What do you think?
Rate this book
Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President - What We Don't, Can't, and Do Know
The question of how Donald Trump won the 2016 election looms over all of the many controversies that continue to swirl around him to this day. In particular, was his victory the result of Russian meddling in our political system? Up until now, the answer to that has been equivocal at best given how difficult it is to prove. Trump has vociferously denied it, as has Vladimir Putin himself. Even the famous intelligence reports establishing that the Russians interfered hold back from saying whether the interference tipped the scales in the outcome.
In Cyberwar, however, the eminent scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who sifted through a vast amount of polling and voting data, is able to conclude with a reasonable degree of certainty that Russian help was crucial in elevating Trump to the Oval Office. Put simply, by changing the behavior of key players and altering the focus and content of mainstream news, Russian hackers reshaped the 2016 electoral dynamic. At the same time, Russian trolls used social media to target voting groups indispensable to a Trump victory or Clinton defeat. There are of course many arguments on offer that push against the idea that the Russians handed Trump his victory. Russia's goal was fomenting division, not electing Trump. Most of the Russian ads reportedly did not reference either the election or a candidate. Nor did they differ much from U.S.-based messaging that was already in play. Russian intervention did not surgically target Trump in key states. Finally, if WikiLeaks' releases of stolen email had truly affected the vote, Clinton's perceived honesty would have dropped in October. Jamieson, drawing from her four decades of research on the role of media in American elections, dispenses with these arguments through a forensic tracing of both Russian hackers' impact on media coverage as well as the ebbs and flows of Trump's polling support over the course of the campaign. To be sure, it is impossible to prove with absolute certainty that the Russians handed the election to Trump because there is too much that we don't know. That said, the lessons of a half century of research on the role of media framing in elections strongly suggests that many voters' opinions were altered by Russia's wide-ranging and coordinated campaign-including at least seventy eight thousand votes in three key states. Combining scholarly rigor with a bracing argument, Cyberwar shows that we can now be reasonably confident that Russian efforts helped put Trump in the White House.
In Cyberwar, however, the eminent scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who sifted through a vast amount of polling and voting data, is able to conclude with a reasonable degree of certainty that Russian help was crucial in elevating Trump to the Oval Office. Put simply, by changing the behavior of key players and altering the focus and content of mainstream news, Russian hackers reshaped the 2016 electoral dynamic. At the same time, Russian trolls used social media to target voting groups indispensable to a Trump victory or Clinton defeat. There are of course many arguments on offer that push against the idea that the Russians handed Trump his victory. Russia's goal was fomenting division, not electing Trump. Most of the Russian ads reportedly did not reference either the election or a candidate. Nor did they differ much from U.S.-based messaging that was already in play. Russian intervention did not surgically target Trump in key states. Finally, if WikiLeaks' releases of stolen email had truly affected the vote, Clinton's perceived honesty would have dropped in October. Jamieson, drawing from her four decades of research on the role of media in American elections, dispenses with these arguments through a forensic tracing of both Russian hackers' impact on media coverage as well as the ebbs and flows of Trump's polling support over the course of the campaign. To be sure, it is impossible to prove with absolute certainty that the Russians handed the election to Trump because there is too much that we don't know. That said, the lessons of a half century of research on the role of media framing in elections strongly suggests that many voters' opinions were altered by Russia's wide-ranging and coordinated campaign-including at least seventy eight thousand votes in three key states. Combining scholarly rigor with a bracing argument, Cyberwar shows that we can now be reasonably confident that Russian efforts helped put Trump in the White House.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2018
157 people are currently reading
861 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
March 2, 2022
"The Russians’ intelligence agents working through the blandly named Internet Research Agency (IRA) referred to their efforts as “information warfare.” From the Mueller Report: The IRA later used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord in the U.S. political system through what it termed “information warfare.” The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the U.S. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate Clinton. The IRA’s operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities, as well as the staging of political rallies inside the United States."
Stevens, Stuart "It Was All a Lie" An expose of the GOP by a +30 year GOP operative
============
The tech dystopia is here. This book lays out in detail how it happened and what the implications are. Many users have been psychologically manipulated through their addiction to social media, but don't realize it. Basically totalitarian states----Russia, China, North Korea----have co-opted our love of free expression and used it against us. It's the cyberwar that has been in the making for decades.
One hundred and twenty-six million Americans were exposed to Russian-trafficked content on Facebook and at least 1.4 million on Twitter in 2016 and there will be more to come in 2020.
Here's an example of a fake ad directed at young black voters who were already skeptical of Hillary...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdbup...
More examples....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us...
The Kremlin’s 2016 efforts were facilitated by the United States’ free-market impulse to minimize government regulation of new communication technologies. Unlike US political ads on radio and TV, those appearing online in 2016 were not required to carry a “clear and conspicuous” disclaimer indicating who authorized the ad. And in 2016, US campaign finance regulations did not require digital platforms to disclose who was funding campaign ads on them.
Russian attempts to exert the same influence on the French elections in 2017 failed because the government asked the media not to cover Russian fake news. Instead, the journalists covered the hacking and influence operation without giving any credibility to the leaked information. Consequently, nearly 18 thousand bots deployed to push #MacronLeaks and related topics failed to either mobilize or produce significant discussion of the leaked documents among French users.
We're looking at you Facebook....
The Russian trolls also benefited from the platforms’ algorithms, which are designed to gain and sustain attention, a process that lends itself to user exposure to conspiracy theories and bogus allegations circulated by those of like mind. In 2016, the social media outlets not only were not programmed to privilege accurate, vetted information but also were and remain especially hospitable to fear-driven, anger-based, extreme content, particularly if it is visually evocative and congenial to the user’s biases.
and now, the largest hack in Facebook’s history----50 million users!
"Hackers could have gained access to the accounts as early as July 2017, the company said. They also reported that the attack was sophisticated, requiring the hackers to find and exploit three obscure flaws in its code."
Meanwhile, an American media that doesn't research or fact check....
Reporters spend a lot of time online— with more than half using Twitter for gathering information and reporting their stories. It resulted in a symbiotic relationship with Twitter posts and news. If a trending topic or meme shows up in one news outlet, journalistic attention to that source increases and other stories follow suit. The Russians and other hackers purposely created trending stories that would sucker the lazy, naive media.
“At a minimum, we expect Russia to continue using propaganda, social media, false-flag personas, sympathetic spokespeople, and other means of influence to try to exacerbate social and political fissures in the United States,”
-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 13, 2018."
==========
From a recent book, "Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin’s Most Dangerous Hackers"
In July 2018, the Department of Justice, at the direction of the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, indicted twelve Russian intelligence officers for interfering in the 2016 presidential election, the indictment revealed that two separate units of the GRU—Russia’s main military intelligence agency—were responsible for penetrating state election systems, hacking the Democratic National Committee officials’ email, sharing them with Wikileaks, and pursuing a concerted disinformation campaign on social media.
