美媒爆料:攻击拜登黑材料竟是《苹果日报》找人编的 -6park.com
留园网,海外华人论坛,海外华人第一网站,美媒爆料:攻击拜登黑材料竟是《苹果日报》找人编的 -6park.com
www.6parknews.com
有点儿意思。
美媒爆料:攻击拜登黑材料竟是《苹果日报》找人编的
- 主题发起人 光放屁
- 开始时间
有点儿意思。
- 注册
- 2005-11-23
- 消息
- 30,238
- 荣誉分数
- 7,444
- 声望点数
- 373
How a fake persona laid the groundwork for a Hunter Biden conspiracy deluge
A 64-page document that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm."
Hunter Biden speaks at the World Food Program USA's annual awards ceremony in Washington in April 2016.Paul Morigi / Getty Images file
Oct. 29, 2020, 5:30 PM EDT / Updated Oct. 30, 2020, 11:19 AM EDT
By Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny
One month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden's laptop, a fake "intelligence" document about him went viral on the right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving former Vice President Joe Biden's son and business in China.
The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.
The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.
One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.
Despite the document's questionable authorship and anonymous sourcing, its claims that Hunter Biden has a problematic connection to the Communist Party of China have been used by people who oppose the Chinese government, as well as by far-right influencers, to baselessly accuse candidate Joe Biden of being beholden to the Chinese government.
Inside the false conspiracy theory being pushed about the Bidens
OCT. 23, 202004:43
The document and its spread have become part of a wider effort to smear Hunter Biden and weaken Joe Biden's presidential campaign, which moved from the fringes of the internet to more mainstream conservative news outlets.
An unverified leak of documents — including salacious pictures from what President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and a Delaware Apple repair store owner claimed to be Hunter Biden's hard drive — were published in the New York Post on Oct. 14. Associates close to Trump, including Giuliani and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, have promised more blockbuster leaks and secrets, which have yet to materialize.
The fake intelligence document, however, preceded the leak by months, and it helped lay the groundwork among right-wing media for what would become a failed October surprise: a viral pile-on of conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.
Behind Typhoon
The Typhoon Investigations document was first posted in September to Intelligence Quarterly, an anonymous blog "dedicated to collecting important daily news," according to its "about" section. Historical domain records show the blog was registered to Albert Marko, a self-described political and economic adviser, who also lists the blog on his Twitter bio. When asked about the provenance of the document, Marko said he received it from Balding.
Balding, previously an associate professor at Fulbright University Vietnam who studied the Chinese economy and financial markets, posted the document on his blog on Oct. 22, seven weeks after it was initially published.
"I had really not wanted to do this but roughly 2 months ago I was handed a report about Biden activities in China the press has simply refused to cover. I want to strongly emphasize I did not write the report but I know who did," Balding said in an email.
Balding later claimed to NBC News that he wrote some of the document.
"I authored small parts of the report and was involved in report preparation and review. As a researcher, and due to the understandable worry about foreign disinformation, it was paramount that the report document activity from acknowledged and public sources," Balding said. "Great care was taken to document, cite, and retain information so that acknowledged facts could be placed in the public domain."
A viral dossier about Hunter Biden was written by "Martin Aspen," a fake identity whose profile picture was created by artificial intelligence.TyphoonInvesti1 / via Twitter
Balding said Aspen is "an entirely fictional individual created solely for the purpose of releasing this report." Balding did not name the document's main author, saying "the primary author of the report, due to personal and professional risks, requires anonymity."
Balding claimed that the document was commissioned by Apple Daily, a Hong Kong-based tabloid that is frequently critical of the Chinese government. A spokesperson for Apple Daily confirmed it had worked with Balding on the document.
In addition to posting the document to his blog, Balding also promoted it in far-right media, appearing on Bannon's podcast and on "China Unscripted," a podcast produced by The Epoch Times, a pro-Trump media outlet opposed to the Chinese government.
Balding, an American who taught economics at China's Peking University HSBC Business School until 2018, is often critical of the Chinese government. He made news this year as a source uncovering a global bulk data collection operation by the Chinese company Shenzhen Zhenhua Data Technology.
Blog posts highlighting the most salacious parts of the document, including articles from the Intelligence Quarterly Blog, Revolver News and Balding's blog, received 70,000 public interactions — which includes reactions, comments and shares — across Facebook, Twitter and Reddit, according to the social media analysis tool BuzzSumo.
Balding's blog was the primary driver of virality in conservative and conspiracy communities. The report itself was shared across Facebook and Twitter around 5,000 times, according to BuzzSumo, and more than 80 sites linked back to the blog, which was shared more than 25,000 times on Facebook and Twitter. Hyperpartisan and conspiracy sites like ZeroHedge and WorldNetDaily led the pack.
After the promise of a big reveal one day earlier, the document was also posted on the extremist forum 8kun by Q, the anonymous account behind the QAnon conspiracy theory movement.
On Twitter, the document was pushed by influencers in the QAnon community, as well as by Dinggang Wang, an anti-Chinese government YouTube personality who works for Guo Wengui, a billionaire who fled China amid accusations of bribery and other crimes. Republican Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, tweeted the document to his 2.3 million followers.
'Immediately suspicious'
The document gained attention from disinformation researchers in part because of the image of the document's author.
Elise Thomas, a researcher at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, first spotted telltale signs of a fake photo when she went searching for Typhoon Investigations' Aspen on the web. Thomas found a Twitter account for Aspen named @TyphoonInvesti1, which had posted a link to Typhoon's WordPress page that contained the document on Aug. 15.
