A fantastic tweet in response to a journalist's incendiary tweet targeting Labour based on a rumor that she didn't bother to fact-check. Although a darker reading is: is this a new ruse to spread disinformation and coyly get away with it by apologizing after it has gone viral, i.e. disinformation success.
Twitter @mrdavidwhitley "I'm hearing reports that the BBC's political editor has hacked a horse to death with a machete. I've made no effort to establish whether they're true or not, but I've typed it out and shared it with tens of thousands of followers anyway."
1
False rumor?
Jo Swinson owns two packs of Maltipoos and is often seen out riding to the teacups. Squirrels could be an appropriate choice of game.
Social media is the curse of our age. In fact, the internet overall, in spite of its usefulness for valid information (when you can assess validity) probably does more harm than good. I wish it had never been invented. It has done more to doom real learning, information gathering in depth and critical thinking than any other factor I can think of (including budget cuts to education.)
This article itself is spreading disinformation. Unbelievable. The documents that Labour presented about the NHS and US-UK trade talks were indisputably authentic. Everyone accepts they are authentic. Some claim with no evidence that these authentic documents were leaked by Russian sources. But even if that is true, there’s no “disinformation” - as, to repeat, nobody disputes these documents are authentic.
2
If facebook wants to advertise on news sites make them pay for the space instead of pretending those links are free a free service.
My guess is that you don't see this in anywhere near the volume in countries like Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc.
The difference is morals.
Have you forgotten the previous use of misinformation in the first Brexit campaign? Remember the elements and consider where they are planned for use today. University students were limited in their ability to vote. Cambridge Analytica used to identify Sense One criteria for use in controlling key groups of voters. Absolute falsehood was practiced by Rupert's tabloids which now include Gannett, Sinclair, and Sanchez media. Find the "troll" remarks in the comments to this column and try to identify the Bots producing propaganda in every form of social media. Please understand this process has been used successfully in Australia, Britain, and the US and is poised to support Johnson in Britain this year and Trump in the US next year. Remember the Mercers bought CA and the Koch brothers developed i360 to control your vote. They will continue to control you until you take the steps to confirm your sources and the truth.
1
It's nice to know the staid and stoic Brits are as brain-scrambled as we are by political life in the internet age. Misery loves company, as they say. Let's all hope there is a learning curve of some sort to be mastered here. The current downward spiral, if it continues unabated, will eventually drill down through the planet's outer crust into its molten core. That might not be good.
2
Welcome, Britain, the the world our politicians have embraced for decades. Since the picture of a nuclear bomb going off in the background while little girl picked flowers, politicians have used the media to make outrageous, misleading or completely false statements about political opponents.
Nothing was beneath the tactics which have been routinely used b our politicians. In fact, I will state, at the risk of being labeled a heretic, that such statements effected the 2016 election exponentially more than any Russian interference.
Yet, we point the finger outward to deflect attention away from our own disgraceful behavior.
Again, welcome Britain. You will soon learn, as have we, that once you this practice begins, it will go on and on , and your
principles will be forever compromised.
1
Yes, the NYT comments provide excellent fodder for thought, but they also represent an echo chamber for willful obliviousness to the left’s very practiced use of similar tactics.
Labor is also cited in this piece as propagating blatant falsehoods, and NYT’s Scott Shane’s excellent piece on the FBI’s relationship with Christopher Steele of the “Steele dossier” reminds us how in 2016 the DNC/Hillary via FusionGPS instigated, then publicized, an amalgamation of fiction and fact to make (perhaps push) Trump into being a Manchurian Candidate.
FusionGPS’s effort is not equivalent to the alternate reality being currently spun by Barr and DoJ, but this is not a debate about the lesser of two evils being redemptive for democracy. The Steele Dossier seems to have laid a slippery slope along the faultlines of social media. This was bound to instigate a massive landslide of disinformation in its wake.
2
The earliest and most active political assasination by disinformation efforts are from Hong Kong and Taiwan; the target is their motherland China. From bloody pictures of bodies claiming Chinese organ-transplanted religious/cult believers’ while they are still alive, to the rumors that Chinese couldn't afford to eat the tea eggs, which are popular food in Taiwan but not so on China. The most distorting or exaggerating news is the ones about Chinese locked up millions of muslim minorities and masscred them in concentration camps, even when BBC Chinese went to interview those vocational boarding schools as China claimed, they found out they are truly so. But BBC reporter still painted them from a highly suspicious color. All these misinformation efforts result in what now you see on Hong Kong streets:massive protests,against local pro-China goverment and police, and the pro-separation party kept winning the elections.
There is nothing "surprising" in this story.
This has been going on for decades:
June 3, 2004,
"False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! – Or Maybe Not"
"Here’s a fact that may surprise you: Candidates have a legal right to lie to voters just about as much as they want."
