After ridiculous accusations that the US "Russian hackers" were bent on "cracking" the elections, the attention of the Russophobes from the Capitol Hill turned to the search for even more strange attempts by the Russian Federation to "interfere" in American politics.
So, now almost all media giants and IT companies are "digging" in the direction of who ordered advertising from social networks and leading corporations ahead of the election. Allegedly the activity of Russian entrepreneurs in the purchase of advertising spots was somehow connected with the attempts of the Russian government to influence American voters.
Actually, the "Russian hackers", which are almost blamed for a year that the new leader was Donald Trump, have come to the fore. On the first came the usual Russian businessmen and advertising agents who bought "ads that affect the election." Such nonsense we have not heard.
And this nonsense is not written by anyone - but by the influential newspaper The New York Times.
Google, you see, found evidence that Russia bought ads that affected American voters. The very advertisement for "interference in elections".
At the same time, interestingly, the corporation did not find ANY advertisement that would be bought, in fact, by "Russia" - the country or the Kremlin hated by the States. There is also no evidence that the purchased advertising was generally aimed at influencing the electoral processes in the United States. But the title of the famous publication, of course, is silent on this.
Now, however, under the sights were not just "hackers" who made noise last year, but some "Russian agents."
"Google found evidence that Russian agents bought ads in its comprehensive networks to intervene in the campaign for the election of the president of 2016."
Who are these "Russian agents"? Does such a term simply not exist? Are they any operatives or public relations specialists secretly working for the Kremlin?
"Using Accounts that are believed to be related to the Russian government, agents bought advertising in the search engine and placement of mock-up advertisements on the open spaces of the network for a total amount of 4,700 $, according to a person familiar with the request of the company ... "
The key phrase in this wonderful paragraph of The New York Times is "HOW TO PROMOTE". Who believes? How are ads related to the government? If to be honest, is not a citizen of a country or an organization connected, in one way or another, with his government, with his state?
But more surprises another: what kind of ads that could affect the election of the US president, cost 4,7 thousand dollars? This is a joke? Google's revenue last year amounted to 89 billion dollars, total costs - about 6 billion. The campaign of Hillary Clinton spent 480 thousand dollars on ads in social networks. But no, the "Russian" advertising in Google for 4,7 thousand, of course, caused a serious damage to democracy. The most real intervention.
Further, as they say, more.
"Google found ads purchased for 53,000 $ with political material that were acquired through Russian Internet addresses, addresses on the map or using the Russian currency. It is unclear whether any of the detected ads is associated with the Russian government, but, it is possible, they were acquired by Russian citizens, the source said "
Thus, The New York Times is trying to convince us that "Russian agents" purchased "political advertising" for a total of 53 thousand dollars to help Mr. Trump.
The funny thing is that it is indicated that from 53 thousand dollars 7 was spent on ads that were supposed to promote the documentary "You've Been Trumped" about the president's efforts to create a golf course in Scotland along the "ecologically sensitive" shoreline. Others 36 thousand dollars went to those advertising records that were to question the usefulness of Barack Obama's departure from office. Another part of the amount was spent on promoting political goods for Obama.
The film is against Trump, doubts about the need for Obama's departure from the post of president, the promotion of Obama's goods. All this, probably, brought a good income to some businessmen. But, excuse me, where does Trump support come from? At least 43 thousand dollars, which were invested in advertising "Russian agents", went to promote materials against the new head of the White House. How does this relate to the fact that Russia helped to elect Trump? Vladimir Putin pressed the wrong button, and the money went wrong?
I would very much like influential publications such as The New York Times to stop disgracing, continuing to develop a tantrum over "supposedly Russian" influence on the will of the Americans in November 2016. And it would be okay to blame simply calmly, but find "evidence". Which, however, does not say more about what our country has to blame, but about the fact that in the pursuit of a grant from the government, the idiocy of a number of American journalists simply does not know the boundaries. Well, at least sorted out the facts, gentlemen! It's a shame.