The profile picture for Aspen immediately showed signs of being a computer-generated image that can be created by computers and even some websites. Aspen's ears were asymmetrical, for one, but his left eye is what gave away that he did not really exist. Aspen's left iris juts out and appears to form a second pupil, a somewhat frequent error with computer-generated faces.
"The most obvious tell was the irregular shape of the irises," Thomas said. "The profile picture looks pretty convincing in the Twitter thumbnail, but when I popped it up into full view I was immediately suspicious."
Thomas then consulted with Ben Nimmo, director of investigations at the analytics company Graphika, who noted the other telltale sign of a computer-generated face.
"One of the things he and his team have figured out is that if you layer a lot of these images over the top of one another, the eyes align," Thomas said. "He did that with this image, and the eyes matched up."
Other parts of Aspen's identity were clearly stolen from disparate parts of the web. Aspen's Facebook page was created in August, and it featured only two pictures, both from his "new house," which were tracked back to reviews on the travel website Tripadvisor. The logo for Typhoon Investigations was lifted from the Taiwan Fact-Checking Center, a digital literacy nonprofit.
Aspen claimed on his LinkedIn profile to have worked for a company called Swiss Security Solutions from 2016 to 2020. Swiss Security Solutions denied having ever employed anyone named Aspen, and it said it had found fake accounts for two other people pretending to have worked for the company.
"Martin Aspen was never a freelancer or worker of the Swiss Security Solutions. We do not know this person. According to our Due Diligence Software, this person does not exist in Switzerland," Swiss Security Solutions Chairman Bojan Ilic said, adding that the company has reported the profile to LinkedIn.
Fake faces
Computer-generated faces have become a staple of large-scale disinformation operations in the run-up to the election. In December, Facebook took down a network of fake accounts using computer-created faces tied to The Epoch Times. Facebook removed over 600 accounts tied to the operation, which pushed pro-Trump messages and even served as moderators of some Facebook groups. Stephen Gregory, publisher of the U.S. editions of The Epoch Times, has denied any connection to the accounts.
Last month, Facebook removed another batch of computer-generated profiles originating in China and the Philippines, some of which made anti-Trump posts.
Renee DiResta, a researcher at the Stanford Internet Observatory, said computer-created identities are becoming common for disinformation campaigns, in part because they are easy to create.
DiResta, who helped examine a ring of AI-generated faces tied to the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA last month, said computer-generated profile pictures can be used to "build an army of fake people" to artificially support a cause or to make "disinformation operations harder to discover."
"One of the things that investigators look at to understand the narrative that is spreading is whether the accounts are authentic, whether they're real," DiResta said. "If they were to use a stock photo, it confirms something dishonest is likely happening. By using an AI-generated face, you're guaranteeing you won't find that person elsewhere on the internet."
www.nbcnews.com
A 64-page document that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm."
Hunter Biden speaks at the World Food Program USA's annual awards ceremony in Washington in April 2016.Paul Morigi / Getty Images file
Oct. 29, 2020, 5:30 PM EDT / Updated Oct. 30, 2020, 11:19 AM EDT
By Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny
One month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden's laptop, a fake "intelligence" document about him went viral on the right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving former Vice President Joe Biden's son and business in China.
The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.
The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.
One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.
Despite the document's questionable authorship and anonymous sourcing, its claims that Hunter Biden has a problematic connection to the Communist Party of China have been used by people who oppose the Chinese government, as well as by far-right influencers, to baselessly accuse candidate Joe Biden of being beholden to the Chinese government.
Inside the false conspiracy theory being pushed about the Bidens
OCT. 23, 202004:43
The document and its spread have become part of a wider effort to smear Hunter Biden and weaken Joe Biden's presidential campaign, which moved from the fringes of the internet to more mainstream conservative news outlets.
An unverified leak of documents — including salacious pictures from what President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and a Delaware Apple repair store owner claimed to be Hunter Biden's hard drive — were published in the New York Post on Oct. 14. Associates close to Trump, including Giuliani and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, have promised more blockbuster leaks and secrets, which have yet to materialize.
The fake intelligence document, however, preceded the leak by months, and it helped lay the groundwork among right-wing media for what would become a failed October surprise: a viral pile-on of conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.
Behind Typhoon
The Typhoon Investigations document was first posted in September to Intelligence Quarterly, an anonymous blog "dedicated to collecting important daily news," according to its "about" section. Historical domain records show the blog was registered to Albert Marko, a self-described political and economic adviser, who also lists the blog on his Twitter bio. When asked about the provenance of the document, Marko said he received it from Balding.
Balding, previously an associate professor at Fulbright University Vietnam who studied the Chinese economy and financial markets, posted the document on his blog on Oct. 22, seven weeks after it was initially published.
"I had really not wanted to do this but roughly 2 months ago I was handed a report about Biden activities in China the press has simply refused to cover. I want to strongly emphasize I did not write the report but I know who did," Balding said in an email.
Balding later claimed to NBC News that he wrote some of the document.
"I authored small parts of the report and was involved in report preparation and review. As a researcher, and due to the understandable worry about foreign disinformation, it was paramount that the report document activity from acknowledged and public sources," Balding said. "Great care was taken to document, cite, and retain information so that acknowledged facts could be placed in the public domain."
A viral dossier about Hunter Biden was written by "Martin Aspen," a fake identity whose profile picture was created by artificial intelligence.TyphoonInvesti1 / via Twitter
Balding said Aspen is "an entirely fictional individual created solely for the purpose of releasing this report." Balding did not name the document's main author, saying "the primary author of the report, due to personal and professional risks, requires anonymity."