"...there’s no such truth-in-advertising law governing federal candidates. They can legally lie about almost anything they want. In fact, the Federal Communications Act even requires broadcasters who run candidate ads to show them uncensored, even if the broadcasters believe their content to be offensive or false."
https://www.factcheck.org/2004/06/false-ads-there-oughta-be-a-law-or-maybe-not/
The notion that "deceptive ads" and "disinformation" are a new online phenomenon is absurd.
Despite the attempt at “both-siderism”, it seems like it is the Conservative Party that is doing this, just as in the US it is the right that embraces misleading and outright fake propaganda. The left has facts so the lies aren’t necessary.
Why don't you watch your own disinformation:
"The Labour Party, too, has been tied to the spread of misleading information....The documents turned out to be linked to a Russian disinformation campaign. "
The authenticity of the documents has not been questioned and they were from the beginning represented as leaked information, which they were. So this is not a matter of Labour spreading false information, i.e. disinformation, it is more a matter of Russian meddling. I think you knew that (based on your paragraphs way below), but you just needed a way to get Labour involved, to "both sides" the issue. Congratulations.
The whole Brexit will help NHS lie was transparent from the get-go. Lafarge (sp), his whole party, Boris, NEVER had an actual plan to transfer those hundreds of millions of pounds per year to the NHS.
It was always, 'You could use that money to improve the NHS!'
You could, could you?
In some world you could, but not a Conservative party world, where destruction of NHS has been a top priority for years.
Nothing new to see here. Yellow journalism- the Spanish American war. The NYT pushing war in Afghanistan and WMD's in Iraq. We the people have been flooded with fake news since forever. Thomas Jefferson backed a fake news newspaper 219 years ago. Hyperbole and rhetoric have been part of politics since forever. Pay attention, review many news sources. Acknowledge both sides do this, Democrats and Republicans. Mueller found no evidence Trump colluded with Russia yet the learned readers of the NYT cite as imperial fact that Trump did. Some percentage will always be pulled astray but the average person shifts through it all. Hillary did win the popular vote.
1
Vote for the party and politician(s) that lie the least. This means you are going to have fact check everything.
Sounds like these guys have a copy of the FOX-trump playbook.
1
This is exactly why we need a technology department within the cabinet. We are doing less on cybersecurity than we are doing on climate change. Our future wars will be with this type of weaponry and will do more damage to our way of life than nuclear bombs. This is exactly why we need Andrew Yang--he knows what to do.
4
While Labour using planted Fake News is not particularly blameworthy, Corbyn's outright dishonesty in making oifficial Labour Brexit Policy more than justifies the apparent severe whipping he is leading his party to. That alone is why I would never trust him and would never vote for him.
He does not want the Tories to lead, but he won't do anything a Leader might because he really doesn't know how, and that very fact confirms his unfit for service.
1
Labour did NOT use “planted fake news”. Nobody has claimed that those documents are anything but authentic. And your failure to understand the really clear and simple Labour Brexit policy is really your problem.
As a literary critic and a Facebook user, I would say that there is a substantive difference between what this article is calling 'disinformation' and the slander masquerading as news that was spread in the last US election cycle. Most of the adverts I have been seeing have some element that makes it clear they are exaggerated or parodic (like Boris's big head in the last one). This is very different from disinformation, which tries to seem real. The screenshot this article posts from the Momentum video is a case in point. Boris's big head is not trying to seem like a deepfake. The terms of this article feel imported from some (well-founded) American anxieties about foreign meddling, and therefore it misunderstands the context of British political culture, which has always been conducted in a spirit of satire.
4
When the internet first turned up everyone was so happy that they now could get their news without the "filter" of journalists. Well, here we are. This is what happens when there are no trained and educated professionals following ethical rules to determine what the facts are and who is a reliable source.
7
As a Facebook user and a literary critic, I would say that there’s a substantive difference between the adverts that this article is calling ‘disinformation’ and the fake news that was seen during the last election cycle in the US. Most of what I have been seeing comes
And we'll only be seeing a lot more like this. My question, though, is whether opposition propaganda highlights that which someone would like to keep hidden, or manufactures it.
1
Now more than ever credible sourcing and fact verification is vital to the preservation of not only our democracy but democracies across the globe. It's disappointing, then, to see NYT itself playing fast and loose with the claims its making.
In paragraph 10: "Labour has been drawn into the maelstrom, with its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, citing documents critical of the Conservatives that turned out to be linked to a Russian disinformation campaign."
The embedded link, which a reasonable reader might infer provides evidence of Labor being hoodwinked by Russian disinformation, doesn't mention Russia or disinformation once. The referenced article instead points to an anonymous Redditor and doesn't at all disagree that the documents Jeremy Corbyn cited are genuine. The article at best takes issue with Corbyn's interpretation of the material, saying the extent of health policy negotiations is unclear.
3
Political campaigns may shamelessly distort the other side's intents and character. I feel faint.
2
"Gentle erosion of trust"? Hardly. The examples offered in this article are brutal and savage efforts to erode voters trust in candidates and the political process.
2
The Zuckerbergs, Murdochs and Hannitys of the world will continue to sit atop mountain of cash. But it will be their own actions—spreading lies that are killing western democracies—that will eventually make that degree of wealth worthless.
Kind of ironic, no?
2
We've finally arrived - welcome to the Jungle, folks. It's all about power and winning. We're on our own if this trend continues through 2020.
1
Let’s not just teach kids how to read. Let’s teach them to QUESTION what they read.
5
Morality does not need to be based in religion.
Reason is enough.
In fact religion guarantees that the definition of what is moral will be corrupted
1
The most blatant example of foreign interference with a British election is Barack Obama trying to influence the Brexit vote by warning voters that they would move to the back of the trade line if they voted in favor.
3
@Dan M
An American President accurately explaining his view on how he'd handle Brexit doesn't strike me as interference at all. Unless it's your position that world leaders should never mention another country during election season (which would immediately end all diplomatic relations worldwide).
1
@Michael-in-Vegas: An American President telling the voters of another country the consequences of the results of their election (be it positive or negative) strikes me as blatant interference.
I thought the NY Times was done with false equivalencies. Why call Jeremy Corbyn's discussion of leaked documents re: the NHS an example of disinformation? The documents were released on Reddit by what appears to be a Russian operative, but the documents themselves are real (and show Conservative willingness to privatize the NHS). Did Corbyn know their source? No one did at that point. Did he manufacture disinformation in this instance? Did he knowingly spread false claims about the Conservatives? No on both counts, because the documents themselves are real and horrifying. If you proceed down this silly false equivalency path again during yet another major election cycle, you are doing a disservice to journalism.
7
Misinformation about candidates have been published and distributed for centuries in print media. What is so special about online media?
4
Stories like these always mystify me. The solution just seems so obvious: Stop relying on social media. For news or anything else. My spouse and I saw from its start the dangers posed by a technology that fueled mob mentality, and neither of us is a genius. We have never gotten involved in any of the social media outlets and get our information from vetted professional news sources. My hope is that so much social media content is being exposed for the garbage it is that its effects will be weakened. Surely everyone on the globe won't continue sopping up dreck that has been so thoroughly discredited? If they do, they'll take the rest of us down with them, of course. Guess we'll see.....
1
Interesting equivalency established there between a) Conservative manipulation of the internet and targeted media to willfully deceive voters and b) Corbyn's display of documents simply stating Conservatives' very real proposals to privatize the NHS (no Conservatives have actually denied the validity of what these documents suggest, instead drumming up tired outrage about its provenance).
The downplaying of what that proposal entails (auctioning off chunks of a vital public service to US capital) is also unsettling, but at this rate I'd be an idiot to say I expected any better regarding Labour here.
6
There are some much less subtle ways of getting a lie across - like the sign on the Brexit bus that made a false claim that leaving would mean millions of pounds that was going to the EU would go to the NHS instead.
People are too jaded, or too lazy to fact check or to read later amendments. That is why the Conservative Party, in particular, helped by their media supporters, get the lie out first because people believe that rather than the boring truth.
We in the uk are destined to be ruled by the rich friends of Boris Johnson who will be voted in by a mixture of fools and knaves
1
Thou sayest: "For all of the effort and attention devoted to it, disinformation’s overall influence on voters is far from clear."
The Times own Michelle Goldberg begs to differ. Her story featured some first class research showing how clearly misinformation affected the votes of people who switched from Obama to Trump TWO YEARS AGO.
https://seniorjunior.blogspot.com/2019/11/how-much-how-soon-we-forget.html
Candidates have figured out that the more outrageous the lie the better it works.
“ Blame The Russians “ is getting tiresome to hear. Especially since the USA 2016 POTUS investigations find nothing much regards Russian meddling. Not mentioned are other countries with special interests in our elections such as China and Israel! U.K. too....
5
@moe. “The Russians didn’t do much of anything, either did trump” is getting even more tiring. Read the Mueller report, get your facts straight, and stop spouting the conservative lies. We’re not buying it anymore.
Foreign meddling is nonsense.
Whenever things do not go the way you want them, blame foreigners, i.e. Russians, the universal villains.
5
Maybe they’ll elect Trump to be the Queen!
Anyone who votes in anyway shape or form based on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, personal or candidate websites is an idiot.
All above are entertainment solely. If you want a chuckle fine.
With that said, if you look at an election in history, whether 1780s or 1880’s the only difference was the multitude of political/ lying news papers were in the hundreds or thousands, not the virtually hundreds of thousands.
Watch and read established and known reports, even a Fox News if you must. At least you know the source.
Hey in 1800 the primary way to win was free booze on voting day. Democracy? Sad commentary.
2
What is the Times’s rationale for squealing “Russia Russia Russia!” when the nation responsible for the most regime and election interference - by far - is the United States?
1
"gentle erosion of trust"! Ha, we have not trusted politicians for years. They are now showing their true colours. Liars, cheats, thieves all. Unethical, immoral and no conscience. Likely all psychopathic personality disorders and that is why they want the lime light. This is getting pretty ugly.
2
Anyone who believes that any nation (short of North Korea perhaps) is going to stop people from anywhere in the world from being able to impact elsewhere in the world is living in a fantasy land. Technology has shrunk this world more and more. Russia is just a few villages away. The US, as our border politics battles have shown, is a village just next door to Mexico. In the 21st Century real world, people waiting to be seated at a restaurant are almost always staring at their phones rather than talking—even if there with their dinner companions. Just so, 21st Century politics will be negatively impacted by technology. It can’t be helped.
3
Before the internet and without foreign interference, GWB and the main stream press (NYT included), got Congress and the military to believe in WMD and so justify an unjustifiable and, as it turned out, a forever war.
Yet the press and televisions channels did include dissenting voices from UN experts on WMD and Frontline had many hour long programs with documentary evidence contrary to the Bush administration's claims. Reading, listening to these diametrically opposed arguments, I found the UN and Frontline the more credible of the two views.
What is essential, I believe, is a free press in which different perspectives are available. And, as with other freedoms, there is an obligation to use it responsibly. There is no law or regulation that can protect people who cannot think for themselves. And so the ultimate responsibility is to teach our children to read and to read and think critically.
8
The best Christmas (or Hannukah) gift the Brits can give friends and loved ones is a vow to cancel memberships to Facebook and other social media sources that refuse to assume responsibility for their actions.
9
@TFL just delete Facebook.
Say hello to the latest Orwellian implement to seep into contemporary political discourse: news-tainment. Free home delivery. No subscription required. Internet connection and ignorance sold separately.
14
@Julio Wong
Or, news-tainTment.
1
“The use of disinformation techniques by political leaders, particularly the Conservative Party led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, points to an evolution in how the internet is being used to grab attention, distract the news media, stoke outrage and rally support.”
There we have it: modern tech applied to Goebbels’ approach to propaganda. Not new in method, but in application of the method.
And, of course, employed mutatis mutandis by the GOP in the USA.
17
“Researchers have struggled to precisely measure how much people are swayed by what they see in their social media feeds.” And they always will unsuccessfully struggle if they continue to seek to precisely measure something that cannot be quantified.
1
“I hardly ever watch the news, but I’m on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube all the time,” is another way of saying, "I actively go out of my way to to be misinformed."
Citizens who elect their government will always have exactly the government they deserve.
94
@Steve Precisely, could not have said it better myself. Sad development indeed, no much for people maturing and becoming informed citizens in many of our democracies today...
12
@Steve. Have you actually watched the news lately? Fox gets most of the heat but the prime time lineup at CNN is an embarrassment to any who call themselves journalists. These days, if you don’t approach your news like you do a buffet—taking a little taste of everything, you will be worse than uninformed, you will be misinformed.
4
@ehillesum
Reading the news is a far better pursuit you can make up your own mind, think critically follow up, dig deep, skim.
With TV news the anchors are always sending signals with frowns and grimaces, sly smiles, rolled eyes, judgemental tones or poking fun — directing the viewer what to think. However, I do recommend PBS, definitely TV worth watching for solid information with many viewpoints: News, Washington Week, Ananpour, & Co. Firing Line, FrontLine. All great.
2
When you're (A) immoral, (B) shameless, (C) believe that winning is everything, and (D) have no concern whatsoever about the long term effects of your actions on the general population and even the stability of your country, pretty much anything becomes possible.
Unfortunately for the UK and the USA, I'd say these characteristics describe the Tory and Republican Parties and their respective leaders to a T.
143
@Greg Gerner
True, but please don't pretend that this tactic - especially if successful - won't be lapped up by both sides, in the UK and here.
7
@George S
Hey, George. Thanks for your reply.
I fear very much that your prediction that both sides in the UK and the US will adopt these horrendous, corrosive tactics is correct, which is what is most depressing to me of all.
In the old days, not stooping to your opponent's tawdry, base acts was considered a sign of good breeding--"I wouldn't want to win if I had to win that way!"--but this type of high minded thinking has gone the way of the dodo bird.
Besides, what's the use of paying all those pollsters and lobbyists good money if you're not going to take their advice?
1
It's almost as if Britons are getting a taste of their own medicine. Remember how the British Empire decimated and destroyed various countries and regions around the world.
It seems like it's payback time.
I don't feel bad for the British. They made their own bed, and now must lie in it.
4
I agree that there might seem to be a certain amount of poetic justice in what you say. But is it really fair that the vast majority of British people today, who really had no role whatsoever in creating imperialism during previous centuries, and mainly care about taking care of their families and doing other common human things, should have to pay for it now? You write about the British as if they’re caricatures, not human beings...
2
It is going to be one of the hardest tasks for the coming century to regulate the internet in a way that hopefully does not restrict civil society in its freedom of speech, but at the same time installs mechanisms preventing such things as spreading wrong information on purpose. Additionally national law is not really useful on the internet, so it has to be somewhat transnational as well.
79
We need and must invest in education. People would believe everything and anything because they cannot critically engage in any kind of exchange or debate.
26
Along with climate change, this could be the most important issue for the century.
19
Education is almost pointless if people continue in their screen addiction.
3
"The use of disinformation techniques by political leaders, particularly the Conservative Party led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, points to an evolution in how the internet is being used to grab attention, distract the news media, stoke outrage and rally support."
It worked to get Brexit passed, it worked to get Trump elected, and it's working to distract people from the truth about Trump so why should the Conservative Party stop now. The interesting thing is that in both the UK and the USA it's the Conservatives that are embracing this tactic.
160
You do know the world of disinformation tactics is alive and well on both sides of the aisle? It’s definitely bipartisan.
17
@Kevin , that may be but there is only one party who truly embraces these techniques while for the other it's usually just actions of individuals.
Now let's see if you can guess which party is the embracing one...
63
@Kevin
One is sowing chaos to destroy the rule of law. You can see it in the hearings not following rules of order. Brazenly charging into meetings acting like they were denied when they had republicans present. All these games are to delegitimize the rule of law. It is coming from one party and the right wing media. I don’t see any of this on moderate, liberal or progressive news sources. What I see is concern.
The moderates to often though do what you do and call both sides equal. They are not.
Someone telling you that 2+2 is 4 and teaching you math is not the same as shouting coming from the right saying 1+1 is 4. No it’s not 5 + 6 is. No it’s not 10 + 5. What were we taking about? Darn those elitist liberals telling us 2 + 2 is 4. Take their plus sign away. Now we can do it our way and we will tell people what we say is true is true.
It is not equal.
42
"Labour has been drawn into the maelstrom, with its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, citing documents critical of the Conservatives that turned out to be linked to a Russian disinformation campaign."
That is false. The documents are genuine and there is no evidence they were obtained by Russia.
12
I've given up on the UK, but weather and youth effects will be interesting. The June 2016 polls the Tories relied on to support a hard Brexit mandate also said Remain had a solid national majority, and Remain got massive professional punting odds pre-referendum. On vote night, these comfy media assurances and really torrential downpours on Greater London and Environs had Remainers staying in with their tellies instead of voting, and gave it all to Leave's better summer weather and ferocious voter turnout. Hope also with the climate-sensitive kids reaching voting majority after 2016, to find both their planet's livability and career opportunities being stolen: youth on their own communications channels tend to be immune to both establishment propaganda and pollsters.
5
Boris Johnson has a long history of dishonesty. Why should we be surprised that election campaigning under this Prime Minister includes lies ?
30
Gentle erosion of trust? More like a tsunami of lies that will inundate entire cities...
Can't we restrict Facebook to a place where people post selfies from all their vacations trying to incite envy from friends? How did we let KGB bots start posting on our local grocery store's corkboard? Lets limit the lies to "runs good" and "looks like new" ads for used cars....
21
@Dave Judging on gently swaying opinion polls, the erosion of trust is indeed gentle, lie campaigns are quite skillful
It is not new.
In 1937 ,the BUF, British Union of Fascists , was parading through London ,in black shirts, inviting the Nazis to invade England.
With them, the great Irish poet Yeats .
Same with the IRA who was preparing the landing of the Germans in Ireland.
It is curious how this episode of the British history and culture has been completely escamoted .
3
The internet should be a source of knowledge, to advance the good of humanity. Facebook poses a real and present danger to everyone as Facebook's reason to exist is to make vast and obscene amounts of money whatever the cost to humanity. If tech companies like Facebook cannot act responsibly then Government's internationally, must step in and severely restrict their power to spread false political propaganda which only benefits the powerful.
The NHS is for sale should there be a right wing Tory Government. Free market, extreme Thatcherite economic policies dictate with absolute certainty that this will happen. They have sold off virtually everything else and the NHS is the jewel in the crown of our public services.
The Labour Party therefore have been absolutely right to release and publicise the documents they obtained showing that the Tories have been busy trying to sell out our NHS to USA drug companies. The Tories have not disputed the authenticity of these documents therefore the Russian slant to your piece is not helpful in establishing the authenticity of these documents.
7
If this is the kind of behavior voters reward, ultimately they will reap tbe consequences. 10,000 years of human cultural history, with apocryphal oral traditions about the consequences of lies and the dangers of losing touch with reality through such lies is not for nothing. The consequences will be horrific when cold hard reality crashes the party. And no one else will have a whit of sympathy for the fools who pay the cost of their indulgence.
What exactly is "disinformation"?
Is it questioning whatever the Lords of Media report as fact that's really fiction?
You know, once you pop the bubble of who you're supposed to be getting your news from, the world is a very different place.
For example, if you read foreign language news, as I do, you'd realize that the vast majority of people in the world can't stand the US.
And to be specific, in Asia, for example, they're laughing their heads off over our "very serious impeachment crisis" and scratching their heads over our fixation with plastic straws.
4
I think their ability to have snap elections every three months erodes their credibility more than anything.
As for disinformation, it doesn't work on younger, technology-literate people. Trump won the boomers and the spiteful racist fringes of the internet.
4
Then what about all the young men who keep getting pulled into alt-right and/or intel and/or neo-Nazi corners of the web? Just because one is young and uses technology a lot does not mean one is necessarily fully literate in how to use it properly...
Of course this will be happening in the US too- we already have Fox news, Breitbart, and the hard right with their conspiracy theories. Many “news” outlets mix their opinion and factual news reporting, and many or even most people can’t tell the difference. Furthermore, I personally am alarmed that those who wish to spread misinformation don’t hide their articles behind paywalls, but respectable news organizations do. Sure, I pay for the New York Times, but my working class relatives think that is hilariously out of touch and elitist of me. Ideally, factual reporting by respectable journalists should be the easiest for everyone to find and access.
13
@Laume
The difference here is Sean Insanity is on speed dial to the President here and even caught being at least indirectly involved with Ukraine. They are literary on the guys staff as unpaid media marketing doing pro-bono work not to report the news but to direct it and lie. They don’t even hide it anymore.
The media is supposed to be the watch dog but Fox is guarding them instead.
8
Oh but Breitbart etc ARE indeed paid, by Robert Mercer and other moneyed white supremacists, and Dominionists. The Times, WaPo, PBS, in my view are "our" media which WE pay for, and I am happy to do so. You make a good sad point though. Frustrating, isn't it? But I'll pay to keep OUR media thriving...and hope for the best.
4
@Laume NYTimes is not "factual reporting". It is biased, inaccurate and expresses the views of American ruling elites on the left. One needs to rely on many other sources to get an idea of what is really going on in the world.
Where you have to buy education, people are uneducated .
Simple equation.
Because it also implies the principle which is that the ( paid for ) education aims only at making money and not being educated .
Same problem in the UK and USA .
Uneducated societies where lies and free opinions of all kinds flourish in the entertained lack of causality .
Capitalism needs by essence an 80 % mass of uneducated workers/ consumers .
4
Disinformation is spread by the legitimate media. The Sunday morning news programs are a perfect example where someone lies and the interviewers just let it go. An uninformed news consumer may walk away thinking the lie is in fact true.
33
Russia is stoking mistrust on both sides, through Tsar Putin's "Internet Research Agency."
Putin is doing it to the USA, too.
The fix? Have more solution look to trusted media outlets and learn more about evaluating the trustworthiness of a source.
4
@Astrochimp The problem remains when Russia published hacked but accurate documents.
Elections have been drenched in disinformation from shadowy sources for as long as there have been elections. And nations meddling in the election process of other countries has existed as well, and is a CIA specialty.
I don't understand why this is suddenly a big deal. Perhaps, instead of trying to shame low information people into voting, we would be better off to allow apathy to not dilute the voting power of those who are informed and committed.
7
What’s new is the scale of the problem. And that makes a difference.
What was the old saying? People that don’t exercise their right to vote get the government that they deserve...the new phrase should be: people that get their news from social media get the government that they deserve.
7
In the US enough people want to rescue democracy. They will not pay attention to propaganda.
Garbage in, garbage out. Clips from World War Z claiming to be the southern border will push fear buttons. It's predictable. Trump has said so many lies, promised so many things that were never possible, the Republicans will doctor clips to show his opponent doing and saying hateful, dumb things. Projection is their style.
Will this cause mass confusion? The media reports that people don't trust anything. But that's not the case. People who don't pay attention are the ones who trust the least. That shows its not exposure to too much competing info that matters. It's the cynicism of ignorance.
Do not panic. Disinformation is over-rated.
4
@Brian
The Democrats have their own messaging problems as well, and will gladly allow extreme environmental groups and socialist reformers-types to promote wildly optimistic and expensive programs as the solution to our global climate change and economic issues. I expect to see much exaggeration and lying from liberals as we move further into the election cycle. The internet can be used by all sides, not just by the Trumpsters.
