Media

Subterms

    More stories

    • 263 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      At last, Julian Assange is free. But it may have come at a high price for press freedom | Trevor Timm

      by

      Julian Assange is on the verge of being set free after the WikiLeaks founder and US authorities have agreed to a surprising plea deal. While it should be a relief to anyone who cares about press freedom that Assange will not be coming to the US to face trial, the Biden administration should be ashamed at how this case has played out.Assange is flying from the UK to a US territory in the Pacific Ocean to make a brief court appearance today, and soon after, he may officially be a free man in his native Australia.The deal is undoubtedly good for Assange, who has been holed up in Belmarsh prison suffering from serious medical problems for the past five years, and stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for seven years prior to that. It’s good for the Biden administration, which avoids the embarrassment of potentially losing its extradition case in the UK high court, but more importantly avoids the Assange case becoming a polarising issue in the election.But is the deal good for press freedom? Not so much. Don’t get me wrong: there’s no doubt the worst fate was avoided and every journalist breathed a sigh of relief that this result did not occur via a court decision. A plea deal does not create an official precedent that a conviction and appeals court ruling would – something that could have potentially binded other courts to rule against journalists in future cases.But it’s hard not to be shaken by the charge the US justice department forced Assange to plea to in order to get his freedom: a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act, which according to the law, amounts to “receiving and obtaining” secret documents, and “willfully communicating” them “to persons not entitled to receive them”. (In Assange’s case, that means the public). That is a “crime” that journalists at mainstream outlets all over the US commit virtually every day.A court won’t readily be able to cite DoJ v Assange in future rulings, but that doesn’t mean this guilty plea won’t embolden future federal prosecutors with an axe to grind against the press. They will see this case as a success. And it doesn’t mean the legal arms of news outlets won’t now be worried a case can be brought against their own journalists for ordinary journalistic conduct that was once assuredly protected by the first amendment.Just imagine what an attorney general in a second Trump administration will think, knowing they’ve already got one guilty plea from a publisher under the Espionage Act. Trump, after all, has been out on the campaign trail repeatedly opining about how he would like to see journalists – who he sees as “enemies of the people” – in jail. Why the Biden administration would hand him any ammo is beyond belief.So if the Biden administration is looking for plaudits for ending this case, they should get exactly none. They could have dropped this case three years ago when they took control of the DoJ. Every major civil liberties and human rights group in the country repeatedly implored them to. They could have just dropped the case today, with Assange spending the same amount of time in prison, but they felt the need to again emphasise in court documents that they believe obtaining and publishing secret government documents is a crime.Of course, some will say, “oh, Assange got what he deserved,” or “he’s no journalist, why should I care,” as people do whenever you bring up the inconvenient fact that prosecuting Assange will affect countless other journalists. Assange made himself the permanent enemy of millions of Democratic voters after publishing leaked emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign in the run-up to the 2016 election, and many people can’t see past that. But it’s worth repeating that this case had nothing at all to do with 2016. And whether you think Assange is a “journalist” or not, the DoJ wanted him convicted under the Espionage Act for acts of journalism, which would leave many reporters, including at the Guardian, exposed to the same.Now we can only hope this case is an aberration and not a harbinger of things to come.
      Trevor Timm is executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      CNN abruptly ends live interview after Trump spokesperson criticizes network