Balding claimed that the document was commissioned by Apple Daily, a Hong Kong-based tabloid that is frequently critical of the Chinese government. A spokesperson for Apple Daily confirmed it had worked with Balding on the document.
In addition to posting the document to his blog, Balding also promoted it in far-right media, appearing on Bannon's podcast and on "China Unscripted," a podcast produced by The Epoch Times, a pro-Trump media outlet opposed to the Chinese government.
Balding, an American who taught economics at China's Peking University HSBC Business School until 2018, is often critical of the Chinese government. He made news this year as a source uncovering a global bulk data collection operation by the Chinese company Shenzhen Zhenhua Data Technology.
Blog posts highlighting the most salacious parts of the document, including articles from the Intelligence Quarterly Blog, Revolver News and Balding's blog, received 70,000 public interactions — which includes reactions, comments and shares — across Facebook, Twitter and Reddit, according to the social media analysis tool BuzzSumo.
Balding's blog was the primary driver of virality in conservative and conspiracy communities. The report itself was shared across Facebook and Twitter around 5,000 times, according to BuzzSumo, and more than 80 sites linked back to the blog, which was shared more than 25,000 times on Facebook and Twitter. Hyperpartisan and conspiracy sites like ZeroHedge and WorldNetDaily led the pack.
After the promise of a big reveal one day earlier, the document was also posted on the extremist forum 8kun by Q, the anonymous account behind the QAnon conspiracy theory movement.
On Twitter, the document was pushed by influencers in the QAnon community, as well as by Dinggang Wang, an anti-Chinese government YouTube personality who works for Guo Wengui, a billionaire who fled China amid accusations of bribery and other crimes. Republican Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, tweeted the document to his 2.3 million followers.
'Immediately suspicious'
The document gained attention from disinformation researchers in part because of the image of the document's author.
Elise Thomas, a researcher at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, first spotted telltale signs of a fake photo when she went searching for Typhoon Investigations' Aspen on the web. Thomas found a Twitter account for Aspen named @TyphoonInvesti1, which had posted a link to Typhoon's WordPress page that contained the document on Aug. 15.
The profile picture for Aspen immediately showed signs of being a computer-generated image that can be created by computers and even some websites. Aspen's ears were asymmetrical, for one, but his left eye is what gave away that he did not really exist. Aspen's left iris juts out and appears to form a second pupil, a somewhat frequent error with computer-generated faces.
"The most obvious tell was the irregular shape of the irises," Thomas said. "The profile picture looks pretty convincing in the Twitter thumbnail, but when I popped it up into full view I was immediately suspicious."
Thomas then consulted with Ben Nimmo, director of investigations at the analytics company Graphika, who noted the other telltale sign of a computer-generated face.
"One of the things he and his team have figured out is that if you layer a lot of these images over the top of one another, the eyes align," Thomas said. "He did that with this image, and the eyes matched up."
Other parts of Aspen's identity were clearly stolen from disparate parts of the web. Aspen's Facebook page was created in August, and it featured only two pictures, both from his "new house," which were tracked back to reviews on the travel website Tripadvisor. The logo for Typhoon Investigations was lifted from the Taiwan Fact-Checking Center, a digital literacy nonprofit.
Aspen claimed on his LinkedIn profile to have worked for a company called Swiss Security Solutions from 2016 to 2020. Swiss Security Solutions denied having ever employed anyone named Aspen, and it said it had found fake accounts for two other people pretending to have worked for the company.
"Martin Aspen was never a freelancer or worker of the Swiss Security Solutions. We do not know this person. According to our Due Diligence Software, this person does not exist in Switzerland," Swiss Security Solutions Chairman Bojan Ilic said, adding that the company has reported the profile to LinkedIn.
Fake faces
Computer-generated faces have become a staple of large-scale disinformation operations in the run-up to the election. In December, Facebook took down a network of fake accounts using computer-created faces tied to The Epoch Times. Facebook removed over 600 accounts tied to the operation, which pushed pro-Trump messages and even served as moderators of some Facebook groups. Stephen Gregory, publisher of the U.S. editions of The Epoch Times, has denied any connection to the accounts.
Last month, Facebook removed another batch of computer-generated profiles originating in China and the Philippines, some of which made anti-Trump posts.
Renee DiResta, a researcher at the Stanford Internet Observatory, said computer-created identities are becoming common for disinformation campaigns, in part because they are easy to create.
DiResta, who helped examine a ring of AI-generated faces tied to the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA last month, said computer-generated profile pictures can be used to "build an army of fake people" to artificially support a cause or to make "disinformation operations harder to discover."
"One of the things that investigators look at to understand the narrative that is spreading is whether the accounts are authentic, whether they're real," DiResta said. "If they were to use a stock photo, it confirms something dishonest is likely happening. By using an AI-generated face, you're guaranteeing you won't find that person elsewhere on the internet."
How a fake persona laid the groundwork for a Hunter Biden conspiracy deluge
A 64-page document that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm."
www.nbcnews.com
- 注册
- 2012-09-04
- 消息
- 64,443
- 荣誉分数
- 11,685
- 声望点数
- 1,373
- 注册
- 2005-11-23
- 消息
- 30,238
- 荣誉分数
- 7,444
- 声望点数
- 373
特朗普想兜售拜登儿子爆料，为何《华尔街日报》不买账？
BEN SMITH2020年10月29日
《华尔街日报》的记者对总统的三个亲密盟友带来的一则新闻持怀疑态度。 KEVIN HAGEN/GETTY IMAGES
到了10月初，就连白宫内部人士也认为，特朗普总统的连任竞选需要一场孤注一掷的救援行动。因此，三个总统阵线的人聚集在弗吉尼亚州麦克莱恩的一所房子里，准备发起这样一项行动。
据两位知情人士透露，那是与特朗普总统长子小唐纳德(Donald Trump Jr.)关系密切的纽约公关人士亚瑟·施瓦茨(Arthur Schwartz)的家。来客包括白宫律师埃里克·赫什曼(Eric Herschmann)和前白宫副法律顾问斯特凡·帕萨蒂诺(Stefan Passantino)。
赫什曼知道他们要讨论的主题。他曾在今年年初的弹劾审判中代表特朗普出庭，当时他试图转移对总统的指控，手段包括提及亨特·拜登(Hunter Biden)在乌克兰的工作。最近，他的名字一直在白宫的工资单上，工作职责含糊不清，被列为“总统高级顾问”，与贾里德·库什纳(Jared Kushner)关系密切。
三人把总统连任的希望寄托在第四位客人上，他就是《华尔街日报》(Wall Street Journal)的白宫记者迈克尔·本德(Michael Bender)。他们在那里把东西交给了他：一批详细记录亨特·拜登商业活动的电子邮件，他们还通过免提电话与亨特·拜登的前商业伙伴托尼·博布林斯基(Tony Bobulinski)进行了通话。博布林斯基愿意在《华尔街日报》上发表一则爆炸性声明，称前副总统乔·拜登(Joe Biden)知道儿子的活动，并从中获利。特朗普团队离开时相信《华尔街日报》会公开此事，他们的兴奋之情也传达给了总统。
特朗普的顾问们认为，《华尔街日报》是一个完美的选择，其文章可能会毁掉拜登的候选资格。该报在报道方面的温和保守主义意味着其新闻版面在整个行业中具有可信度，其读者群比其他重要新闻机构更加右倾。两位知情人士说，该报华盛顿分社社长保罗·贝克特(Paul Beckett)最近在一次记者和编辑的虚拟会议上表示，虽然他知道该报经常向许多支持特朗普的读者提供不受欢迎的新闻，但《华尔街日报》应该保护它在各政治派别中受到普遍信任的独特地位。
在特朗普团队满怀期待地等待《华尔街日报》的曝光时，该报开展了尽职调查：本德和贝克特将报道交给了备受尊敬的中国问题记者詹姆斯·阿雷迪(James Areddy)，以及跟踪亨特·拜登事件的国会山记者安德鲁·杜伦(Andrew Duehren)。阿雷迪采访了博布林斯基。他们开始起草一篇文章。
然后事情就乱了套。前纽约市长、现为特朗普总统律师的鲁迪·朱利安尼(Rudy Giuliani)在没有提醒其名义上的盟友的情况下突然现身，为麦克莱恩团队精心布置的阴谋带来了一个小报版本。朱利安尼向鲁珀特·默多克(Rupert Murdoch)新闻集团(News Corp.)旗下的《纽约邮报》(The New York Post)——《华尔街时报》的姊妹刊——交付了一批来源可疑的文件，但其中包含一些与麦克莱恩团队相同的电子邮件。朱利安尼一直在与特朗普前助手史蒂夫·班农(Steve Bannon)合作，后者也开始将部分邮件泄露给他青睐的右翼媒体。令问题复杂化的是，朱利安尼声称这些邮件来自亨特·拜登遗弃的一台笔记本电脑，并拒绝让一些记者检查该电脑，这给整个故事蒙上了一团迷雾——《纽约邮报》的报道也是如此，它声称乔·拜登曾经参与儿子的活动，但是无法证实。
虽然特朗普团队显然非常忐忑，但《华尔街日报》华盛顿分社的编辑们却在纠结一个核心问题：这些文件或博布林斯基能否证明乔·拜登参与了儿子的游说活动？抑或这又是一个小拜登利用其家族的名字进行交易的故事而已？这是一个非常好的主题，但不是一个新的主题，也不是一个在大选前迫切需要披露的主题。
班农说，特朗普和他的盟友希望《华尔街日报》的这篇报道能在10月19日周一发表。这算是竞选活动的晚期，但还不算太晚，而且可能会影响当周的新闻周期，使得这个话题进入周四至关重要的最后一场辩论。当天，特朗普在电话会议上对助手们说，《华尔街日报》即将发表一篇“重要文章”。
他的话在《华尔街日报》内部并不受欢迎。
“编辑们不喜欢特朗普影射我们是被安排来当打手的，”一名没有直接参与报道的《华尔街日报》记者告诉我。但随着周四辩论的临近，记者们继续写稿，对白宫匆忙的时间表无动于衷。
最后，博布林斯基等得不耐烦了。
“他担心他们不会发稿，”班农说。
周三晚上7点35分，博布林斯基通过电子邮件向多家新闻媒体发送了一份684字的正式声明，说明自己的情况。布莱巴特新闻(Breitbart News)发表了全文。第二天，他作为特朗普的意外嘉宾出现在纳什维尔，出席了辩论。在辩论开始前不到两小时，他向媒体宣读了一份六分钟的声明，详细说明了他对前副总统涉嫌参与其子商业交易的指控。