The Mueller investigation determined that one unit, 26165, also known as Fancy Bear or Apt 28, was responsible for stealing documents by hacking into accounts and inserting malware. The other, Unit 74455, distributed those documents stole e-mails, and ran the disinformation operation. Unit 74455 also hacked into state boards of elections and secretaries of state.
-----------
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us...
Stevens, Stuart "It Was All a Lie" An expose of the GOP by a +30 year GOP operative
============
The tech dystopia is here. This book lays out in detail how it happened and what the implications are. Many users have been psychologically manipulated through their addiction to social media, but don't realize it. Basically totalitarian states----Russia, China, North Korea----have co-opted our love of free expression and used it against us. It's the cyberwar that has been in the making for decades.
One hundred and twenty-six million Americans were exposed to Russian-trafficked content on Facebook and at least 1.4 million on Twitter in 2016 and there will be more to come in 2020.
Here's an example of a fake ad directed at young black voters who were already skeptical of Hillary...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdbup...
More examples....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us...
The Kremlin’s 2016 efforts were facilitated by the United States’ free-market impulse to minimize government regulation of new communication technologies. Unlike US political ads on radio and TV, those appearing online in 2016 were not required to carry a “clear and conspicuous” disclaimer indicating who authorized the ad. And in 2016, US campaign finance regulations did not require digital platforms to disclose who was funding campaign ads on them.
Russian attempts to exert the same influence on the French elections in 2017 failed because the government asked the media not to cover Russian fake news. Instead, the journalists covered the hacking and influence operation without giving any credibility to the leaked information. Consequently, nearly 18 thousand bots deployed to push #MacronLeaks and related topics failed to either mobilize or produce significant discussion of the leaked documents among French users.
We're looking at you Facebook....
The Russian trolls also benefited from the platforms’ algorithms, which are designed to gain and sustain attention, a process that lends itself to user exposure to conspiracy theories and bogus allegations circulated by those of like mind. In 2016, the social media outlets not only were not programmed to privilege accurate, vetted information but also were and remain especially hospitable to fear-driven, anger-based, extreme content, particularly if it is visually evocative and congenial to the user’s biases.
and now, the largest hack in Facebook’s history----50 million users!
"Hackers could have gained access to the accounts as early as July 2017, the company said. They also reported that the attack was sophisticated, requiring the hackers to find and exploit three obscure flaws in its code."
Meanwhile, an American media that doesn't research or fact check....
Reporters spend a lot of time online— with more than half using Twitter for gathering information and reporting their stories. It resulted in a symbiotic relationship with Twitter posts and news. If a trending topic or meme shows up in one news outlet, journalistic attention to that source increases and other stories follow suit. The Russians and other hackers purposely created trending stories that would sucker the lazy, naive media.
“At a minimum, we expect Russia to continue using propaganda, social media, false-flag personas, sympathetic spokespeople, and other means of influence to try to exacerbate social and political fissures in the United States,”
-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 13, 2018."
==========
From a recent book, "Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin’s Most Dangerous Hackers"
In July 2018, the Department of Justice, at the direction of the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, indicted twelve Russian intelligence officers for interfering in the 2016 presidential election, the indictment revealed that two separate units of the GRU—Russia’s main military intelligence agency—were responsible for penetrating state election systems, hacking the Democratic National Committee officials’ email, sharing them with Wikileaks, and pursuing a concerted disinformation campaign on social media.
The Mueller investigation determined that one unit, 26165, also known as Fancy Bear or Apt 28, was responsible for stealing documents by hacking into accounts and inserting malware. The other, Unit 74455, distributed those documents stole e-mails, and ran the disinformation operation. Unit 74455 also hacked into state boards of elections and secretaries of state.
-----------
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us...
December 25, 2018
Cyberwar is one of the absolutely most riveting pieces of non fiction I have read in a while. Maybe it's because it does, in fact read like a spy novel. Maybe it's because it confirms everything I'd suspected, but also simultaneously, that only makes it more terrifying. But mostly, because nothing gets my wheels going like international politics.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson is the foremost expert on campaign communications. She has spent her career studying how campaigns craft and disseminate their messages to the masses. As someone who is trying to learn more about how press and policy influence each other, I have made it my pet project to determine if generally influencing the elections and general public opinion in any country would constitute a crime against humanity. Jamieson delves into the dark, seedy world of campaign politics, the Kremlin, and everything in between. Her research solely depends on facts, and doesn't look at sensationalising those facts.
This is especially evident in the fact that she emphasises vehemently, multiple times, that it wasn't that the Russians made Trump win the elections, just that they influence the public dialogue in the US just enough to exacerbate the divide between, to put it simply, the liberals and the conservatives. Armed with thousands of Twitter handles, and Facebook accounts that constituted only a tenth of that number, it is equally terrifying and fascinating how the Russians were able to push those that were on the fence, just enough to the right to get the results they wanted. In an increasingly political world that seems to run on social media, Jamieson's book talks about exactly why we need to be scrupulous about using and understanding data we find on the internet. Of course, her book is an academic work, and that is not the solid "moral" of the story. But if your take away from this is not "holy shit, people can write whatever they want on the internet and I need to be careful with where I get my facts from", then I don't know.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson is the foremost expert on campaign communications. She has spent her career studying how campaigns craft and disseminate their messages to the masses. As someone who is trying to learn more about how press and policy influence each other, I have made it my pet project to determine if generally influencing the elections and general public opinion in any country would constitute a crime against humanity. Jamieson delves into the dark, seedy world of campaign politics, the Kremlin, and everything in between. Her research solely depends on facts, and doesn't look at sensationalising those facts.
This is especially evident in the fact that she emphasises vehemently, multiple times, that it wasn't that the Russians made Trump win the elections, just that they influence the public dialogue in the US just enough to exacerbate the divide between, to put it simply, the liberals and the conservatives. Armed with thousands of Twitter handles, and Facebook accounts that constituted only a tenth of that number, it is equally terrifying and fascinating how the Russians were able to push those that were on the fence, just enough to the right to get the results they wanted. In an increasingly political world that seems to run on social media, Jamieson's book talks about exactly why we need to be scrupulous about using and understanding data we find on the internet. Of course, her book is an academic work, and that is not the solid "moral" of the story. But if your take away from this is not "holy shit, people can write whatever they want on the internet and I need to be careful with where I get my facts from", then I don't know.
February 2, 2019
I hated reading this book.
The information was important. I have read at least one other book on the topic, which I found very compelling.
Reading this book was torture. I am not exactly sure what it was -- her choice of obtuse language, difficult phraseology, unclear analysis. I would never recommend this highly praised author, despite her credentials. I would often plan on reading 25 pages and find myself struggling through two or three. Yuk!
Yes, the information is very important. Someone should put together a readable 20 page summary of her important findings and make it available. The Russians hacked the 2016 elections. Through trolls, bots, false identities, etc. they worked to impact the election against Clinton and for Trump. They misinformed, primed certain information, framed others, and impacted the agenda of media and print news.