      by

      CNN abruptly terminated a live interview with Donald Trump’s spokesperson on Monday after she criticised the two journalists whom the network chose to moderate the much anticipated upcoming debate between the former president and Joe Biden.Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign national press secretary, became embroiled in a heated exchange with Kasie Hunt, the presenter of CNN This Morning, after saying Trump would be entering a “hostile environment on this very network” when he debates the incumbent president in Atlanta on Thursday.Asked what strategy Trump would pursue on the debate stage, she said he would be contending “with debate moderators who have made their opinions about him very well known … and their biased coverage of him”.Leavitt’s comments were aimed, without initially naming them, at the moderators Dana Bash and Jake Tapper. They triggered an immediate reaction from Hunt, who defended her colleagues.“So I’ll just say, my colleagues, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, have acquitted themselves as professionals as they have covered campaigns and interviewed candidates from all sides of the aisle,” Hunt said. Citing analysts of previous debates, she added: “If you’re attacking the moderators, you’re usually losing.”Hunt then tried to steer Leavitt back on to the topic of the debate, asking what the Trump team expected from Biden.Leavitt, however, refused to be deflected. “Well, first of all, it would take someone five minutes to Google ‘Jake Tapper Donald Trump’ to see Jake Tapper has consistently …” she began, before Hunt cut her off.“Ma’am, we’re going to stop this interview if you’re going to keep attacking my colleagues,” Hunt said.The two then talked over each other, with Leavitt appearing to relish the exchange by grinning broadly. As Hunt repeated her threats to end the interview, Leavitt said: “I am stating facts that your colleagues have stated in the past …”At that point, Hunt ended the exchange, waving her hand in an apparent signal that Leavitt should be taken off air. “OK, I’m sorry, guys – we’re going to come back out to the panel,” Hunt said.Addressing Leavitt, she added: “Karoline, thank you very much for your time. You are welcome to come back at any point. She is welcome to come back and speak about Donald Trump.”Leavitt’s complaints may have been part of a deliberate strategy to gently lower expectations ahead of Thursday’s debate, which is taking place under conditions seen by many as more likely to favour Biden than Trump.Microphones will be muted when it is the opposing candidate’s turn to speak – a measure adopted to prevent the chorus of interruptions that Trump aimed at Biden during the first presidential debate between the pair in September 2020.The exchange will also take place in a TV studio minus a live audience providing the kind of partisan atmosphere that many analysts believe energises Trump, who lost the 2020 race to Biden four years after he won the presidency.But the questioning of the impartiality of Tapper and Bash may also date back to their comments about the infamous 2020 debate, moderated by the then Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, who was widely believed to have lost control.Bash described the event, live on air, as “a shitshow” while Tapper called it “a hot mess, inside a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck”.He added: “We’ll talk about who won the debate, who lost the debate … One thing for sure, the American people lost.”Trump, having for months mocked Biden’s supposed cognitive decline, has suddenly started talking up his debating skills. The former president calling Biden “a worthy debater” in a podcast with a group of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, adding: “I don’t want to underestimate him.”In a speech in Philadelphia over the weekend, Trump described Biden’s likely debate performance in more colourful – though less complimentary – terms, suggesting that Biden was going to take performance-enhancing drugs after undergoing extensive preparation.“Right now, Crooked Joe has gone to a log cabin to ‘study,’” he said. “He’s sleeping now, because they want to get him good and strong. So a little before debate time, he gets a shot in the ass.” More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Deluge of ‘pink slime’ websites threaten to drown out truth with fake news in US election

