This is a story about how once trusted mainstream media outlets like Washington Post and the New York Times have used their vast platforms to distort reality and spread disinformation en masse   to both the American and global public. It s also a story about a new  excuse industry  which has sprung up to medicate Hillary Clinton s tragic defeat.The article below, written by award-winning journalist Robert Parry, reveals the shocking extent to which the establishment is willing to go to achieve both domestic political, and international geopolitical outcomes.In September, we were told by multiple US mainstream media that  suspected Russian operators  used Facebook and Twitter accounts to spread  anti-Clinton  messages which somehow affected the electoral outcome in 2016. This was followed by a dramatic announcement by Facebook officials that they had responded to the crisis by  shutting down  several hundred accounts (approx. 470) suspected to have been created by a firm  linked to the Kremlin  who used  Russian bot  accounts to purchase $100,000 worth of Facebook post ads   3,000 ads in total   over a 3 year period (that s only $33,000 per year) which we re told were  pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign  (so said the New York Times).As it turns out, the story was not only wildly exaggerated, it provided a convenient smoke screen to cover-up another case of real collusion.The scale of American propaganda is simply breathtaking.In this single passage taken from the recent New York Times  scoop  on the alleged  Facebook Russian Bot  phenomenon, you can see the full compliment of packaged lies which has become a set piece in US mainstream discourse now: The Russian information attack on the election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails or the fire hose of stories, true, false and in between, that battered Mrs. Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far less splashy, and far more difficult to trace, was Russia s experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the American companies that essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did not stop them from being turned into engines of deception and propaganda. It gets worse though. What the Washington Post and others like the New York Times have obscured from the American people through this massive propaganda exercise   is the Obama Administration and partisan Democrats  own role in helping to generate this contrived conspiracy, or fake news. In the absence of any actual evidence of  collusion  between the Trump campaign and Russia   what we have now is a case of Silicon Valley giant Facebook, actually colluding with the White House and the Federal government officials in order to help fabricate a highly politicized false conviction. Here are some of the main points in the article below:  Powerful politicians pressured Facebook executives to come up with any evidence to support the Democratic Party s theory of  Russian meddling.  The Washington Post and others tried to convince a naive portion of the public to believe that somehow $100,000 in transient Facebook ad impacted the tens of billions of dollars spent during U.S. political spending for the 2016 election cycle.  With all of the hype about  Russian operatives,  the mainstream media has not produced evidence to show who bought the ads.As journalistic hoaxes go, this is one of the biggest we ve seen.Perhaps an even bigger fraud in all of this however, is how a corporate mainstream media outlet like the Washington Post can use it s unlimited resources and media might to push out a blatantly fake narrative, intentionally distorted to deceive the public in order to achieve some partisan political objective   and then site on the board of the establishment s  First Draft  project which they claim is leading the fight against  fake news . How can a major purveyor of fake news be left to lead the fight to  tackle fake news ?  This is the danger of allowing an establishment cartel comprising of the corporate media, Facebook, Google and other tech monopolies   to devise their own information policing regime.More on this incredible story from award-winning Consortium News here . . By Robert ParrySome people are calling the anti-Russian hysteria being whipped up across the U.S. mainstream news media a new  golden age of American journalism,  although it looks to me more like a new age of yellow journalism, prepping the people for more military spending, more  information warfare  and more actual war.Yes, without doubt, President Trump is a boorish and dangerous demagogue, now highlighted by his reckless speech before the United Nations last week, his schoolyard Tweet taunts toward North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and his ugly denunciation of black athletes for protesting against police killings of often unarmed African-Americans.And, yes, I know that some people feel that the evidence-lite and/or false allegations about  Russian meddling  are the golden ticket to Trump s impeachment. But the unprofessional behavior of The New York Times, The Washington Post and pretty much the entire mainstream media regarding Russia-gate cannot be properly justified by the goal of removing Trump from office.Ethically in journalism, the ends   however much you might wish them to succeed   cannot justify the means, if those means involve violating rules of evidence and principles of fairness. Journalism should be a place where all sides get a fair shake, not where some get a bum s rush.But the U.S. mainstream media has clearly joined the anti-Trump Resistance and hates Russian President Vladimir Putin, too. So, we are given such travesties of journalism as appeared as a banner headline across the front page of Monday s Washington Post, another screed about how Russia supposedly used Facebook ads to flip last November s election for Trump.The article purports to give the inside story of how Facebook belatedly came to grips with how the  company s social network played a key role in the U.S. election,  but actually it is a story about