当特朗普上台时，总统的表现就好像邮件和指控的细节已经众所周知。“我觉得‘大人物’是你。我不知道，也许不是，”他对拜登说，他指的是那些文件中一句模棱两可的话。
辩论结束后，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇简短的报道，只是阿雷迪与杜伦报道的梗概。其核心是，博布林斯基未能证明自己的核心主张。“《华尔街日报》查阅的公司记录显示，乔·拜登没有在其中发挥任何作用，”该报道称。
当被问及《华尔街日报》对这篇报道的处理方式时，主编马特·默里(Matt Murray)表示，该报不谈论其新闻采集的问题。“我们严谨、可信的新闻报道本身就可以说明问题，”默里在一份电子邮件声明中说。
如果你一直收看候选人辩论，但并不迷恋福克斯新闻(Fox News)或布莱巴特，你就不会知道特朗普在说什么。特朗普团队希望可以颠覆竞选的故事正在迅速消失。
看门人的回应
在麦克莱恩会面那群人试图影响大选，却以失败告终，这在一定程度上再次揭示了特朗普行动的混乱和老套——这与自由派担心的协调作战的“虚假信息”机制相去甚远。
但这也与美国媒体的更大转变有关，长期缺席之后，看门人好像又回来了。
过去几十年毕竟是令人不知所措的。一切都始于德拉吉报道(Drudge Report)、Gawker和博客开始告诉你那些古板的老报纸和电视台不会告诉你的东西。然后，社交媒体带来的内容洪流冲垮了旧有的路障。
到2015年，老式的看门人陷入了一种信任危机，他们认为，正如克努特国王(King Canute)无法控制潮汐，他们也无力控制网络上的新闻周期。那年夏天和秋天，很多电视网都让唐纳德·特朗普当上了执行制片人。2016年10月，朱利安·阿桑奇(Julian Assange)和詹姆斯·科米(James Comey)似乎比各大新闻机构更能推动新闻周期。旧媒体和新媒体的许多人物都相信，在新的世界里，读者会自行找到他们想要阅读的信息——因此，编辑和制片人关于是否报道某件事以及给予它多少关注的决定已经没有太大意义。
但过去两周发生的事证明了相反的现实：像《华尔街日报》这样的老牌看门人仍在掌控议程。事实证明，维基解密和著名媒体对维基解密的报道是两码事，特朗普的一条推文和报道这条推文的文章不一样，即使《华尔街日报》有暗示乔·拜登做了坏事的观点文章，和没有得出该结论的新闻报道也是不同的。
特朗普总统和前副总统乔·拜登在上周的辩论会上。特朗普带来一位意外嘉宾，对亨特·拜登发出了一些指控。 ERIN SCHAFF/THE NEW YORK TIMES
哈佛大学(Harvard University)克曼·克莱因互联网与社会中心(Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society)联合主任约凯·本克勒(Yochai Benkler)制作的一张图表，或许是过去四年中最具影响力的媒体资料。该研究表明，一个密集的新右翼媒体圈已经出现——主流新闻媒体就“围着这一右翼媒体圈设定的议程打转”。
班农早就明白这一点。他将自己的策略描述为“锚左转右”，早在执掌布莱巴特新闻时，他就已经想方设法在主流媒体上植入对希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)的攻击。2015年春，当《纽约时报》(The New York Times)和《华盛顿邮报》(Washington Post)提前拿到《克林顿现金》(Clinton Cash)一书的时候，这些媒体的认可权力是显而易见的，该书是作家彼得·施韦泽(Peter Schweizer)对克林顿家族模糊商业、慈善和政治利益的调查。
施韦泽现在仍在这个圈子里。但你不会在主流媒体中看到他的作品。在本月发表了数篇关于亨特·拜登的文章后，他在布莱巴特的日子也结束了。
鲍布林斯基没有出现在广受尊敬的《华尔街日报》的版面上，而是出现在布莱巴特声明中的现实，正是班农的噩梦，也是本克勒最美好的愿望。各家主流媒体都不相信亨特·拜登的所作所为与前副总统有直接关系，因此基本都没把这件事放在头版，对特朗普及其盟友对他的对手的说法只做出了持怀疑态度的解释。
“所以，《今日美国》(USA Today)不愿在本周刊登我写亨特·拜登的专栏，”保守派作家格伦·雷诺兹(Glenn Reynolds)在10月20日抱怨道，并将文章发到了自己的博客上。当试图把关于亨特·拜登的叙事推到CBS新闻里时，特朗普总统自己也撞了墙。
“这是《60分钟》(60 Minutes)节目，我们不能播放无法核实的事情，”莱斯利·斯塔尔(Lesley Stahl)告诉他。然后，特朗普做了和雷诺兹差不多的事情，在自己的博客——Facebook上发布了他这边的采访视频。
当然，媒体对信息的控制不像过去那样全面了。拥有印刷机和广播信号塔的人并不能真的阻止你去看泄露邮件，或是关于乔·拜登对其子的生意往来知情多少的未经证实的说法。但本克勒的研究表明，尽管有社交媒体的影响，精英媒体设定议程的能力依然存在。
我们当然早应该明白这一点。我们许多对Twitter新闻标题满腹牢骚的读者已经明白了。特朗普也一直都明白——他对著名媒体的无休止攻击，可以解读为一种迷恋的表达，一种爱的形式。本周，你就可以听到那些人对背叛的呐喊，多年来他们一直声称传统媒体全是偏见，且根本无关紧要。
“多年来，我们一直尊重甚至敬畏自由媒体神圣不可侵犯的地位，”算不上以崇敬传统媒体著称的右翼评论员达娜·洛施(Dana Loesch)写道，她对拜登的故事没有得到关注表示失望。“现在，当你质疑自由媒体的偏好时，他们就用数字钢笔指着你的喉咙。”
门的另一边
由一场根植于设法诋毁独立媒体的右翼运动发出如此热切的抗议，无疑有些可笑的意味，甚至会觉得受宠若惊。你们也看到近年来许多记者都在强调对信息的控制。在最好的情况下，这种控制也能让一种新流行起来的肮脏伎俩在政治舞台上消失，就像2017年的法国，在法律规定的沉默期开始前，媒体基本忽视了竞选最后关头被黑客泄露的埃马纽埃尔·马克龙(Emmanuel Macron)总统团队的邮件。
但我承认，我对看门人的这种报复深感矛盾。在今年3月进入时报工作以前，我的职业生涯都是在门的另一边度过的，把信息传递给大多都在网上的受众，我默认他们已经看到了泄露或谣言的内容，并认为我的工作是引导他们穿过信息丛林，而不是遮蔽他们的眼睛。“媒体崭新而陌生的使命，就是提供一个框架来帮助受众理解他们不可避免会看到的疯狂的、未经审查的、使人无比迷惑的信息——而不是忽视它，”我和（现也在时报工作的）同事约翰·赫尔曼(John Herrman)在2013年写道。2017年，我决定发布未经证实的“斯蒂尔档案”(Steele dossier)，部分原因是看门人正在审查并受其影响，但却不让受众知道。
这个秋天，顶级媒体和科技行业的高管准备重打上一场战争——类似维基解密那种由外国支持的“攻击和泄露”行动，以试图影响大选结果。正是对此的高度警惕，导致Twitter屏蔽了《纽约邮报》报道亨特·拜登文章的链接——对其他媒体都在谨慎处理的这一新闻，Twitter的反应夸张到可怕。赫什曼、帕桑蒂诺和施瓦茨的阴谋跟维基解密还不太一样。但包括本报在内的许多媒体对亨特·拜登邮件的来源感到特别紧张，很大程度上还是受了维基解密报道经验的影响。
我更愿意相信默里和像他一样谨慎专业的记者，而不是社交平台的产品经理和高管。我希望那些对看门人重新确立地位感到欣慰的美国人民也会去关注谁获得了话语权，以及话语权有多集中，并支持新声音对其进行纠正和挑战。
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Smith是媒体专栏作家。在担任BuzzFeed News创始主编八年后，他于2020年加入《纽约时报》。创办BuzzFeed之前，他曾为Politico、《纽约每日新闻》、《纽约观察家》和《纽约太阳报》报道政治相关内容。欢迎在Twitter上关注他：@benyt
翻译：Harry Wong、晋其角
点击查看本文英文版。
cn.nytimes.com
BEN SMITH2020年10月29日
《华尔街日报》的记者对总统的三个亲密盟友带来的一则新闻持怀疑态度。 KEVIN HAGEN/GETTY IMAGES
到了10月初，就连白宫内部人士也认为，特朗普总统的连任竞选需要一场孤注一掷的救援行动。因此，三个总统阵线的人聚集在弗吉尼亚州麦克莱恩的一所房子里，准备发起这样一项行动。
据两位知情人士透露，那是与特朗普总统长子小唐纳德(Donald Trump Jr.)关系密切的纽约公关人士亚瑟·施瓦茨(Arthur Schwartz)的家。来客包括白宫律师埃里克·赫什曼(Eric Herschmann)和前白宫副法律顾问斯特凡·帕萨蒂诺(Stefan Passantino)。
赫什曼知道他们要讨论的主题。他曾在今年年初的弹劾审判中代表特朗普出庭，当时他试图转移对总统的指控，手段包括提及亨特·拜登(Hunter Biden)在乌克兰的工作。最近，他的名字一直在白宫的工资单上，工作职责含糊不清，被列为“总统高级顾问”，与贾里德·库什纳(Jared Kushner)关系密切。
三人把总统连任的希望寄托在第四位客人上，他就是《华尔街日报》(Wall Street Journal)的白宫记者迈克尔·本德(Michael Bender)。他们在那里把东西交给了他：一批详细记录亨特·拜登商业活动的电子邮件，他们还通过免提电话与亨特·拜登的前商业伙伴托尼·博布林斯基(Tony Bobulinski)进行了通话。博布林斯基愿意在《华尔街日报》上发表一则爆炸性声明，称前副总统乔·拜登(Joe Biden)知道儿子的活动，并从中获利。特朗普团队离开时相信《华尔街日报》会公开此事，他们的兴奋之情也传达给了总统。
特朗普的顾问们认为，《华尔街日报》是一个完美的选择，其文章可能会毁掉拜登的候选资格。该报在报道方面的温和保守主义意味着其新闻版面在整个行业中具有可信度，其读者群比其他重要新闻机构更加右倾。两位知情人士说，该报华盛顿分社社长保罗·贝克特(Paul Beckett)最近在一次记者和编辑的虚拟会议上表示，虽然他知道该报经常向许多支持特朗普的读者提供不受欢迎的新闻，但《华尔街日报》应该保护它在各政治派别中受到普遍信任的独特地位。
在特朗普团队满怀期待地等待《华尔街日报》的曝光时，该报开展了尽职调查：本德和贝克特将报道交给了备受尊敬的中国问题记者詹姆斯·阿雷迪(James Areddy)，以及跟踪亨特·拜登事件的国会山记者安德鲁·杜伦(Andrew Duehren)。阿雷迪采访了博布林斯基。他们开始起草一篇文章。
然后事情就乱了套。前纽约市长、现为特朗普总统律师的鲁迪·朱利安尼(Rudy Giuliani)在没有提醒其名义上的盟友的情况下突然现身，为麦克莱恩团队精心布置的阴谋带来了一个小报版本。朱利安尼向鲁珀特·默多克(Rupert Murdoch)新闻集团(News Corp.)旗下的《纽约邮报》(The New York Post)——《华尔街时报》的姊妹刊——交付了一批来源可疑的文件，但其中包含一些与麦克莱恩团队相同的电子邮件。朱利安尼一直在与特朗普前助手史蒂夫·班农(Steve Bannon)合作，后者也开始将部分邮件泄露给他青睐的右翼媒体。令问题复杂化的是，朱利安尼声称这些邮件来自亨特·拜登遗弃的一台笔记本电脑，并拒绝让一些记者检查该电脑，这给整个故事蒙上了一团迷雾——《纽约邮报》的报道也是如此，它声称乔·拜登曾经参与儿子的活动，但是无法证实。
虽然特朗普团队显然非常忐忑，但《华尔街日报》华盛顿分社的编辑们却在纠结一个核心问题：这些文件或博布林斯基能否证明乔·拜登参与了儿子的游说活动？抑或这又是一个小拜登利用其家族的名字进行交易的故事而已？这是一个非常好的主题，但不是一个新的主题，也不是一个在大选前迫切需要披露的主题。
班农说，特朗普和他的盟友希望《华尔街日报》的这篇报道能在10月19日周一发表。这算是竞选活动的晚期，但还不算太晚，而且可能会影响当周的新闻周期，使得这个话题进入周四至关重要的最后一场辩论。当天，特朗普在电话会议上对助手们说，《华尔街日报》即将发表一篇“重要文章”。
他的话在《华尔街日报》内部并不受欢迎。
“编辑们不喜欢特朗普影射我们是被安排来当打手的，”一名没有直接参与报道的《华尔街日报》记者告诉我。但随着周四辩论的临近，记者们继续写稿，对白宫匆忙的时间表无动于衷。
最后，博布林斯基等得不耐烦了。
“他担心他们不会发稿，”班农说。
周三晚上7点35分，博布林斯基通过电子邮件向多家新闻媒体发送了一份684字的正式声明，说明自己的情况。布莱巴特新闻(Breitbart News)发表了全文。第二天，他作为特朗普的意外嘉宾出现在纳什维尔，出席了辩论。在辩论开始前不到两小时，他向媒体宣读了一份六分钟的声明，详细说明了他对前副总统涉嫌参与其子商业交易的指控。
当特朗普上台时，总统的表现就好像邮件和指控的细节已经众所周知。“我觉得‘大人物’是你。我不知道，也许不是，”他对拜登说，他指的是那些文件中一句模棱两可的话。
辩论结束后，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇简短的报道，只是阿雷迪与杜伦报道的梗概。其核心是，博布林斯基未能证明自己的核心主张。“《华尔街日报》查阅的公司记录显示，乔·拜登没有在其中发挥任何作用，”该报道称。
当被问及《华尔街日报》对这篇报道的处理方式时，主编马特·默里(Matt Murray)表示，该报不谈论其新闻采集的问题。“我们严谨、可信的新闻报道本身就可以说明问题，”默里在一份电子邮件声明中说。
如果你一直收看候选人辩论，但并不迷恋福克斯新闻(Fox News)或布莱巴特，你就不会知道特朗普在说什么。特朗普团队希望可以颠覆竞选的故事正在迅速消失。
看门人的回应
在麦克莱恩会面那群人试图影响大选，却以失败告终，这在一定程度上再次揭示了特朗普行动的混乱和老套——这与自由派担心的协调作战的“虚假信息”机制相去甚远。
但这也与美国媒体的更大转变有关，长期缺席之后，看门人好像又回来了。
过去几十年毕竟是令人不知所措的。一切都始于德拉吉报道(Drudge Report)、Gawker和博客开始告诉你那些古板的老报纸和电视台不会告诉你的东西。然后，社交媒体带来的内容洪流冲垮了旧有的路障。
到2015年，老式的看门人陷入了一种信任危机，他们认为，正如克努特国王(King Canute)无法控制潮汐，他们也无力控制网络上的新闻周期。那年夏天和秋天，很多电视网都让唐纳德·特朗普当上了执行制片人。2016年10月，朱利安·阿桑奇(Julian Assange)和詹姆斯·科米(James Comey)似乎比各大新闻机构更能推动新闻周期。旧媒体和新媒体的许多人物都相信，在新的世界里，读者会自行找到他们想要阅读的信息——因此，编辑和制片人关于是否报道某件事以及给予它多少关注的决定已经没有太大意义。
但过去两周发生的事证明了相反的现实：像《华尔街日报》这样的老牌看门人仍在掌控议程。事实证明，维基解密和著名媒体对维基解密的报道是两码事，特朗普的一条推文和报道这条推文的文章不一样，即使《华尔街日报》有暗示乔·拜登做了坏事的观点文章，和没有得出该结论的新闻报道也是不同的。
特朗普总统和前副总统乔·拜登在上周的辩论会上。特朗普带来一位意外嘉宾，对亨特·拜登发出了一些指控。 ERIN SCHAFF/THE NEW YORK TIMES
哈佛大学(Harvard University)克曼·克莱因互联网与社会中心(Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society)联合主任约凯·本克勒(Yochai Benkler)制作的一张图表，或许是过去四年中最具影响力的媒体资料。该研究表明，一个密集的新右翼媒体圈已经出现——主流新闻媒体就“围着这一右翼媒体圈设定的议程打转”。