      by

      Political groups on the right and left are using fake news websites designed to look like reliable sources of information to fill the void left by the demise of local newspapers, raising fears of the impact that they might have during the United States’ bitterly fought 2024 election.Some media experts are concerned that the so-called pink slime websites, often funded domestically, could prove at least as harmful to political discourse and voters’ faith in media and democracy as foreign disinformation efforts in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.According to a recent report from NewsGuard, a company that aims to counter misinformation by studying and rating news websites, the websites are so prolific that “the odds are now better than 50-50 that if you see a news website purporting to cover local news, it’s fake.”NewsGuard estimates that there are a staggering 1,265 such fake local news websites in the US – 4% more than the websites of 1,213 daily newspapers left operating in the country.“Actors on both sides of the political spectrum” feel “that what they are doing isn’t bad because all media is really biased against their side or that that they know actors on the other side are using these tactics and so they feel they need to,” said Matt Skibinski, general manager of NewsGuard, which determined that such sites now outnumber legitimate local news organizations. “It’s definitely contributed to partisanship and the erosion of trust in media; it’s also a symptom of those things.”Pink slime websites, named after a meat byproduct, started at least as early as 2004 when Brian Timpone, a former television reporter who described himself as a “biased guy” and a Republican, started funding websites featuring names of cities, towns and regions like the Philly Leader and the South Alabama Times.Timpone’s company, Metric Media, now operates more than 1,000 such websites and his private equity company receives funding from conservative political action committees, according to NewsGuard.The Leader recently ran a story with the headline, “Rep Evans votes to count illegal aliens towards seats in Congress.”In actuality, Representative Dwight Evans, a Democrat, did not vote to start counting undocumented immigrants in the 2030 census but rather against legislation that would have changed the way the country has conducted apportionment since 1790.That sort of story is “standard practice for these outlets”, according to Tim Franklin, who leads Northwestern University’s Local News Initiative, which researches the industry.“They will take something that maybe has just a morsel of truth to it and then twist it with their own partisan or ideological spin,” Franklin said. “They also tend to do it on issues like immigration or hot-button topics that they think will elicit an emotional response.”A story published this month on the NW Arkansas News site had a headline on the front page that reported that the unemployment rate in 2021 in Madison county was 5.1% – even though there is much more recent data available. In April 2024, the local unemployment rate was 2.5%.“Another tactic that we have seen across many of this category of sites is taking a news story that happened at some point and presenting it as if it just happened now, in a way that is misleading,” Skibinski said.The left has also created websites designed to look like legitimate news organizations but actually shaped by Democratic supporters.The liberal Courier Newsroom network operates websites in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan and Nevada, among other states, that – like the conservative pink slime sites – have innocuous sounding names like the Copper Courier and Up North News. The Courier has runs stories like “Gov Ducey Is Now the Most Unpopular Governor in America,” referring to Doug Ducy, the former Republican Arizona governor.“In contrast, coverage of Democrats, including US President Joe Biden, Democratic Arizona Gov Katie Hobbs, and US Sen Mark Kelly of Arizona, is nearly always laudatory,” NewsGuard stated in a report about Courier coverage.Tara McGowan, a Democratic strategist who founded the Courier Newsroom has received funding from liberal donors like Reid Hoffman and George Soros, as well as groups associated with political action committees, according to NewsGuard.“There are pink slime operations on both the right and the left. To me, the key is disclosure and transparency about ownership,” said Franklin.In a statement, a spokesperson for the Courier said comparisons between its operations and rightwing pink slime groups were unfair and criticized NewsGuard’s methodology in comparing the two.“Courier publishes award-winning, factual local news by talented journalists who live in the communities we cover, and our reporting is often cited by legacy media outlets. This is in stark contrast to the pink slime networks that pretend to have a local presence but crank out low-quality fake news with no bylines and no accountability. Courier is proudly transparent about our pro-democracy values, and we carry on the respected American tradition of advocacy journalism,” the spokesperson said.While both the left and the right have invested in the pink slime websites, there are differences in the owners’ approaches, according to Skibinski.The right-wing networks have created more sites “that are probably getting less attention per site, and on the left, there is a smaller number of sites, but they are more strategic about getting attention to those sites on Facebook and elsewhere”, Skibinski said. “I don’t know that we can quantify whether one is more impactful than the other.”Artificial intelligence could also help site operators quickly generate stories and create fake images.“The technology underlying artificial intelligence is now becoming more accessible to malign actors,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania communications professor and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which publishes Factcheck.org. “The capacity to create false images is very high, but also there is a capacity to detect the images that is emerging very rapidly. The question is, will it emerge rapidly with enough capacity?”Still, it’s not clear whether these websites are effective. Stanford University reported in a 2023 study that engagement with pink slime websites was “relatively low” and little evidence that living “in a news desert made people more likely to consume pink slime”.The Philly Leader and the NW Arkansas News both only have links to Facebook accounts on their websites and have less than 450 followers on each. Meanwhile, the Copper Courier and Up North News have accounts on all the major platforms and a total of about 150,000 followers on Facebook.Franklin said he thinks that a lot of people don’t actually click links on social media posts to visit the website.“The goal of some of these operators is not to get traffic directly to their site, but it’s to go viral on social media,” he said.Republican lawmakers and leaders of the conservative news sites the Daily Wire and the Federalist have also filed a lawsuit and launched investigations accusing NewsGuard of helping the federal government censor right-leaning media. The defense department hired the company strictly to counter “disinformation efforts by Russian, Chinese and Iranian government-linked operations targeting Americans and our allies”, Gordon Crovitz, the former Wall Street Journal publisher who co-founded NewsGuard, told the Hill in response to a House oversight committee investigation. “We look forward to clarifying the misunderstanding by the committee about our work for the Defense Department.”To counter the flood of misinformation, social media companies must take a more active role in monitoring such content, according to Franklin and Skibinski.“The biggest solution to this kind of site would be for the social media platforms to take more responsibility in terms of showing context to the user about sources that could be their own context. It could be data from third parties, like what we do,” said Skibinski.Franklin would like to see a national media literacy campaign. States around the country have passed laws requiring such education in schools.Franklin also hopes that legitimate local news could rebound. The MacArthur Foundation and other donors last year pledged $500m to help local outlets.“I actually have more optimism now than I had a few years ago,” Franklin said. “We’re in the midst of historic changes in how people consume news and how it’s produced and how it’s distributed and how it’s paid for, but I think there’s still demand for local news, and that’s kind of where it all starts.” More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Will Lewis Is Said to Have Used Stolen Records as Editor in U.K.

      by

      Years before becoming the Post’s publisher, Will Lewis assigned an article based on stolen phone records, a former reporter said.The publisher and incoming editor of The Washington Post used fraudulently obtained phone and company records in newspaper articles as journalists in London, according to a former colleague, the published account of a private investigator and an analysis of newspaper archives.Will Lewis, The Post’s publisher, assigned one of the articles in 2004 as business editor of The Sunday Times. Another was written by Robert Winnett, whom Mr. Lewis recently announced as The Post’s next executive editor.The use of deception, hacking and fraud is at the heart of a long-running British newspaper scandal, one that toppled a major tabloid in 2010 and led to years of lawsuits by celebrities who said that reporters improperly obtained their personal documents and voice mail messages.Mr. Lewis has maintained that his only involvement in the controversy was helping to root out problematic behavior after the fact, while working for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.But a former Sunday Times reporter said on Friday that Mr. Lewis had personally assigned him to write an article in 2004 using phone records that the reporter understood to have been obtained through hacking.After that story broke, a British businessman who was the subject of the article said publicly that his records had been stolen. The reporter, Peter Koenig, described Mr. Lewis as a talented editor — one of the best he had worked with. But as time went on, he said Mr. Lewis changed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Potential VP pick says he was vetted on questions that would disqualify Trump

      by

      JD Vance, a rightwing senator vying to be Donald Trump’s running mate, has inadvertently revealed that as part of his vetting for the role, he was asked questions that might disqualify Trump himself.Talking to Fox & Friends, the Republican senator for Ohio told co-host Steve Doocy that his team had been asked “for a number of things” as part of a traditional background check for the vice-president role, adding that “a number of people have been asked to submit this and that”.Doocy interjected: “Like your taxes or something?” before raising the ante: “Your criminal background?”Vance replied: “I don’t know everything they’ve been asked, yeah, but certainly like: ‘Have you ever committed a crime?’ ‘Have you ever lied about this?’”The exchange elicited an immediate response on social media. Jen Psaki, the former Biden White House spokesperson – and now an anchor on MSNBC, posted that Trump “could not pass his own vetting materials for Vice President”. Others suggested that committing a crime or lying may be a requirement for a place on the ticket.Trump himself was given a criminal record last month after he was convicted on 34 counts of document falsification relating to hush money paid to an adult film actor in an effort to win the 2016 presidential election.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe has also bucked a long-standing convention that presidential candidates release their tax returns, and earlier this year was ordered to pay a $464m penalty for fraudulently inflating property values. More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      How to spot a deepfake: the maker of a detection tool shares the key giveaways

      by

      You – a human, presumably – are a crucial part of detecting whether a photo or video is made by artificial intelligence.There are detection tools, made both commercially and in research labs, that can help. To use these deepfake detectors, you upload or link a piece of media that you suspect could be fake, and the detector will give a percent likelihood that it was AI-generated.But your senses and an understanding of some key giveaways provide a lot of insight when analyzing media to see whether it’s a deepfake.While regulations for deepfakes, particularly in elections, lag the quick pace of AI advancements, we have to find ways to figure out whether an image, audio or video is actually real.Siwei Lyu made one of them, the DeepFake-o-meter, at the University of Buffalo. His tool is free and open-source, compiling more than a dozen algorithms from other research labs in one place. Users can upload a piece of media and run it through these different labs’ tools to get a sense of whether it could be AI-generated.The DeepFake-o-meter shows both the benefits and limitations of AI-detection tools. When we ran a few known deepfakes through the various algorithms, the detectors gave a rating for the same video, photo or audio recording ranging from 0% to 100% likelihood of being AI-generated.AI, and the algorithms used to detect it, can be biased by the way it’s taught. At least in the case of the DeepFake-o-meter, the tool is transparent about that variability in results, while with a commercial detector bought in the app store, it’s less clear what its limitations are, he said.“I think a false image of reliability is worse than low reliability, because if you trust a system that is fundamentally not trustworthy to work, it can cause trouble in the future,” Lyu said.His system is still barebones for users, launching publicly just in January of this year. But his goal is that journalists, researchers, investigators and everyday users will be able to upload media to see whether it’s real. His team is working on ways to rank the various algorithms it uses for detection to inform users which detector would work best for their situation. Users can opt in to sharing the media they upload with Lyu’s research team to help them better understand deepfake detection and improve the website.Lyu often serves as an expert source for journalists trying to assess whether something could be a deepfake, so he walked us through a few well-known instances of deepfakery from recent memory to show the ways we can tell they aren’t real. Some of the obvious giveaways have changed over time as AI has improved, and will change again.“A human operator needs to be brought in to do the analysis,” he said. “I think it is crucial to be a human-algorithm collaboration. Deepfakes are a social-technical problem. It’s not going to be solved purely by technology. It has to have an interface with humans.”AudioA robocall that circulated in New Hampshire using an AI-generated voice of President Joe Biden encouraged voters there not to turn out for the Democratic primary, one of the first major instances of a deepfake in this year’s US elections.

      When Lyu’s team ran a short clip of the robocall through five algorithms on the DeepFake-o-meter, only one of the detectors came back at more than 50% likelihood of AI – that one said it had a 100% likelihood. The other four ranged from 0.2% to 46.8% likelihood. A longer version of the call generated three of the five detectors to come in at more than 90% likelihood.This tracks with our experience creating audio deepfakes: they’re harder to pick out because you’re relying solely on your hearing, and easier to generate because there are tons of examples of public figures’ voices for AI to use to make a person’s voice say whatever they want.But there are some clues in the robocall, and in audio deepfakes in general, to look out for.AI-generated audio often has a flatter overall tone and is less conversational than how we typically talk, Lyu said. You don’t hear much emotion. There may not be proper breathing sounds, like taking a breath before speaking.Pay attention to the background noises, too. Sometimes there are no background noises when there should be. Or, in the case of the robocall, there’s a lot of noise mixed into the background almost to give an air of realness that actually sounds unnatural.PhotosWith photos, it helps to zoom in and examine closely for any “inconsistencies with the physical world or human pathology”, like buildings with crooked lines or hands with six fingers, Lyu said. Little details like hair, mouths and shadows can hold clues to whether something is real.Hands were once a clearer tell for AI-generated images because they would more frequently end up with extra appendages, though the technology has improved and that’s becoming less common, Lyu said.We sent the photos of Trump with Black voters that a BBC investigation found had been AI-generated through the DeepFake-o-meter. Five of the seven image-deepfake detectors came back with a 0% likelihood the fake image was fake, while one clocked in at 51%. The remaining detector said no face had been detected.View image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenLyu’s team noted unnatural areas around Trump’s neck and chin, people’s teeth looking off and webbing around some fingers.Beyond these visual oddities, AI-generated images just look too glossy in many cases.“It’s very hard to put into quantitative terms, but there is this overall view and look that the image looks too plastic or like a painting,” Lyu said.VideosVideos, especially those of people, are harder to fake than photos or audio. In some AI-generated videos without people, it can be harder to figure out whether imagery is real, though those aren’t “deepfakes” in the sense that the term typically refers to people’s likenesses being faked or altered.For the video test, we sent a deepfake of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy that shows him telling his armed forces to surrender to Russia, which did not happen.The visual cues in the video include unnatural eye-blinking that shows some pixel artifacts, Lyu’s team said. The edges of Zelenskiy’s head aren’t quite right; they’re jagged and pixelated, a sign of digital manipulation.Some of the detection algorithms look specifically at the lips, because current AI video tools will mostly change the lips to say things a person didn’t say. The lips are where most inconsistencies are found. An example would be if a letter sound requires the lip to be closed, like a B or a P, but the deepfake’s mouth is not completely closed, Lyu said. When the mouth is open, the teeth and tongue appear off, he said.The video, to us, is more clearly fake than the audio or photo examples we flagged to Lyu’s team. But of the six detection algorithms that assessed the clip, only three came back with very high likelihoods of AI generation (more than 90%). The other three returned very low likelihoods, ranging from 0.5% to 18.7%. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Sticking Point in Paramount and Skydance Talks: Who Pays For a Lawsuit?