And, they affected the outcome of the election. This was especially important since the electoral college win by Trump relied on very slight margins in important swing states.
Explore this information. It is important. But this book will not do it for most people.
However, the realization that this manipulation of information and voters is what is regularly going on within our own election campaigns without any help from foreign operatives is unsettling as well.
The Russian super-effort made a difference. They have undoubtedly done the same in other places and other elections.
Enough said.
The information was important. I have read at least one other book on the topic, which I found very compelling.
Reading this book was torture. I am not exactly sure what it was -- her choice of obtuse language, difficult phraseology, unclear analysis. I would never recommend this highly praised author, despite her credentials. I would often plan on reading 25 pages and find myself struggling through two or three. Yuk!
Yes, the information is very important. Someone should put together a readable 20 page summary of her important findings and make it available. The Russians hacked the 2016 elections. Through trolls, bots, false identities, etc. they worked to impact the election against Clinton and for Trump. They misinformed, primed certain information, framed others, and impacted the agenda of media and print news.
And, they affected the outcome of the election. This was especially important since the electoral college win by Trump relied on very slight margins in important swing states.
Explore this information. It is important. But this book will not do it for most people.
However, the realization that this manipulation of information and voters is what is regularly going on within our own election campaigns without any help from foreign operatives is unsettling as well.
The Russian super-effort made a difference. They have undoubtedly done the same in other places and other elections.
Enough said.
November 18, 2023
Required reading to understand how Trump happened in 2016. Our media were complicit and the gop has tremendous branding, but the results were close enough that Putin did in fact swing the election.. and Jamieson brings all of the proof! (if Putin's influence didn't exist, Hillary wins.. though a large number of other factors could have been enough for that too, including running a better campaign)
Just even the 17-page introduction is a devastating indictment, worth the value of the book, and depressing in both the sense that America lost the battle and then forgot we are at war (with Trump’s kleptocracy and Putin), but also frustrating in the sense that Thump’s lying seems to work. This facts of this cyberwar attack are clear and easily available, yet Trump and his apologists lying about them loudly every day makes them feel less credible somehow, even as I know intellectually that Trump is always lying. Human psychology is just not built to deal with a constant unsupressable flow of brazen lies.
How deeply researched is this analysis? The exposition is 224 pages, while the appenidix plus endnotes are 80 small font pages. As the title specifies, what we do know and cannot know, both are objective, factually determined and unambiguous.
“[we tell Americans that] ‘You are constantly interfering in our political life.’ Would you believe it they aren’t even denying it. Do you know what they told us last time? They said, ‘yes we do interfere, but we are entitled to do so, because we are spreading democracy, and you aren’t, so you cannot do it.’ Do you think this is a civilized and modern approach to international affairs?” -Putin (p10)
Yes, that’s exactly what I think. International interference should come only in service of some higher value, not purely to serve some kleptocracy keeping its self-serving power. I prefer to blame cable media and far right propaganda outlets for brainwashing, but I can't ignore the unique way that social media was exploited by Russian trolls in 2016. Zuckerberg couldn't believe it, but the evidence is here, and in partial attonement FB created "fact pages" for the 2020 election results, covid vaccines and the climate crisis. Yet even today it remains complicated now far media platforms should and/or must go to moderate content. And I find it unfair that platforms are responsible, but the actual liars and creators of propaganda are rewarded for their mendacity. I'm grateful that the Ukraine invasion led to the blocking of Russian media in Europe, and I'd wish for similar anti-propaganda efforts throughout the free world, including the end of tiktok.
I feel gratified that 6 years post publication, many of these conclusions are now understood as fundamental truths, even as about a third of America continues to willfully allow themselves (to pretend) to be deceived.
Just even the 17-page introduction is a devastating indictment, worth the value of the book, and depressing in both the sense that America lost the battle and then forgot we are at war (with Trump’s kleptocracy and Putin), but also frustrating in the sense that Thump’s lying seems to work. This facts of this cyberwar attack are clear and easily available, yet Trump and his apologists lying about them loudly every day makes them feel less credible somehow, even as I know intellectually that Trump is always lying. Human psychology is just not built to deal with a constant unsupressable flow of brazen lies.
How deeply researched is this analysis? The exposition is 224 pages, while the appenidix plus endnotes are 80 small font pages. As the title specifies, what we do know and cannot know, both are objective, factually determined and unambiguous.
“[we tell Americans that] ‘You are constantly interfering in our political life.’ Would you believe it they aren’t even denying it. Do you know what they told us last time? They said, ‘yes we do interfere, but we are entitled to do so, because we are spreading democracy, and you aren’t, so you cannot do it.’ Do you think this is a civilized and modern approach to international affairs?” -Putin (p10)
Yes, that’s exactly what I think. International interference should come only in service of some higher value, not purely to serve some kleptocracy keeping its self-serving power. I prefer to blame cable media and far right propaganda outlets for brainwashing, but I can't ignore the unique way that social media was exploited by Russian trolls in 2016. Zuckerberg couldn't believe it, but the evidence is here, and in partial attonement FB created "fact pages" for the 2020 election results, covid vaccines and the climate crisis. Yet even today it remains complicated now far media platforms should and/or must go to moderate content. And I find it unfair that platforms are responsible, but the actual liars and creators of propaganda are rewarded for their mendacity. I'm grateful that the Ukraine invasion led to the blocking of Russian media in Europe, and I'd wish for similar anti-propaganda efforts throughout the free world, including the end of tiktok.
I feel gratified that 6 years post publication, many of these conclusions are now understood as fundamental truths, even as about a third of America continues to willfully allow themselves (to pretend) to be deceived.
January 8, 2019
A must read for 2019! If you are a political junkie or just want to understand how the Russian meddling is still going on... than read this book. It explains the Russian cyber war against the U.S.A. with careful evidence and expert data. Knowledge is power so Americans need to grasp the situation more than ever.
April 23, 2019
A persuasively-argued, impressively researched investigation into the sophisticated, coordinated Russian cyberattack designed to elect Donald Trump in 2016.
Surprisingly, the Russians’ messaging was strategically adept, although filled with clumsy typos. Examples of the Russian content provide some of the most entertaining sections of the book. The Russian-originated or stolen communication shaped the agenda and framing of the news media, reweighted the message environment in news and social media, primed and reinforced anti-Clinton content, capitalized on timing with short-term effects, and relayed and created content designed to mobilize and demobilize (that is, suppress the voting of) key constituencies, such as Christian evangelicals and black voters.
Jamieson suggests that Russian-hacked private emails may have had a bigger impact than the widespread trolling and bots. WikiLeaks dumps altered the news agenda at key points in the election cycle, including the final four weeks of the campaign. The news media, particularly television, were complicit in this propaganda dissemination. They helped the Russians achieve their goals.
