And also, too much like the usual smear Putin, without evidence, type of propaganda I’ve read time and time again.
So, you’re asking why? Why are you writing about the Panama papers, at all, if that’s the way you feel about their release?
Let me tell you it all came down to this WP article- Headline above, sans question marks.
This Washington Post article gives credibility to a theory that is not credible. And that's why WaPo published it. And that's why I'm finally writing about the Panama papers
WaPo: ‘On the face of it, the Panama Papers don't look good for Russia”
Perhaps “on the face of it” it didn’t look good for Russia?- But beneath that thin veneer, the Panama papers didn’t appear to have much of anything to do with Russia. Or Vladimir Putin.
Of course, you would never know that considering the media presentation. Who among us missed the multitude of headlines such as Forbes: Putin Caught In Huge Panama Papers Scandal . Or how about? 'Panama Papers' Allegations on Putin Only Scratch Surface, Russians Say
Within a few days it turned out this was all much ado about nothing. Which is pretty typical of propaganda?
What to do when no one is believing that which is supposed to be believed?
Putin is corrupt?
Putin hides his money?
Putin this and Putin that?
When plan A fails you move to Plan B, of course! And what’s Plan B?
Blame Putin for the release of leaked Panama papers, of course!
Cause if you can’t smear Russia/Putin with one meme, you just switch it up a little.
And that’s what’s going on-
WaPo: “In short, the theory says that Moscow isn't a victim of a Panama Papers plot. Instead, perhaps it is the Russians who are behind the leak”
Plan A: Putin, Panama Papers- Criminal (hiding money)
Plan B: Putin, Panama Papers, still a criminal (cyber crime)
The whole Panama papers leak goes from distraction to absurdity. Washington Post and Brookings present quite a conspiracy theory for their readers...
When is a conspiracy theory (negative association) not a conspiracy theory?
When it’s written by someone from Brookings Institute. Then it is “conspirology” I kid you not!
(I'll get to the conspirology part later)
WaPo: “Okay, it sounds far-fetched, but this particular idea is especially noteworthy because of who has advanced it: Clifford Gaddy, an economist who works with the Brookings Institution”
Appeal to authority- we should consider this conspiracy theory because Clifford Gaddy, economist, works with Brookings- Appeal to authority. You said that because an authority thinks or writes something, it must therefore be true.
|Appeal to authority|
WaPo breaks Gaddy’s theory down to 4 main points
1- It was a hacker backed by the Russian government who emailed the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung to offer the leak in early 2015
What evidence does Gaddy and WaPo offer for this claim? None
"Over a year ago, an anonymous source contacted the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and submitted encrypted internal documents from the law firm Mossack Fonseca."
No talk about hacking from them.... Maybe? But, maybe not?
2: ‘There's deliberately little information within the Panama Papers that harms Putin”
How does WaPo know there is deliberately little information on Putin- Deliberately?
He can’t know that! So why use the word “deliberate” (that is the insinuation put forth by Gaddy)
Gaddy notes: Monssack Fonseca is maintaining that the leak was not an inside job.
What else would they say? What else could they say? Look at the business they are in. Secrecy is everything are they going to admit to an internal security breach? I don’t think so.
3;”Meanwhile, there's plenty of information in the Panama Papers that has already proven extremely embarrassing for other world leaders”Sure, but, that still doesn’t mean this was a Russian operation. The US has an interest in black mail and keeping other leaders under their thumb. And what about Israel? Israel is well know for their ability to hack, attack and blackmail. Why exclude the US and Israel?
4- The fact that so few Americans have been linked to the Panama Papers could suggest that their details were deleted from the documents given to Süddeutsche Zeitung and passed on to other media outlets.
I guess that’s possible? Or maybe not? Anything to substantiate that claim? Has any information like that appeared at other media outlets? We all do read the news from all over the globe. Anyone notice any news that would fit this bill? I haven't.
Curiously, the WaPo writer doesn’t link to the Brookings article written by Gaddy. Instead choosing to link to Gaddy’s bio to reinforce the appeal to authority meme
"In a blog post published Thursday on the Brookings website, Gaddy outlined his thoughts on the matter. You should read it all for yourself...."Here is the omitted link- Why didn't WaPo make it as easy and convenient for their readers?
Gaddy, himself, down plays his theory, likely because it’s so flimsy that the entirety of it boils down to wild, unsubstantiated speculation, based on nothing. Perhaps he dreamt the whole thing up, I don’t know?
“Gaddy admitted in an email Friday "It's certainly not a theory, hardly even a 'hypothesis,'" Gaddy wrote, adding that it was "more a suggestion of something that ought to be seriously investigated."
““Others offered carefully worded praise. Russian American journalist Masha Gessen called it "excellent conspirology" on Facebook”
excellent conspirology- Wow, that makes me laugh. Considering the many times the negative phrase of “conspiracy theorist” has been lobbed my way? At least when I present a theory I back it up with verifiable examples of collusion between parties.
But if you’re a Brookings affiliated economist, with friends in all the right circles you can write an unsubstantiated, unverifiable, wildly speculative article and have your cohorts swooning over your ‘excellent conspirology”
Conspirology- pushing propaganda to the limit by applying the suffix of ology
ology when used as a suffix : a subject of study; a branch of knowledge
I roll my eyes at the absurdity of a pile of logical fallacies passing as proof of anything other then manipultive writing skills
appeal to authority