Fake News and False Advertising

For a great example of “fake news” just read this sentence from an op-ed column in Thursday's Sun-News: “This traitorous deal was facilitated by the head of the FBI at the time — none other than Robert Mueller. ” The “deal” was Russian acquisition of a Canadian company that controlled a lot of uranium. The writer offered no supporting facts.

For “false advertising,” watch city council candidate Steve Montañez's video designed to mislead voters into thinking actor and environmentalist Morgan Freeman endorsed him.

The Mueller allegation was nonsense – and had nothing to do with the big uranium deal.

In 2006 Republic of Georgia police, and the U.S. Department of Energy, carried out a sting operation against several men (one Russian, several Georgians) trying to sell highly-enriched uranium. The sting was kept secret until it succeeded. Then it was widely reported. “Republic of Georgia authorities, aided by the CIA, set up a sting operation last summer that led to the arrest of a Russian man who tried to sell a small amount of nuclear-bomb grade uranium in a plastic bag in his jacket pocket, U.S. and Georgian officials said,” the Washington Post reported.

A 2009 U.S. cable (courtesy of Wiki-leaks) notes that Russian investigators had asked the U.S. for a ten-gram sample of the stolen uranium, formerly owned by Russia. The U.S. complied. Normal international police cooperation. Mueller, then head of the FBI, was directed to deliver the sample when he arrived in Moscow. The delivery occurred on an airport tarmac, a detail that excited some highly partisan web sites and Trump fans who suddenly wanted to attack Mueller recently.) I don't know whether Mueller was flying to Russia on other business; but the cable mentions “chain-of-custody,” an important principle in criminal evidence law. That could explain why Mueller was the delivery-boy.

Mueller has an excellent reputation. He's a registered Republican and somewhat conservative. He's said to be highly diligent and a model of integrity. This kind of attack shows how desperate some are to prevent an impartial investigation of Trump's possible collusion with Russia regarding the 2016 election. 

 

I'll assume the local op-ed columnist honestly, but naively, believed that Mueller had something to do with Russian acquisition of a much larger lot of uranium.

But Montañez – does he think we're that dumb? He knows Morgan Freeman (from Mississippi) had any interest in urging District 5 voters to unseat Councilor Gill Sorg for Montañez. 

He apparently funded and posted a video narrated by a Freeman imitator, with a picture of Freeman at the end, urging voters to elect Montañez (By the time I looked, the still was gone. The video's still up.) 

 

The Freeman bit isn't even original. Fake Freeman ads started in 2010 with far-right Republican Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Ironically, Freeman's strong environmentalism suggests he'd prefer Sorg, who actually knows something about water and the environment. Sorg wants the best for Las Crucens – not higher real estate profits. The same Montañez video that lies by implying Freeman supports him adds that “We are here to serve the families and residents.” Sorry, Steve. You've undermined your own credibility.

In a supposedly non-partisan race, Montañez also ran an ad saying he was endorsed by “Isabella Solis, Democrat.” He's a registered Republican. Is he ashamed to be a member of Donald Trump's party? 

 

Next, watch for a mailer saying Gill Sorg helped steal that uranium.

                                                                -30-

[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 5 November 2017, and also on the newspaper's website on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  KRWG and KTAL-LP (101.4 FM in Las Cruces) will also air a spoken version a few times during the week.]

[Before providing some back-up to the points made in the column, let me say, to Las Crucens who haven't voted yet this year:
Local elections matter!
Please Vote!
If I lived in District 3 (currently represented by Olga Pedroza) I'd vote for Gabe Vasquez.  He's an impressive young man with impressive experience and a deep sense of the district and the region.  Bev Courtney, his opponent, is a very fine person.  I like and respect her too.  At the same time, I don't think Tea Party political views are a good fit for this city or this specific district.  She also can't nearly match Gabe's mix of professional experience and personal knowledge of this region and its problems.  Few of us could.
If I lived in District 5, I'd vote for incumbent Gill Sorg.  He's not an eloquent speaker; but he has substance, and cares.  I see him at water conferences and such, really wanting to know the facts -- and having the background to understand them and think about what to do about them.  So far, Mr.  Montañez hasn't shown me anything that generates enthusiasm in me for his candidacy.  He's smart; he presents himself well, as realtors are well-advised to learn to do; but he makes me uneasy.    With Gill, what you see is what you get. He's a good human being, studies issues carefully, and speaks honestly.  While in Montañez we might see the image of a charming family man with a genuine interest in bettering the city, it's not at all clear we wouldn't find he's someone who decides most every issue on how it would affect the real estate and business interests and cares relatively little about others.
In District 6, I hope Yvonne Flores unseats incumbent Ceil Levatino.  Although Ms. Levatino is savvy, and extends herself to engage in courteous discussion with people who don't share her views, and I like her personally, her votes seem always to represent one sector (business) disproportionately. Ms. Flores is smart and progressive, and has spent more of her life doing good things than many of us have.  She's also campaigned with impressive dedication and energy, which I suspect she'd apply to work as a Councilor should she be elected]
  

[With regard to Steve's false "Morgan Freeman ad," I happen to respect Morgan Freeman greatly.  For some of his acting, including in a couple of films by Clint Eastwood, and for his principled positions on some issues.  If Steve weren't too trivial for Mr. Freeman to notice, there might even be consequences to this.  

This article discusses earlier uses of this silly trick.

If they haven't taken it down, you can find Steve's video here, on You-Tube here and re-posted here with a statement by Steve that he approves it.

The whole thing is "Freeman's" voice-over, referring to "our city" and "our children," and is as false as a three-dollar bill.  

As to the Mueller foolishness: here's the original op-ed column mentioned in the column, in case you want to read it; and here's the Snopes refutation of the part about Mueller.

Why can't people like Montañez (and Sanchez if she wasn't honestly misled) just argue based on facts?  As an economist said to me this morning regarding a colleague, "We agree on the facts.  In economics, the facts are the facts.  We disagree about what they mean."   Facts are such propositions as that "Mueller delivering some evidence to another law-enforcement agency has nothing to do with the Russians buying a Canadian uranium company years later" and that "Morgan Freeman had nothing to do with a video Steve Montañez made to support his candidacy, using a Freeman imitator."]