Most voters are largely unpersuadable. However, the 2016 election was an extremely close contest, ultimately determined by only 79,000 votes in three swing states. Russians didn't need to persuade all Americans to vote for Trump (or not vote at all). They just had to target enough persuadable voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. And they appear to have succeeded (although Jamieson is careful not to make the argument that Trump is president solely due to Russian hacking).
In perhaps the book's most surprising section, Jamieson provides a fascinating analysis of how FBI Director Jim Comey may have been fooled by Russian disinformation, which compelled him to interfere in the election in ways that may have cost Hillary the presidency. It’s strange that that story isn't mentioned anywhere in the Mueller Report, although it was covered in the Washington Post and CNN.
I enjoyed Jamieson's book, but found it drier, less personal, and more academic and scholarly than Messing with the Enemy by Clint Watts. Both books are excellent, however, and they explain how a corrupt racist traitor ended up in the White House.
Surprisingly, the Russians’ messaging was strategically adept, although filled with clumsy typos. Examples of the Russian content provide some of the most entertaining sections of the book. The Russian-originated or stolen communication shaped the agenda and framing of the news media, reweighted the message environment in news and social media, primed and reinforced anti-Clinton content, capitalized on timing with short-term effects, and relayed and created content designed to mobilize and demobilize (that is, suppress the voting of) key constituencies, such as Christian evangelicals and black voters.
Jamieson suggests that Russian-hacked private emails may have had a bigger impact than the widespread trolling and bots. WikiLeaks dumps altered the news agenda at key points in the election cycle, including the final four weeks of the campaign. The news media, particularly television, were complicit in this propaganda dissemination. They helped the Russians achieve their goals.
Most voters are largely unpersuadable. However, the 2016 election was an extremely close contest, ultimately determined by only 79,000 votes in three swing states. Russians didn't need to persuade all Americans to vote for Trump (or not vote at all). They just had to target enough persuadable voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. And they appear to have succeeded (although Jamieson is careful not to make the argument that Trump is president solely due to Russian hacking).
In perhaps the book's most surprising section, Jamieson provides a fascinating analysis of how FBI Director Jim Comey may have been fooled by Russian disinformation, which compelled him to interfere in the election in ways that may have cost Hillary the presidency. It’s strange that that story isn't mentioned anywhere in the Mueller Report, although it was covered in the Washington Post and CNN.
I enjoyed Jamieson's book, but found it drier, less personal, and more academic and scholarly than Messing with the Enemy by Clint Watts. Both books are excellent, however, and they explain how a corrupt racist traitor ended up in the White House.
October 12, 2020
As close as one can come to conclusive?
If you're familiar with the phrase “Russia meddled or interfered in the 2016 election" and concerned for your country, I recommend you read “Cyber-War” by Kathleen Hall Jamieson about Russia’s “mind-messing” effort. The author’s conclusion is summarized on the book jacket: “Drawing on path-breaking work in which she and her colleagues isolated significant communication effects in the 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns, the eminent political communications scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson marshals the troll posts, unique polling data, analyses of how the press used the hacked content, and a synthesis of half a century of media effects research to argue that, although not certain, it is probable that the Russians helped elect the 45th president of the United States."
Don't want to buy the book? As a fellow author, I recommend that at the very least you stop by your public library and flip through the book to get an idea of the scholarship involved uncovering the effect of Russia’s cyber-attack (as well as its continuing cyber-war) upon the US democratic process.
If you're familiar with the phrase “Russia meddled or interfered in the 2016 election" and concerned for your country, I recommend you read “Cyber-War” by Kathleen Hall Jamieson about Russia’s “mind-messing” effort. The author’s conclusion is summarized on the book jacket: “Drawing on path-breaking work in which she and her colleagues isolated significant communication effects in the 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns, the eminent political communications scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson marshals the troll posts, unique polling data, analyses of how the press used the hacked content, and a synthesis of half a century of media effects research to argue that, although not certain, it is probable that the Russians helped elect the 45th president of the United States."
Don't want to buy the book? As a fellow author, I recommend that at the very least you stop by your public library and flip through the book to get an idea of the scholarship involved uncovering the effect of Russia’s cyber-attack (as well as its continuing cyber-war) upon the US democratic process.
May 1, 2019
Don't let the lurid title fool you: Anyone who still doubts the astonishing scale, sophistication, and, yes, impact of Russian interference in the 2016 US election ought to read this book.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson draws on her decades-long experience of applying social science methods and concepts (including framing, priming and agenda setting) to studying the effect of advertising and debates on US presidential elections. This offers an excellent point of departure for establishing "what we don't, can't, and do know" - in other words, exactly what the debate on Russian interference has been missing.
The stilted, awkward writing style and odd terminological choices betray an academic social scientist who is not quite at home in the realms of cybersecurity or social media. However, this hardly detracts from the central, extremely well-argued conclusion: a hostile foreign power successfully made a real, substantial difference to the result of a US election through well-targeted social media manipulation combined with the well-timed release of stolen documents.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson draws on her decades-long experience of applying social science methods and concepts (including framing, priming and agenda setting) to studying the effect of advertising and debates on US presidential elections. This offers an excellent point of departure for establishing "what we don't, can't, and do know" - in other words, exactly what the debate on Russian interference has been missing.
The stilted, awkward writing style and odd terminological choices betray an academic social scientist who is not quite at home in the realms of cybersecurity or social media. However, this hardly detracts from the central, extremely well-argued conclusion: a hostile foreign power successfully made a real, substantial difference to the result of a US election through well-targeted social media manipulation combined with the well-timed release of stolen documents.
December 11, 2018
This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in reality ... and the events that unfolded and allowed the results of the last elections -- both on election day and since. While the author leaves the final decision about whether the cyberwar did or did not change the results of the election, she does a masterful job of describing the conditions, realities, and FACTS people ought to be aware of as they reach their own conclusions, as well as the questions that any one should be asking themselves. It may not be a comfortable reality to read about, but if one wants to be informed, this is a good book for it.
September 17, 2019
The Russians did not have to pull levers in the voting booths; just needed to target audiences with persuasive advertising to win this cyber-war.
August 12, 2021
A very comprehensive account of the 2016 Russian meddling in US election, with loads of fake ads and trolls posts illustrations. I personally enjoy the "Prerequisites" part where she explained how the impact was particularly amplified within the US cultural context.
March 5, 2019
The most frustrating part of reading any piece of investigative work regarding Trump and his repulsive administration is the constant lack of illuminating material. "Fear", which received an undeserved amount of credit for regurgitating trash and platitudes that surprised no one, has unfortunately been the torch bearer (and likely standard setter) for the burgeoning "Trump is evil....but impressive!!!" empire of imaginative nonfiction we're going to be subjected to for decades once he's finally ousted from office. The failure of US politics that he manifests isn't just a metaphor: there are real, tangible, life ruining stakes to his sham of a presidency. Treating him as a sort of Napoleon meets Nero mastermind manipulator of the US-exceptionalist psyche isn't just boring & passé- it's a morally repulsive act of rewriting history as it happens. Thanks, but no thanks. The real reason Trump is in office? We have a horrible sham of a democracy that silences the majority and raises the voices of a spiteful minority. We had a race that was tainted by misogynistic media that failed to see Trump as something more than a hateful trash monster, that hungered for a "real" race and assumed Trump would burn himself out. As much as anything, we had a level of foreign interference so comprehensive (aided and abetted by the ignorance of Facebook, primarily) that the United States has now become something of a puppet government for Russia. This is not disputable.
Kathleen Jamieson succeeds by leaps and bounds where other journalists, quantitative analysts & pundits fall short. "Cyberwar" is not sensationalist or hot take driven. It is instead an academic, statistically based analysis of what extent the Russian government's troll efforts impacted our 2016 election. Without going into explicit detail, the chain of information went something like this: Russian trolls & bots push Trump or Trump-esque policies -> Facebook allows fake news & misinformation to be advertised on their sites to target Trump voters and demos with justifiable doubt about Hilary as a candidate -> people begin to parrot Russian disinformation -> new anchors parrot disinfo -> Trump parrots Russian disinformation & the cycle continues. It was very, very hard for me to read this as anything but a confirmation of my personal feeling that Zuckerberg deserves an outsized amount of blame for what happened. The Russian cyber infiltration went beyond stuff you see on your social networking sites. It become the basis of policy for the current president & the entire source of political knowledge for scores of Trump voters & Clinton adverse voters or nonvoters.
Perhaps the most explosive section of the book (a word I used lightly because Jamieson's prose is very measured and balanced in her exploration for the truth) is the amount of effort Russian trolls put into pushing third party candidates on young voters and voters of color. Of course the degrees to which someone like Jill Stein is indebted to the Russian government is obvious (there is no other explanation for her constant praise of Putin), but the cyberwar being waged on US voters was informed by a very nuanced and developed understanding of North American paranoia. Nothing about Trump and the advertising campaign of lies which helped sway millions of citizens to the side of hate surprises me. For added measure, Jamieson has a comprehensive index in the back of her data tables which i highly recommend to anybody with even a cursory interest in statistical analysis.
My biggest bone to pick with "Cyberwar", and perhaps my only prominent issue with the book, is Jamieson's unwillingness to budge from occasionally blaming Clinton for what happened, as if her campaigns failure at better mobilizing skeptical voters was somehow related to the largest cyber attack in US history. The dots are there and Jamieson does not fully fill in the missing lines, which may be an act of both self-preservation and reluctance to fully cast blame without the complete factual and statistical basis to do so. I can't fault her for that, but it is near impossible to read her book and think anything other than these two salient points: 1.) the Trump campaign won in large part because of a concerted cyber espionage effort and 2.) the United States is a proxy state of Russian policy because Facebook's indifference to targeted lying in advertisements.
Kathleen Jamieson succeeds by leaps and bounds where other journalists, quantitative analysts & pundits fall short. "Cyberwar" is not sensationalist or hot take driven. It is instead an academic, statistically based analysis of what extent the Russian government's troll efforts impacted our 2016 election. Without going into explicit detail, the chain of information went something like this: Russian trolls & bots push Trump or Trump-esque policies -> Facebook allows fake news & misinformation to be advertised on their sites to target Trump voters and demos with justifiable doubt about Hilary as a candidate -> people begin to parrot Russian disinformation -> new anchors parrot disinfo -> Trump parrots Russian disinformation & the cycle continues. It was very, very hard for me to read this as anything but a confirmation of my personal feeling that Zuckerberg deserves an outsized amount of blame for what happened. The Russian cyber infiltration went beyond stuff you see on your social networking sites. It become the basis of policy for the current president & the entire source of political knowledge for scores of Trump voters & Clinton adverse voters or nonvoters.
Perhaps the most explosive section of the book (a word I used lightly because Jamieson's prose is very measured and balanced in her exploration for the truth) is the amount of effort Russian trolls put into pushing third party candidates on young voters and voters of color. Of course the degrees to which someone like Jill Stein is indebted to the Russian government is obvious (there is no other explanation for her constant praise of Putin), but the cyberwar being waged on US voters was informed by a very nuanced and developed understanding of North American paranoia. Nothing about Trump and the advertising campaign of lies which helped sway millions of citizens to the side of hate surprises me. For added measure, Jamieson has a comprehensive index in the back of her data tables which i highly recommend to anybody with even a cursory interest in statistical analysis.
My biggest bone to pick with "Cyberwar", and perhaps my only prominent issue with the book, is Jamieson's unwillingness to budge from occasionally blaming Clinton for what happened, as if her campaigns failure at better mobilizing skeptical voters was somehow related to the largest cyber attack in US history. The dots are there and Jamieson does not fully fill in the missing lines, which may be an act of both self-preservation and reluctance to fully cast blame without the complete factual and statistical basis to do so. I can't fault her for that, but it is near impossible to read her book and think anything other than these two salient points: 1.) the Trump campaign won in large part because of a concerted cyber espionage effort and 2.) the United States is a proxy state of Russian policy because Facebook's indifference to targeted lying in advertisements.
November 14, 2020
Let's say you're an media expert, an Ivy League professor with decades of experience studying and teaching at a prestigious school of communication. You have all these theories -- many considered ground-breaking and innovative by your colleagues -- about how to influence the masses. Let's also say you're a lifelong partisan, eager to help your Presidential candidate any way you can. You have direct access to as many students, opinion leaders, party operatives -- even the opposition, all with nearly limitless amounts of cash.
By contrast, imagine you're an officer in the Russian Intelligence Service with a a few hundred thousand dollar budget to spend on social media ads in order to "influence the American election". You command a secretive staff with poor English skills, few if any of whom have direct cultural experience in the rural U.S., with salaries far less than they might command if they were true social media experts.
Pit your Ivy League Professor and your Russian against each other in an actual US Presidential Election with high stakes and literally billions of dollars of direct and indirect spending on influencing the result.
The esteemed Professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the prestigious Annenberg School of Communication thinks the Russians won in the 2016 election and she has a 300-page, heavily footnoted book to prove her case.
I picked up this book out of pure curiosity. You'd think that anyone who's made a career out of studying communications would genuinely like to understand how a few government bureaucrats from a foreign culture, using a minuscule social media budget, could outsmart her and her entire academic establishment.
Sadly, in this book she demonstrates no such curiosity. Her obvious disdain for anyone who disagrees with her politically blinds her to the obvious: maybe the people who voted for her opponent were doing so out of their own free will, because they *liked* their candidate. In an national election with essentially unlimited resources on both sides, whatever the Russians did was so comparatively trivial that it genuinely boggles me how a serious academic could entertain this as a serious enough possibility to warrant an entire book.
In page after page, she documents her theory of how media influences people, without noticing how her theory implies by definition that she and her political allies were themselves outwitted by the Russians. She compiles example after example of Russian ads that, despite their poor grammar, achieved incredible page views -- (sarcasm alert) one even topped 300,000 likes! This, in an election where more than 100M people voted, and where no national news publication could remain in business if its best day was a mere 300K views. Nevertheless, despite this obvious drop-in-the-bucket effect, Dr. Hall-Jamieson believes the Russians were so clever that, in fact, not only did they influence the election, they were probably the decisive factor!
The glaring question that the Professor never addresses is: if it's this easy, why didn't *you* do it? Or for that matter, why didn't the cash-strapped Russian Intelligence service use their genius-level social media skills to, say, get rich instead? No marketing department in the world would pass up such a large return on their investment. Imagine if the Russians would apply their talents to ... anything -- they'd have far more influence than simply "overturning" a US election.
Now, I'm no academic and I certainly can't match Dr. Jameison's understanding of the mass media, so forgive my obvious ignorance here, but isn't it possible that it's *she* who is being influenced, by her fellow partisans in the media, to grasp desperately at whatever straw she can in hopes that somehow she's smarter and better than the naive masses who, maybe just maybe, choose their President for their own messy reasons, and are no more influenced by outsiders than she is?
February 21, 2022
Quando o mágico pede para alguém da plateia "cortar" o baralho, é apenas para que se faça parte do show. O fato é que as cartas já estão marcadas. Esse é o truque.
O histórico de interferência dos "mágicos" do Kremlin em processos eleitorais é imenso.
A primeira vez que a Rússia de Vladimir Putin se intrometeu em campanhas eleitorais no Ocidente foi em 2014, no referendo escocês que, por 55% a 45%, definiu que o país seguiria como parte do Reino Unido. Os detalhes do que ocorreu não são conhecidos. O governo britânico reconhece oficialmente ter informação.
Em 2020, um comitê do Parlamento britânico publicou um relatório sobre atividades russas no pleito da ilha. Foi uma desancada no governo de Boris Johnson. É que também há comprovação de que agentes de Putin operaram pesado no plebiscito que decidiu o Brexit. O Partido Conservador, o relatório sugere, teme descobrir que desinformação bancada por interesses de uma país estrangeiro é o que deu ao grupo no poder sua vitória.
A divisão
Putin atua, também, na divisão para enfraquecer seus adversários. A Escócia fora do Reino Unido lhe interessa. O Reino Unido fora da União Européia lhe interessa. Uma França em confusão política lhe interessa. É o processo de fortalecimento de lideranças com propensões antidemocráticas. Entre Donald Trump e Hillary Clinton, com os EUA em convulsão social e um Partido Republicano dividido em dois, Putin não tem dúvida do que prefere.
O Facebook
O Facebook admitiu, embora tenha demorado, que houve compra de publicidade pró-Trump paga em dinheiro russo. Além disso, hackers do governo russo invadiram os servidores do Partido Democrata, roubaram e-mails e vazaram seu conteúdo para forjar um escândalo onde não havia.
Com a eleição americana e o plebiscito do Brexit, 2016 se mostrou o ano em que a ciberguerra eleitoral russa mostrou suas garras.
A mágica
Não existe argumentos sólidos para determinar que a Rússia tenha o poder de definir os resultados de qualquer pleito. E, em sua estratégia, isto é o menos importante. A mágica do processo é fragmentar. Não são poucos os governos que denunciaram estas tentativas. França, Espanha, Bulgária, Itália, Holanda, República Tcheca. A lista é grande.
O Brasil
O cliente da vez chegou. Bolsonaro não precisa pedir a Putin que interfira nas eleições brasileiras. Ter um presidente brasileiro que não se dá com Washington já lhe interessa de saída..
O ministro que assumirá a presidência do Tribunal Superior Eleitoral, Edson Fachin, afirma que já há tentativa de interferência russa no processo eleitoral brasileiro.
E o jogo está apenas começando...
O histórico de interferência dos "mágicos" do Kremlin em processos eleitorais é imenso.
A primeira vez que a Rússia de Vladimir Putin se intrometeu em campanhas eleitorais no Ocidente foi em 2014, no referendo escocês que, por 55% a 45%, definiu que o país seguiria como parte do Reino Unido. Os detalhes do que ocorreu não são conhecidos. O governo britânico reconhece oficialmente ter informação.
Em 2020, um comitê do Parlamento britânico publicou um relatório sobre atividades russas no pleito da ilha. Foi uma desancada no governo de Boris Johnson. É que também há comprovação de que agentes de Putin operaram pesado no plebiscito que decidiu o Brexit. O Partido Conservador, o relatório sugere, teme descobrir que desinformação bancada por interesses de uma país estrangeiro é o que deu ao grupo no poder sua vitória.
A divisão
Putin atua, também, na divisão para enfraquecer seus adversários. A Escócia fora do Reino Unido lhe interessa. O Reino Unido fora da União Européia lhe interessa. Uma França em confusão política lhe interessa. É o processo de fortalecimento de lideranças com propensões antidemocráticas. Entre Donald Trump e Hillary Clinton, com os EUA em convulsão social e um Partido Republicano dividido em dois, Putin não tem dúvida do que prefere.
O Facebook
O Facebook admitiu, embora tenha demorado, que houve compra de publicidade pró-Trump paga em dinheiro russo. Além disso, hackers do governo russo invadiram os servidores do Partido Democrata, roubaram e-mails e vazaram seu conteúdo para forjar um escândalo onde não havia.
Com a eleição americana e o plebiscito do Brexit, 2016 se mostrou o ano em que a ciberguerra eleitoral russa mostrou suas garras.
A mágica
Não existe argumentos sólidos para determinar que a Rússia tenha o poder de definir os resultados de qualquer pleito. E, em sua estratégia, isto é o menos importante. A mágica do processo é fragmentar. Não são poucos os governos que denunciaram estas tentativas. França, Espanha, Bulgária, Itália, Holanda, República Tcheca. A lista é grande.
O Brasil
O cliente da vez chegou. Bolsonaro não precisa pedir a Putin que interfira nas eleições brasileiras. Ter um presidente brasileiro que não se dá com Washington já lhe interessa de saída..
O ministro que assumirá a presidência do Tribunal Superior Eleitoral, Edson Fachin, afirma que já há tentativa de interferência russa no processo eleitoral brasileiro.
E o jogo está apenas começando...
March 27, 2019
An important book by a serious scholar. She has a sophisticated political science understanding of how social media, or any media, influence public opinion. She is not positing a magic syringe that injects anti-Clinton, pro-Trump ideas into people's minds. Instead, she is showing how social media can amplify certain themes, downplay others, set the agenda, mobilize some constituencies, and discourage other constituencies from participating.