how powerful politicians bullied Facebook into coming up with something   anything   to support the narrative of  Russian meddling,  including direct interventions by President Obama and Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and a key legislator regarding regulation of high-tech industries.Finding the  Evidence In other words, Facebook was sent back again and again to find what Obama and Warner wanted the social media company to find. Eventually, Facebook turned up $100,000 in ads from 2015 into 2017 that supposedly were traced somehow to Russia. These ads apparently addressed political issues in America although Facebook has said most did not pertain directly to the presidential election and some ads were purchased after the election.Left out of the Post s latest opus is what a very small pebble these ads were   even assuming that Russians did toss the $100,000 or so in ad buys into the very large lake of billions of dollars in U.S. political spending for the 2016 election cycle. It also amounts to a miniscule fraction of Facebook s $27 billion in annual revenue.So the assertion that this alleged  meddling    and we ve yet to see any evidence connecting these ads to the Russian government    played a key role in the U.S. election  is both silly and outrageous, especially given the risks involved in stoking animosities between nuclear-armed Russia and nuclear-armed America.Facebook: Colluding with government.Even the Post s alarmist article briefly acknowledges that it is still unclear who bought the ads, referring to the purchasers as  suspected Russian operatives.  In other words, we don t even know that the $100,000 in ads over three years came from Russians seeking to influence the U.S. election. (By comparison, many Facebook advertisers   even some small businesses   spend $100,000 per day on their ads, not $100,000 over three years.)But this diminutive effort by  suspected Russian operatives doesn t stop the Post from going on and on about  fake news  and  disinformation,  albeit again without offering evidence or specifics of any Russian  fake news  or  disinformation. It has simply become Official Washington s new groupthink to say that everything linked to Russia or its international TV network RT is  fake news  or  disinformation  even though examples are lacking or often turn out to be false accusations themselves.For instance, there is nothing in the Post s article acknowledging that nothing from the various Democratic email disclosures, which have been blamed on Russia (again without real evidence), has been identified as untrue. So, how can truthful information, whether you like how it was obtained or not, be  fake news  or  disinformation ?Falsehood as FactBut Monday s Post expos  simply asserts the claim as flat fact. Or as the article asserts:  what Russian operatives posted on Facebook was, for the most part, indistinguishable from legitimate political speech. The difference was the accounts that were set up to spread the misinformation and hate were illegitimate. In responsible journalism, such an accusation would be followed by a for-instance, giving an example of  the misinformation and hate  that the  Russian operatives    note how they have been magically transformed from  suspected Russian operatives  to simply  Russian operatives    were disseminating.But there is no example of the Russian  misinformation and hate,  a classic violation of the reporting principle of  show, don t tell.  In this story, it s all tell and no show.Indeed, what is shown in the article is often contradictory to the story s conclusion. The article says, for instance,  A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren t working for a foreign government. But amid the mass of data the company was analyzing, the security team did not find clear evidence of Russian disinformation or ad purchases by Russian-linked accounts. So, Facebook initially   after extensive searching   did not find evidence of a Russian operation. Then, after continued pressure from high-level Democrats, Facebook continued to scour its system and again found nothing, or as the Post article acknowledged, Facebook  had searched extensively for evidence of foreign purchases of political advertising but had come up short. That prompted Warner to fly out to Silicon Valley to personally press Facebook executives to come up with the evidence to support the Democrats  theory about Russia paying for carefully targeted anti-Clinton ads in key districts.The Post s article reported that  Finally, [Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex] Stamos appealed to Warner for help: If U.S. intelligence agencies had any information about the Russian operation or the troll farms it used to disseminate misinformation, they should share it with Facebook. The company is still waiting, people involved in the matter said. Under PressureStill, faced with extraordinary pressure from senior Democrats, Facebook finally delivered the desired results, or as the Post reported,  By early August, Facebook had identified more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political issues that ran in the United States between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from accounts associated with the [St. Petersburg, Russia-based] Internet Research Agency. So, the ads covering three years, including post-election 2017, only  appear  to be  associated  with some private Russian operation that only allegedly has ties to the Kremlin. And the total sums of the ad buys are infinitesimal compared to what it actually takes to have any real impact on Facebook or in a U.S. presidential election.If the context of this story were changed slightly   say, it was about the U.S. government trying to influence public opinion in another country (which actually does happen quite a bit)   the Post would be among the first news outlets to laugh off such allegations or dismiss the vague accusations as a conspiracy theory, but since these allegations fit with the prejudices of the Post s editors, an entirely different set of journalistic standards is applied.What the article also ignores is the extraordinary degree of coercion that such high-level political pressure can put on a company that recognizes its vulnerability to government regulation.As Facebook has acknowledged in corporate filings,  Action by governments to restrict access to Facebook in their countries could substantially harm our business and financial results. It is possible that governments of one or more countries may seek to censor content available on Facebook in their country, restrict access to Facebook from their country entirely, or impose other restrictions that may affect the accessibility of Facebook in their country for an extended period of time or indefinitely.  