班农早就明白这一点。他将自己的策略描述为“锚左转右”，早在执掌布莱巴特新闻时，他就已经想方设法在主流媒体上植入对希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)的攻击。2015年春，当《纽约时报》(The New York Times)和《华盛顿邮报》(Washington Post)提前拿到《克林顿现金》(Clinton Cash)一书的时候，这些媒体的认可权力是显而易见的，该书是作家彼得·施韦泽(Peter Schweizer)对克林顿家族模糊商业、慈善和政治利益的调查。
施韦泽现在仍在这个圈子里。但你不会在主流媒体中看到他的作品。在本月发表了数篇关于亨特·拜登的文章后，他在布莱巴特的日子也结束了。
鲍布林斯基没有出现在广受尊敬的《华尔街日报》的版面上，而是出现在布莱巴特声明中的现实，正是班农的噩梦，也是本克勒最美好的愿望。各家主流媒体都不相信亨特·拜登的所作所为与前副总统有直接关系，因此基本都没把这件事放在头版，对特朗普及其盟友对他的对手的说法只做出了持怀疑态度的解释。
“所以，《今日美国》(USA Today)不愿在本周刊登我写亨特·拜登的专栏，”保守派作家格伦·雷诺兹(Glenn Reynolds)在10月20日抱怨道，并将文章发到了自己的博客上。当试图把关于亨特·拜登的叙事推到CBS新闻里时，特朗普总统自己也撞了墙。
“这是《60分钟》(60 Minutes)节目，我们不能播放无法核实的事情，”莱斯利·斯塔尔(Lesley Stahl)告诉他。然后，特朗普做了和雷诺兹差不多的事情，在自己的博客——Facebook上发布了他这边的采访视频。
当然，媒体对信息的控制不像过去那样全面了。拥有印刷机和广播信号塔的人并不能真的阻止你去看泄露邮件，或是关于乔·拜登对其子的生意往来知情多少的未经证实的说法。但本克勒的研究表明，尽管有社交媒体的影响，精英媒体设定议程的能力依然存在。
我们当然早应该明白这一点。我们许多对Twitter新闻标题满腹牢骚的读者已经明白了。特朗普也一直都明白——他对著名媒体的无休止攻击，可以解读为一种迷恋的表达，一种爱的形式。本周，你就可以听到那些人对背叛的呐喊，多年来他们一直声称传统媒体全是偏见，且根本无关紧要。
“多年来，我们一直尊重甚至敬畏自由媒体神圣不可侵犯的地位，”算不上以崇敬传统媒体著称的右翼评论员达娜·洛施(Dana Loesch)写道，她对拜登的故事没有得到关注表示失望。“现在，当你质疑自由媒体的偏好时，他们就用数字钢笔指着你的喉咙。”
门的另一边
由一场根植于设法诋毁独立媒体的右翼运动发出如此热切的抗议，无疑有些可笑的意味，甚至会觉得受宠若惊。你们也看到近年来许多记者都在强调对信息的控制。在最好的情况下，这种控制也能让一种新流行起来的肮脏伎俩在政治舞台上消失，就像2017年的法国，在法律规定的沉默期开始前，媒体基本忽视了竞选最后关头被黑客泄露的埃马纽埃尔·马克龙(Emmanuel Macron)总统团队的邮件。
但我承认，我对看门人的这种报复深感矛盾。在今年3月进入时报工作以前，我的职业生涯都是在门的另一边度过的，把信息传递给大多都在网上的受众，我默认他们已经看到了泄露或谣言的内容，并认为我的工作是引导他们穿过信息丛林，而不是遮蔽他们的眼睛。“媒体崭新而陌生的使命，就是提供一个框架来帮助受众理解他们不可避免会看到的疯狂的、未经审查的、使人无比迷惑的信息——而不是忽视它，”我和（现也在时报工作的）同事约翰·赫尔曼(John Herrman)在2013年写道。2017年，我决定发布未经证实的“斯蒂尔档案”(Steele dossier)，部分原因是看门人正在审查并受其影响，但却不让受众知道。
这个秋天，顶级媒体和科技行业的高管准备重打上一场战争——类似维基解密那种由外国支持的“攻击和泄露”行动，以试图影响大选结果。正是对此的高度警惕，导致Twitter屏蔽了《纽约邮报》报道亨特·拜登文章的链接——对其他媒体都在谨慎处理的这一新闻，Twitter的反应夸张到可怕。赫什曼、帕桑蒂诺和施瓦茨的阴谋跟维基解密还不太一样。但包括本报在内的许多媒体对亨特·拜登邮件的来源感到特别紧张，很大程度上还是受了维基解密报道经验的影响。
我更愿意相信默里和像他一样谨慎专业的记者，而不是社交平台的产品经理和高管。我希望那些对看门人重新确立地位感到欣慰的美国人民也会去关注谁获得了话语权，以及话语权有多集中，并支持新声音对其进行纠正和挑战。
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Smith是媒体专栏作家。在担任BuzzFeed News创始主编八年后，他于2020年加入《纽约时报》。创办BuzzFeed之前，他曾为Politico、《纽约每日新闻》、《纽约观察家》和《纽约太阳报》报道政治相关内容。欢迎在Twitter上关注他：@benyt
翻译：Harry Wong、晋其角
点击查看本文英文版。
特朗普想兜售拜登儿子爆料，为何《华尔街日报》不买账？
特朗普方面拿出的爆料声称拜登曾参与其子的游说活动。他们认为，一旦《华尔街日报》出版相关文章，拜登可能会失掉候选资格。但该报认为，相关爆料难以得到证实。
cn.nytimes.com
webID
初级会员
- 注册
- 2013-10-08
- 消息
- 1,079
- 荣誉分数
- 194
- 声望点数
- 73
二鬼子不是您的川黑队友想出来的，母们就是确认一下咋搓堆儿的问题么。
知道今天Fake News 都得到 Talking Points 了，川黑们今天转得不亦乐乎。多领几毛钱好过周末，理解理解。那些个Fake News 也算证据，反正别人信不信，川黑信就行。
相关推荐