      by

      A special committee of Paramount’s board of directors supports a merger with Skydance, a studio that has increased its offer in recent days. But the deal isn’t done yet.Paramount and Skydance have haggled for months over an ambitious merger that would usher in a new ruler of a sprawling media kingdom that includes CBS, MTV and the film studio behind “Top Gun.”The talks reached an even greater intensity in the past week, but at least one major sticking point has emerged between Shari Redstone, Paramount’s controlling shareholder, and Skydance. In the event that Paramount’s investors sue over the merger, which party is on the hook to defend the deal in court?National Amusements, the parent company of Paramount, wants Skydance to provide legal protection in the event of a lawsuit, warding off shareholders that may file objections to the merger, according to three people familiar with the matter. Skydance has not yet signed off on that deal term.Legal protection — also known as indemnification — is among the crucial outstanding terms in this deal, which has already been condemned by some Paramount shareholders who protested that it would enrich Ms. Redstone at the expense of other investors.The deal could still fall through. There are several outstanding issues in the negotiations between Skydance and Paramount, which have recently resumed talks. A special committee of Paramount’s board of directors supports a deal with Skydance. (Puck reported earlier that the special committee had greenlit the deal.)Another issue that has yet to be settled is whether Paramount will be given a “go-shop” period to see if it can get a superior offer to the Skydance deal or submit the deal to a shareholder vote, according to two people familiar with the matter. A shareholder vote and a “go-shop” period would protect Paramount and National Amusements from lawsuits, but it could prolong the deal-making process.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Europe Banned Russia’s RT Network. Its Content Is Still Spreading.

      by

      A study found that hundreds of sites, many without obvious Kremlin links, copied Russian propaganda and spread it to unsuspecting audiences ahead of the E.U. election.The website calling itself Man Stuff News caters to a certain sensibility, with categories like “Backyard Grilling,” “TV Shows for Guys” and “Beard Grooming.” A recent article headlined “Tips for Dads During Labor” offered this nugget of advice: “Just remember to spend some time together before deciding whether or not to give birth.”Get to its section devoted to world news, however, and the nature of the coverage changes drastically. There, a recent article belittled an international warrant to arrest Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, for war crimes. It repeated, word for word, an article that had appeared a day before under a different byline on the website for RT, Russia’s global television network.RT, which the U.S. State Department describes as a key player in the Kremlin’s disinformation and propaganda apparatus, has been blocked in the European Union, Canada and other countries since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Sites like Man Stuff News, however, have helped RT sidestep the restrictions and continue reaching European and American audiences, according to a new report.Replicas of RT articles have been laundered thousands of times through hundreds of sites, according to the report, written by researchers from the German Marshall Fund, the University of Amsterdam and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a research nonprofit. The sites include content aggregators like Infowars, run by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones; mirrors of RT repurposed from abandoned “zombie” sites; faux local news outlets with names like San Francisco Telegraph; and domains focusing on spirituality, yoga, extraterrestrials and the apocalypse. Many of the articles were then further disseminated through social media.The rationale for reposting RT content most likely varies from site to site, but the surreptitious republishing represents a particular danger in the European Union, where concerns about Kremlin-linked disinformation campaigns are intensifying, especially as Russia tries to weaken European support for Ukraine ahead of parliamentary elections next week.“This is really the tip of the Russian propaganda iceberg,” said Bret Schafer, a co-author of the report and a senior fellow at German Marshall. “It was quite evident when we were running the search results in the E.U. that if Russian propaganda is not showing up on Russian domains, it’s getting through, which is sort of a double whammy because it’s not just evading restrictions and bans, it’s doing so on sites that are less transparent than RT itself.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More