Wash Post Finally Admits Russians Had Very Little Influence On 2016 Election

Whaddayaknow! The Washington Post has finally caught up with reality. On 1/9, they published an analysis of their coverage of "Russiagate," which revealed that  Russian trolls didn't sway the 2016 election. The Washington Post won a Pulitzer for its coverage of the supposed scandal. I wonder if they will give the Pulitzer back and maybe a public apology.

The key findings of the Post's analysis were much clearer than their anonymous reports about Trump and Russia.

Key findings of the report:

• Only 1 percent of Twitter users accounted for 70 percent of the exposure to accounts that Twitter identified as Russian troll accounts.
• Highly partisan Republicans were exposed to nine times more posts than non-Republicans.
• Content from the news media and U.S. politicians dwarfed the amount of Russian influence content the electorate was exposed to during the 2016 race.
• There was no measurable impact on "political attitudes, polarization, and vote preferences and behavior" from the Russian accounts and posts.

'Only 1 percent of Twitter users accounted for 70 percent of the exposure to accounts that Twitter identified as Russian troll accounts.'

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

(...) "Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning," Sparks wrote.

After 30 years in the advertising media business, I can assure you that in 2016 advertising on social media would not help a candidate generate a broad audience of voters. Oh, and the report claims most of those "exposed to these [pro-Trump ads and content] were really, really likely to vote for Trump."

'Content from the news media and U.S. politicians dwarfed the amount of Russian influence content the electorate was exposed to during the 2016 race.'

After the Washington Post report. Glenn Greenwald, no supporter of Trump, issued an angry tweet about the media coverage of the "scandal."

"Highly partisan Republicans were exposed to nine times more posts than non-Republicans."

During the 2016 campaign, most of Trump's support was intractable. At a 9 to 1 exposure ratio toward highly partisan Republicans, that Russian effort seems like it was nothing but a waste of Rubles.

Considering the above, it is no surprise that "There was no measurable impact on "political attitudes, polarization, and vote preferences and behavior" from the Russian accounts and posts."

There should be apologies to Mr.Trump from the mainstream media. In fact, Congressional Democrats should apologize also. But unless you like blue skin, "don't hold your breath."