In the event that access to Facebook is restricted, in whole or in part, in one or more countries or our competitors are able to successfully penetrate geographic markets that we cannot access, our ability to retain or increase our user base and user engagement may be adversely affected, we may not be able to maintain or grow our revenue as anticipated, and our financial results could be adversely affected. Avoiding RealityIn other words, another way to have framed this story is that powerful politicians who could severely harm Facebook s business model were getting in the face of Facebook executives and essentially demanding that they come up with something to support the Democratic Party s theory of  Russian meddling. The Democratic leaders wanted this finding as an explanation for Hillary Clinton s (image, left) stunning defeat, rather than going through the painful process of examining why the party has steadily lost ground in white working-class areas across the country.What is missed in these Russia-bashing articles is that the Democratic brand has been sinking for years, including massive losses in statehouses across the country as well as in Congress. The party s decline was not a one-off event with Donald Trump suddenly snaking away with significant parts of the white working class because the Russians bought some Facebook ads.However, instead of looking in the mirror, national Democrats demanded that Facebook executives ferret out whatever tiny or imaginary information there might be about some Russians buying Facebook ads   and then allow those coerced findings to be fed into the excuse industry for why Hillary Clinton lost.And, what about the Post s repeated accusations about Russia engaging in  disinformation  and  fake news  without offering a single example? Apparently, these assertions have become such articles of faith in the U.S. mainstream media that they don t require any proof.However, honest journalism demands examples and evidence, not just vague accusations. The reality is that the U.S. government has stumbled again and again when seeking to paint RT as a disinformation outlet or a vehicle for undermining American democracy.For instance, the Jan. 6 report on alleged Russian  cyber operations,  released by Obama s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, included a lengthy appendix, dated from 2012, which decried RT for such offenses as allowing a debate among third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates; covering the Occupy Wall Street protests; and citing the environmental dangers from  fracking. The idea that American democracy is threatened by allowing third-party candidates or other American dissidents to have a voice is at best an upside-down understanding of democracy and, more likely, an exercise in hypocritical propaganda.False AccusationsAnother misfired attempt to discredit RT came from Obama s Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Richard Stengel, who issued a  Dipnote  in April 2014, which helped establish the narrative of RT as a source of Russian disinformation.For instance, Stengel claimed that RT reported a  ludicrous assertion  that the United States had spent $5 billion to produce Ukraine s  regime change  in February 2014.But what Stengel, a former managing editor of Time magazine, apparently failed to understand was that RT was referring to a public speech by Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland to U.S. and Ukrainian business leaders on Dec. 13, 2013, in which she told them that  we have invested more than $5 billion  in what was needed for Ukraine to achieve its  European aspirations.  In other words, the RT report wasn t  ludicrous  at all.Nuland also was a leading proponent of  regime change  in Ukraine who personally cheered on the Maidan demonstrators, even passing out cookies. In an intercepted pre-coup phone call with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland discussed who should run the new government and pondered with Pyatt how to  glue  or  midwife this thing. So, Stengel was the one disseminating false information, not RT.Similarly, senior U.S. politicians, including Hillary Clinton, and the U.S. mainstream media have falsely asserted that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies signed off on the Russia-did-it hacking claims.For months, that canard was used to silence skepticism. After all, how could you question something that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies confirmed to be true?But it turned out that   as DNI Clapper, himself a hardline Russia-basher, belatedly acknowledged   the Jan. 6 report on the alleged Russian hacking was the work of  hand-picked  analysts from only three agencies, the CIA, FBI and NSA, and the  assessment  itself admitted that it was not asserting the Russian conclusion as fact, only the analysts  opinion.The New York Times finally retracted its use of the fake claim about  all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies  in late June 2017 although it wouldn t let the lie lie, so instead the Times made misleading references to a  consensus  among U.S. intelligence agencies without using the number Continue this story at Consortium NewsREAD MORE RUSSIAGATE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Russiagate FilesSUPPORT 21WIRE  SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV