effort in recent years to vilify a nation and society.”

A fourth of the many reviews criticized the US film history for “[pumping] false historical information” and what he calls the “fake ‘Armenian Genocide’ b*…t:”

“Pumping false historical information
Nowadays, the US film industry likes to pump false historical information about the fake “Armenian Genocide” b*…t. Obviously, the Armenian lobby works hard and influences this false information all over the world. This title is another piece of this lobbying effort, nothing more. Strong thumbs down!”

How Has Review Bombing Hit Moon Knight?

Review bombing has become an increasingly common practice in recent years, which is unfortunate as it is rarely a reflection of actual quality or criticism and tends to be used to push an agenda. The Suicide Squad was bombarded with negative reviews from Zack Snyder fans, while Eternals was criticized for its inclusion of an LGBTQIA+ relationship. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The actual reviews for Moon Knight look to be just as positive from audiences as early reactions were from critics. Disney+ viewers have continued to praise Oscar Issac, the cinematography, storytelling, characters, and almost every element of the series.

IMDb

IMDB’s current graph of the ratings makes a full rating by far the most popular choice, with 7,448 voters sharing their love for the series so far. Although there’s similarly a heavy push in the lower ratings, most of which stem from the review-bombing, some did share a legitimate lack of enjoyment for the episode.

With the reference to the Armenian Genocide likely being contained in the first episode, Moon Knight may see a rise in its rating as more episodes pass and more legitimate reviews continue to balance out the average.

ADVERTISEMENT

The first episode of Moon Knight is streaming now, exclusively on Disney+.

FOLLOW MCU DIRECT

Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site