Jamieson also paints a horrifying picture of how the Russians released damaging emails about Clinton (not about Trump) at just the right time to get the moderators of the Presidential debates focused on those and not the policy positions or qualifications of the candidates. The Russians and the Trump campaign also poured tons of ads into big media markets and swing states in the weeks just before the election.
Whether the effect was large enough and targeted enough to make the difference in the 2016 elections is something she cannot methodologically prove but clearly believes. After reading the book, I think it’s possible.
Jamieson concedes that the Clinton campaign made bad choices which contributed to her defeat. (I am still shaking my head over how she could essentially make the same mistake twice, first against Obama in 2008 and then Trump in 2016: running up her national vote totals instead of winning state by state.) The author says, in essence, that when the hackers and trolls followed a rational strategy aimed at producing a certain outcome and that outcome occurs, it strains credulity that it occurred on its own, without their having an influence.
Jamieson does not write good prose, but she makes good sense. I hope Democratic strategists are reading this book. Social media, too, have taken only baby steps to prevent losing the cyberwar. And mainstream media, who mistook propaganda for public opinion, need to do much, much better from now on.
Jamieson also paints a horrifying picture of how the Russians released damaging emails about Clinton (not about Trump) at just the right time to get the moderators of the Presidential debates focused on those and not the policy positions or qualifications of the candidates. The Russians and the Trump campaign also poured tons of ads into big media markets and swing states in the weeks just before the election.
Whether the effect was large enough and targeted enough to make the difference in the 2016 elections is something she cannot methodologically prove but clearly believes. After reading the book, I think it’s possible.
Jamieson concedes that the Clinton campaign made bad choices which contributed to her defeat. (I am still shaking my head over how she could essentially make the same mistake twice, first against Obama in 2008 and then Trump in 2016: running up her national vote totals instead of winning state by state.) The author says, in essence, that when the hackers and trolls followed a rational strategy aimed at producing a certain outcome and that outcome occurs, it strains credulity that it occurred on its own, without their having an influence.
Jamieson does not write good prose, but she makes good sense. I hope Democratic strategists are reading this book. Social media, too, have taken only baby steps to prevent losing the cyberwar. And mainstream media, who mistook propaganda for public opinion, need to do much, much better from now on.
October 25, 2020
This is one of those books that, if you agree with the premise (that Russian interference helped elect Donald Trump as President), you will read and enjoy, in an outraged sort of way. If you don't believe the premise, then you probably won't read it to begin with. The author is a researcher in the areas of how advertising and other information can persuade people, and she demonstrates convincingly that Russian interference influenced the election of Trump. Although there's not a straight statistical line between the Russian interference, the amplification of their and other false messages on social media and in the conservative media, and the 78,000 votes that Trump needed to swing the Electoral College (but not the popular vote) in his favor, it's clear that it happened based on all the circumstantial evidence and what direct evidence there is. The author is trying to be restrained in drawing her conclusions, but the evidence seems undeniable. This paperback edition has been updated and expanded with information that was revealed between the publication of the hardback and paperback editions, which just added fuel to the fire--things like more Russian-created accounts on Facebook that hadn't yet been revealed for what they were. The election of Trump is frightening on its own, and the Russian help he received is frightening, too, but the really discouraging thing is that Congress and others with the power to do so have done so little to prevent this from happening again. Even though the media have said they would avoid the mistakes they made during the 2016 campaign, as of this writing (eleven days before the 2020 election), they don't seem to have learned their lessons very well.
October 29, 2018
"Cyberwar" is a scholarly attempt to assess whether Russian interference changed the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. As Jamieson makes clear, we will never definitively know whether Russian hackers caused Trump to be elected President. "Cyberwar" makes a fairly compelling case that Russian interference probably helped Trump win.
To begin with, the Russian bots and fictitious social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter worked almost in tandem with Trump's campaign messaging. Russia exhibited a sophistication not only in targeted messaging to encourage voting for Trump but also to discourage voting for Clinton. The most tangible effects of Russian interference derived from the hacking of the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta. These leaks provided a steady drumbeat of negative press against Clinton during a critical period where a large percentage of undecided voters were choosing between two unpalatable candidates. Jamieson makes a fairly convincing case that Russia also planted the seeds that led to James Comey holding the extraordinary press conferences regarding the FBI's investigation into Clinton's email account, of which the October 28th press conference undoubtedly shifted the election to Trump. (To be sure, she does not absolve Hillary Clinton for the various missteps she made that contributed to her losing the electoral vote.)
"Cyberwar" is not perfect. It is fairly dry. Jamieson tends to engage in a lot of awkward "signposting" that reads like a high school term paper. If you want to learn how Russia affected the election, "Cyberwar" is an excellent starting point.
To begin with, the Russian bots and fictitious social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter worked almost in tandem with Trump's campaign messaging. Russia exhibited a sophistication not only in targeted messaging to encourage voting for Trump but also to discourage voting for Clinton. The most tangible effects of Russian interference derived from the hacking of the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta. These leaks provided a steady drumbeat of negative press against Clinton during a critical period where a large percentage of undecided voters were choosing between two unpalatable candidates. Jamieson makes a fairly convincing case that Russia also planted the seeds that led to James Comey holding the extraordinary press conferences regarding the FBI's investigation into Clinton's email account, of which the October 28th press conference undoubtedly shifted the election to Trump. (To be sure, she does not absolve Hillary Clinton for the various missteps she made that contributed to her losing the electoral vote.)
"Cyberwar" is not perfect. It is fairly dry. Jamieson tends to engage in a lot of awkward "signposting" that reads like a high school term paper. If you want to learn how Russia affected the election, "Cyberwar" is an excellent starting point.
October 29, 2018
Much commentary on the Russian "interference" in the 2016 election goes something like this: "Yes, the Russians hacked Hilary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but it did not alter the ultimate outcome. That was up to the voters themselves." Jamieson meticulously demolishes that position, marshalling facts, figures, and theories on media and human behavior to say that American voters were likely swayed by the Russian attacks, the media narrative and framing of those attacks, and a certain false equivalency prevalent in American media.
What is so shocking is the expertise the Russians had in their influence campaign: attacking constituencies in key swing states; understanding the disgruntled nature of Bernie Sanders supporters; using the rules of social media (likes, re-tweets, etc.) in a potent missile of misinformation and deceit.
One of the most convincing passages in the book comes in the form of a hypothetical: imagine how Richard Nixon would have been able to sway the 1960 election if his campaign had come into possession of confidential campaign information and embarrassing disclosures about John F. Kennedy. Often., there is a narrative that the Russians did interfere in the 2016 election, but it did not tilt the scales. That view, according to Jamieson, is not merely naïve, but dangerously underestimates the Russians' provocative campaign against political stability in the United States.
What is so shocking is the expertise the Russians had in their influence campaign: attacking constituencies in key swing states; understanding the disgruntled nature of Bernie Sanders supporters; using the rules of social media (likes, re-tweets, etc.) in a potent missile of misinformation and deceit.
One of the most convincing passages in the book comes in the form of a hypothetical: imagine how Richard Nixon would have been able to sway the 1960 election if his campaign had come into possession of confidential campaign information and embarrassing disclosures about John F. Kennedy. Often., there is a narrative that the Russians did interfere in the 2016 election, but it did not tilt the scales. That view, according to Jamieson, is not merely naïve, but dangerously underestimates the Russians' provocative campaign against political stability in the United States.
January 27, 2019
As an avid reader of everything I can find about the 2016 presidential election I find myself concluding that the Russian government under the direction of Vladimir Putin interfered in said election to the benefit of Trump and the detriment of Clinton. However, despite my intense feelings on this subject, I was unable to conclude with certainty that the efforts by the Russians did in fact help elect Trump. However, after reading this book, I have no doubt that in this close electoral college victory, the Russian impact did in fact have enough of an impact that they helped sway enough votes to elect Trump. The author looks at and explains how the Russian's efforts were aided by our press, social media platforms, the candidates themselves, the political parties and the public who was extremely polarized making them susceptible to "fake news." This is a brilliant scholarly look at the last election with advise from the author on how to avoid this happening again.
March 20, 2019
Stunning, excruciatingly detailed logical proof of Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election. I grant five stars because of the importance of this issue, though frankly the detailed nature of the analysis is excruciating -- the author covers and re-covers the same ground from multiple directions, effectively answering all imaginable logical objections to the conclusion.
Unfortunately, Trump supporters are unlikely to read the full analysis, so the effort merely reinforces the beliefs of the majority; however, the extensive proof can affect the Academy, providing students with an example of full analysis. Perhaps a conversative scholar can be convinced of the likelihood, and thus temper his support of the current regime.
Unfortunately, Trump supporters are unlikely to read the full analysis, so the effort merely reinforces the beliefs of the majority; however, the extensive proof can affect the Academy, providing students with an example of full analysis. Perhaps a conversative scholar can be convinced of the likelihood, and thus temper his support of the current regime.
June 17, 2019
This is a detailed academic analysis of what happened in the 2016 election by someone who has been doing this kind of thing for decades. The bottomline is that Americans, not Russians, elected Donald Trump. He was assisted by circumstances, Hillary Clinton's self-destructive mistakes, James Comey, the mainstream press, and Russians. There is no doubt that the Russian propaganda campaign, waged to help Donald Trump and harm Hillary Clinton, is one of the main factors in his victory. The Russians attacked us and waged war. It is time that the tame terms of "interference," assistance,""collusion," etc., are replaced with the terms of war that more correctly describe what the Russians, and other foreign governments are doing, because they have not stopped.
January 14, 2019
A scholarly report on the Russian hacking of the 2016 election. She tackles the important question of whether the combination of troll activity on the internet and the hacking of DNC emails materially influenced the outcome. Her conclusion is that it probably did.
Its too bad she (or someone) isn't able to take a more statistical approach to the problem, because I think it would be more convincing.
I actually think one can get the gist of it from reading her important article in the New Yorker, which I found more readable. The book is very important because of the subject, but most of it is in a dry social science prose that I found often sleep inducing.
Its too bad she (or someone) isn't able to take a more statistical approach to the problem, because I think it would be more convincing.
I actually think one can get the gist of it from reading her important article in the New Yorker, which I found more readable. The book is very important because of the subject, but most of it is in a dry social science prose that I found often sleep inducing.
October 1, 2018
Further erosion of our democracy
Jamieson Cyber-War. How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President
Our eroded democracy, which is pretty much already an oligarchy, was ripe for attack by Russia. Professor Jamieson presents comprehensive facts to support her thesis. A main concern was, “the news media who inadvertently helped them achieve their goals” by the bread and circus atmosphere of the 24/7 news cycle. She painstakingly explores who, what, how and why the attacks this time were successful. I appreciated the scholarship of this work and recommend it.
Jamieson Cyber-War. How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President
Our eroded democracy, which is pretty much already an oligarchy, was ripe for attack by Russia. Professor Jamieson presents comprehensive facts to support her thesis. A main concern was, “the news media who inadvertently helped them achieve their goals” by the bread and circus atmosphere of the 24/7 news cycle. She painstakingly explores who, what, how and why the attacks this time were successful. I appreciated the scholarship of this work and recommend it.
November 20, 2018
Meticulously researched, this is an indispensable source for actual data on how hackers, trolls, the media, and our understanding of how best to manipulate public opinion converged in the 2016 presidential election. From "agenda setting, framing, message priming, message weighting, debates, negative information, contagion, peer influence, and the spiral of silence" to "Kremlin-tied interventions," the data are conclusive that the deliberate attempts to alter the outcome of the election were successful.
March 13, 2021
The acknowledgments at the beginning really shows how much this kind of research is a large team effort. Her name is on the cover but it’s the work of a large group of people.
It was dense and hard to read because it’s really a research report more than a book written for the general public to enjoy reading. But that’s also what makes it so important and valuable. Not a light read, but a terrific analysis of what happened, important for the historical record. I wish the general public was better able to enjoy it too, as it’s important for everyone to understand.
It was dense and hard to read because it’s really a research report more than a book written for the general public to enjoy reading. But that’s also what makes it so important and valuable. Not a light read, but a terrific analysis of what happened, important for the historical record. I wish the general public was better able to enjoy it too, as it’s important for everyone to understand.
February 21, 2020
For all the times this book may occasionally lull you into a daydream by it’s more repetitive facts, the information being provided is enough to keep you attentive throughout. With each page I found myself yearning to know more about actually takes place in our politics, and increasingly mind blown by the information being presented. Anyone who wants to know more about the current state of our country should read this book.
October 25, 2018
An excellent non-partisan investigation of how the Russians influenced the 2016 presidential race. Its only problem is that it's SCHOLARLY — which means there are many facts and figures, redundancies, and ambiguities, which makes it a difficult read for a lay audience, Being a scholar, myself, I found its argument quite convincing.
July 4, 2019
Not an easy book to read on all fronts: dense and academic, while at the same time being a true horror story, terrifying enough to challenge Stephen King. Bottom line, the Russians committed an overwhelming act of war and the U. S. response was, "eh." And guess what? The Russkies are locked and loaded and prepared to do it all over again. Welcome to the oligarchy, comrade.
February 12, 2020
Enjoyable and very educational academic perspective of election interference and misinformation. Felt a little repetitive at times but the arguments and evidence were usually easy enough to follow regardless.
December 29, 2020
First-rate analysis. Yes, the Rooskies tried to aid Trump in 2016. Here are the categories of efforts they made and examples from each. Here is an estimate of their effects. No, we can't say whether they were decisive. Jamieson writes authoritatively, but she's a bit trying stylistically. Read it if you're a politics junkie; skip it if you're not.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews