There was a time, in a galaxy far, far away, where media fact checkers devoted their time exclusively to verifying the accuracy of their employer‘s product (e.g., The Washington Post), not the statements of others. Some of those publications employed an ombudsman who publicly took their employers to the woodshed whenever they botched their coverage of specific event (e.g., the Duke lacrosse team sex scandal).
Also—and I know this seems quaint—editors routinely ripped a cub reporter a new one whenever he submitted a story containing adjectives and adverbs. Tell the story, present the facts, and trust your subscribers‘ ability to determine who is right and who is wrong. Finally, if you really wish to regain the public‘s trust, own your mistakes.
The false conspiratorial people are de minimis from my view. They get amplified buy the actual problem demographic that propagandize the playing field in their quest to be the real demanding architects of societal and economic design.
Both political sides of these real participants want the same things... the goals are generally shared with only a few conflicts. For example, both would like to see an end to homelessness.
The difference is the "how"... the path to get it done.
And here is where I see a problem with "disinformation". Often the issue of disinformation is what is missing. Using the example of homelessness, what is missing is the large body of evidence that the "how" advocated by the left side of the actual societal change architects has been a dismal failure. What is missing is the stories of how other countries like Finland and Switzerland have been successful with their policies on homelessness. What is missing is honest analysis of the potential for the right-side "how" to solve the problems.
The root cause of this type of disinformation is that the mainstream media is dominated by the left. And the left refuses to give any media air to validate any right-side solutions.
Even today, after the people have essentially elected a right-side solutions platform, the mainstream media is still involved in shooting holes into every policy idea and ignoring the still glaring evidence that left side policies for states and cities has resulted in a precipitous decline of almost every societal health indicator.
California and New York are a mess of crime, homelessness and disasters made worse by crappy governance... but hey, those fascist, Nazi MAGA types are a threat to democracy!
Rob, why do you think the Old Media gaslight the general public on the origins of Covid-19 for years and years? This is the height of misinformation in last several years, and it was coordinated.
Could it be that people have their own minds and don’t need others to label something good information vs “misinformation?” The terminology is insulting to most people who went to high school or college. Like they have no brain cells to ponder what’s true.
You're appropriately critical of some aspects of the discourse around misinformation, but the analysis is hindered by its acceptance of the concept of "misinformation" more or less at face value. The official designation of true statements such as "Covid came from the Wuhan lab," "President Biden is incapacitated by cognitive impairment," and "Lia Thomas is a man" as "misinformation" are all themselves, of course, instances of misinformation, and therefore the whole concept needs to be dealt with at a further step of critical remove.
Maybe it's because you were trying to pitch to the readers and editors of the Boston Globe, and you know that telling them that "'Misinformation' is a word that propagandists use to discredit anything that contradicts their propaganda, and is almost always used to justify arguments in favor of censorship and the suppression of free speech" wouldn't make it into print.
But still, the overall effect of this article supports the idea that "misinformation" is basically what the pro-censorship propagandists say it is.
It seems urgent to always discuss "misinformation" straightforwardly: People who use the word "misinformation" uncritically are almost always pushing official lies while simultaneously calling for the suppression of speech that contradicts those lies.
"Misinformation experts" are virtually all pro-censorship propagandists. (Trust me on this, I'm a misinformation expert expert.)
All false information is misinformation. This article fails to give specifics, like in comments Covid came from a Wuhan Lab. Dems, not so much Reps, have been claiming this Covid Origin theory is misinformation. Your Globe article doesn’t address it, and likely the misinfo research doesn’t either, for some lousy excuse or other (tho the real reason is to avoid criticism of Dems).
When policy is made with assumptions that are false, such policy is almost certain to fail. Like the false assumption “avg IQs of all races are essentially the same, 100”. The near total failure of society to address the needs of low IQ folk, of all races, is because the false equality assumption leads to policy failures which lead to greater policy failures, and even more false assumptions like “poor IQ scores of Blacks are due to systemic racism”.
What society needs to find are policies that result in more marriages, far fewer kids born out of wedlock, and reduce criminality among poor, low IQ guys, of all races.
It’s good for Meta to copy the more successful X community notes.
Isn’t it interesting if you consider the insulting nature of what’s presented to you as “information “ vs “disinformation “ decided by someone other than you and likely less experienced or educated than you? Insulting.
There was a time, in a galaxy far, far away, where media fact checkers devoted their time exclusively to verifying the accuracy of their employer‘s product (e.g., The Washington Post), not the statements of others. Some of those publications employed an ombudsman who publicly took their employers to the woodshed whenever they botched their coverage of specific event (e.g., the Duke lacrosse team sex scandal).
Also—and I know this seems quaint—editors routinely ripped a cub reporter a new one whenever he submitted a story containing adjectives and adverbs. Tell the story, present the facts, and trust your subscribers‘ ability to determine who is right and who is wrong. Finally, if you really wish to regain the public‘s trust, own your mistakes.
Hey, I can dream can‘t I?
Excellent commentary Eric!
The false conspiratorial people are de minimis from my view. They get amplified buy the actual problem demographic that propagandize the playing field in their quest to be the real demanding architects of societal and economic design.
Both political sides of these real participants want the same things... the goals are generally shared with only a few conflicts. For example, both would like to see an end to homelessness.
The difference is the "how"... the path to get it done.
And here is where I see a problem with "disinformation". Often the issue of disinformation is what is missing. Using the example of homelessness, what is missing is the large body of evidence that the "how" advocated by the left side of the actual societal change architects has been a dismal failure. What is missing is the stories of how other countries like Finland and Switzerland have been successful with their policies on homelessness. What is missing is honest analysis of the potential for the right-side "how" to solve the problems.
The root cause of this type of disinformation is that the mainstream media is dominated by the left. And the left refuses to give any media air to validate any right-side solutions.
Even today, after the people have essentially elected a right-side solutions platform, the mainstream media is still involved in shooting holes into every policy idea and ignoring the still glaring evidence that left side policies for states and cities has resulted in a precipitous decline of almost every societal health indicator.
California and New York are a mess of crime, homelessness and disasters made worse by crappy governance... but hey, those fascist, Nazi MAGA types are a threat to democracy!
Rob, why do you think the Old Media gaslight the general public on the origins of Covid-19 for years and years? This is the height of misinformation in last several years, and it was coordinated.
https://youtu.be/zl-X-Lgrlf0?si=LCRn5wPArVdOAQ41
Could it be that people have their own minds and don’t need others to label something good information vs “misinformation?” The terminology is insulting to most people who went to high school or college. Like they have no brain cells to ponder what’s true.
You're appropriately critical of some aspects of the discourse around misinformation, but the analysis is hindered by its acceptance of the concept of "misinformation" more or less at face value. The official designation of true statements such as "Covid came from the Wuhan lab," "President Biden is incapacitated by cognitive impairment," and "Lia Thomas is a man" as "misinformation" are all themselves, of course, instances of misinformation, and therefore the whole concept needs to be dealt with at a further step of critical remove.
Maybe it's because you were trying to pitch to the readers and editors of the Boston Globe, and you know that telling them that "'Misinformation' is a word that propagandists use to discredit anything that contradicts their propaganda, and is almost always used to justify arguments in favor of censorship and the suppression of free speech" wouldn't make it into print.
But still, the overall effect of this article supports the idea that "misinformation" is basically what the pro-censorship propagandists say it is.
It seems urgent to always discuss "misinformation" straightforwardly: People who use the word "misinformation" uncritically are almost always pushing official lies while simultaneously calling for the suppression of speech that contradicts those lies.
"Misinformation experts" are virtually all pro-censorship propagandists. (Trust me on this, I'm a misinformation expert expert.)
All false information is misinformation. This article fails to give specifics, like in comments Covid came from a Wuhan Lab. Dems, not so much Reps, have been claiming this Covid Origin theory is misinformation. Your Globe article doesn’t address it, and likely the misinfo research doesn’t either, for some lousy excuse or other (tho the real reason is to avoid criticism of Dems).
When policy is made with assumptions that are false, such policy is almost certain to fail. Like the false assumption “avg IQs of all races are essentially the same, 100”. The near total failure of society to address the needs of low IQ folk, of all races, is because the false equality assumption leads to policy failures which lead to greater policy failures, and even more false assumptions like “poor IQ scores of Blacks are due to systemic racism”.
What society needs to find are policies that result in more marriages, far fewer kids born out of wedlock, and reduce criminality among poor, low IQ guys, of all races.
It’s good for Meta to copy the more successful X community notes.
Isn’t it interesting if you consider the insulting nature of what’s presented to you as “information “ vs “disinformation “ decided by someone other than you and likely less experienced or educated than you? Insulting.