3
@javamaster
The democrats are many people. Republicans are a small group of very wealthy people with very few actual goals beyond the interest of that small group. It’s very easy to coordinate a few people through propaganda and their networks that are paid by them compared to the myriad of voices of liberals.
One side clearly doesn’t represent democracy. One side is clearly on point pushing the extremes and even chaos in the hearings to break down the rule of law. One side is also actively engaged in blatantly lying to undermine the legitimacy of the rule of law and order.
This is really more an issue of the American public not understanding the dire consequences of what is occurring. The every day media is also owned by very wealthy people who favor republicans and weak corporate democrats. All of this makes it very difficult to counter what is very similar to fascism.
3
@Mathias
You are not too polarized in your outlook, are you? (sarcasm)
I think you sell the American public short. The people .are smarter and more aware than you think. But you happen not to share their perspective
You can thank the marketing, advertising, and PR industry, along with the Silicon Valley Boys, for this. Now the supercharged propaganda is bleeding into politics.
You're surprised?
Next time you enjoy the CGI in either The Avengers or The Irishman, realize the cost: the very near-term destruction of trust in any image.
You can actually thank the profit-motive-ueber-alles, frankly. For this and much else. What lies behind that? Human selfishness and the rest of the basket of deplorables that is part of human nature.
This is it, kids: we will now find out what each and every one of us, and all of us together, are worth and made of. So far, we're failing miserably on all the key issues.
1
@Doug Tarnopol Yes . The more tricks in cinema, the more it is showing a will to alienate people and please those who are already alienated. The Irishman is just a portrait of this Self America the mafia land through the landscape/faces of the 3 major star actors.
I don't understand how Scorcese has come down so low.
That film is 3 and 1/2 hours of emptyness .
Or is it what he wanted ?
In a world where not even the Pope is trustworthy, what would you expect ?
3
When the printing press appeared, the same happened. People were not clear on how to handle the new medium and everything printed appeared to be true, as it was similar to the carefully handcrafted books transcribed by monks. The Reformation (and after that the Counterreformation) exploited this phenomenon aptly. But then people adjusted and pressed material were relativized. Hopefully, the same will happen with electronic communication, after a period of turmoil such as the one we are living.
3
Fake news! Your assertion that the documents produced by Jeremy Corbyn are part of a Russian misinformation campaign needs challenging. Firstly, the only statement was by Reddit, not the world's most trustworthy source, that the docs were"similiar" to a year old Russian disinfo campaign that, tellingly, nobody else had seen. The conservative government has at no stage challenged the authenticity of the documents. Only yourselves and Reddit. Hardly convincing. This is barefaced false equivalency at its most finest, and Corbyn and the Labour party deserve an apology
19
@Nick Firth Yea, this point jumped out at me when I read the article. Claiming, without substantiation, the source of the documents regarding the National Health Service is the dreaded Putin (since he is responsible for everything Russian) is not the same as claiming they're false.
It's dishonest and shoddy journalism to make that jump.
3
Conservatives easily sacrifice truth to gain and hold power. All those years of wrapping themselves in the flag and speaking of integrity and moral righteousness. It’s all yet another lie.
18
Radical idea. Tremendous backlash no doubt, but maybe it has come to this. Shut down all social media sites two to three weeks before any national election. The level of manipulation and deception has become too great a threat to our democracies.
8
@Tom
And just who would be empowered to do that, and on what legal grounds?
I agree that antisocial media is public enemy #1 (or perhaps #2) now, but how do you shut it down in a democracy? Or even regulate speech statutorily under our Constitution?
We can try to get the toothpaste back into the tube-- in fact, we *have to* try if our democracy is to survive-- but it's going to be a messy business and one that's unlikely to succeed, I'm afraid.
That's the danger isn't it? The attitude of "If we can't beat them, join them."
4
@northeastsoccermum
From a fictional character in the novel "The Mangrove Coast," by Randy Wayne White:
"In any conflict, the boundaries of behavior are defined by the party that cares least about morality."
And all parties wind up at the same boundary.
3
@Murfski
Unless that party can be defeated and removed at the voting booth. After that it is chaos and violence because there won’t be a vote.
“Don’t believe something just because it’s in print.” Well, yeah, and why is the net any different? I guess the answer is that we’re more gullible than, say, in the 19th c., and have to be protected from ourselves. Vote on.
5
Addiction: Continuing to use something which will harm or kill you. There is now abundant effort that we human beings are not capable of using the internet in ways that do not tear at the fabric of our societies. Where are the calls to take social media down?
"Opposition Research" and the consequent smear campaign have always been the hallmark of "democracy" everywhere especially in the UK and the US of A. "Foreign Meddling" is a newly-devised scapegoat to blame it all on somebody else. We are pure but somebody else is corrupting and ruining us.
3
I agree that we’re completely capable of messing up our own elections without foreign interference. However, foreign interference did indeed happen in the last election. To close our eyes to the evidence and pretend it doesn’t exist would be foolish.
Can we put to rest, once and for all, that voters are smart. Far too many lack the necessary basic curiosity, logical reasoning skills, the ability to discern nonsense from fact and on and on.....
It is happening all over the world. Technology has created a monster we are not able to control.
22
@Mary
“I hardly ever watch the news, but I’m on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube all the time,” he said.
This could be a large part of the problem.
8
@mary. It is lack of education, not technology, that creates poor reasoning skills. Don’t shoot the messenger, aim at the Republicans instead.
1
@Mary
It can be even worse.
Some of the smarter conservatives are the worst informed.
It is because they work at getting misinformation that justifies what they want to believe.
Improved communication (language, writing, printing, internet) is always a neutral tool, catalyzing the spread of both truth and lies. These tools always require accompanying complex procedures to verify truth and eliminate lies, such as reputation, statistics (including cross-validation), empirical testing etc. Perhaps the most essential is easy identification of the persons and organizations spreading the ideas - every URL must be identifiable with a fixed group of nameable individuals.
1
It is part of the English culture to love lies and think by opinions.
English as a language is much more metonymical than the latin languages or German.Words, words, more words. No sense of causality .
The British culture has established behaviorism as a catastrophic psychology almost everywhere in the world.
Same with the hegemony of analytic philosophy in the UK and USA which by pretending to the pseudo search of conceptual clarity has in fact created a culture void of thinking like phenomenology and ethics were allowing.
A perfect ground for the trap of internet fed lies and misrepresentation.
The British and American mercantilist ideologies are based on those philosophies of the SELF . Capitalism is based on blinding people with greed .
2
There are no good solutions. Dirty tricks have always been the hallmark of political behavior. Naturally, experimentation and practice results in greater effectiveness and thus greater use.
However, the mainstream media could ameliorate the situation. But it chooses instead to add to the problem.
The media could strive mightily to be a source of objective and thoughtful analysis of the issues and provide comprehensive reportage to expose the past behavior and the character of the candidates. But the media does not choose to do that. Instead the media has chosen to be partisan, chosen to advocate for some candidates and to present others less favorably. We get intensely biased reportage like that of MSNBC and Fox News. But even the most respected papers like the NY Times and the Washington Post have become partisan mouthpieces.
Even if the media chose to serve the public well, it would not solve the problem of deceptive and manipulative political behavior. And, even if the media chose to make concerted effort to serve the public well, it could never eliminate the bias of its reporters and editors and the manipulation of the public that those individuals attempt. But at least a determined effort by the media would offer a refuge of honest, objective, and thoughtful information to those members of the public who are open-minded enough that they still seek truth instead of only desiring food for their biases and prejudices.
4
@Errol
The media can call a lie a lie. The media can call out republicans here attacking the process as attacking the rule of law and sowing chaos. When they actively break the rules of law and order brazenly they invite in chaos and the rule of might makes right.
The sides aren’t equal. One is defending democracy and the rule of law and the other is treating it down. Call it what it is.
4
I am an American living in the UK
This is all true and to make matter worse...
The British people don't really have anywhere to turn for quality news
There are no UK equivalents of the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal over here: high quality newspapers producing in-depth journalism covering serious issues.
The Daily Mail is the number 1 newspaper in the UK. If you're unfamiliar with it just think TMZ crossed with People magazine.
The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent and the Guardian are considered 'serious' newspapers but - other than perhaps the Guardian - they are just slightly more substantial than the Daily Mail, each one filled with puff and click bait, their front pages routinely featuring huge pictures of some royal or celebrity, articles no more than a few hundred words, covering bleed and lead trivialities like the latest hit and run or a young mother stabbed somewhere.
The Financial Times and the Economist are first rate but they are niche outlets.
There is a real market for a NYT of the UK over here! Michael Bloomberg get your checkbook out!
46
@John - unfortunately even the redoubtable Guardian is going downhill. But at least Al Jazeera and El Pais are still reliable sources of information. The NY Times is generally excellent but does have strange blindspots. One of its best features are the high-quality online Comments (such as this one).
31
@John British people don't and cannot read the much better quality of thinking and investigation of the French and German press.
Same as for Americans .
4
@John I totally agree with you about the lack of substantive journalism in the UK. We were in London in 1997, just before Princess Diana died. The newspapers we saw were all focused on Diana and Dodi Fayed. I was shocked at the lack of serious newspapers like the NYTimes. The newsstands were filled with tabloids with outlandish stories.
5
The mainstreaming/blowback of intelligence operations, and subsequent corruption of Democracy, which the US, UK, and NATO have used with impunity against "threats and enemies" both foreign and domestic, i.e. the Left, was not an un-foreseen, unanticipated consequence. Rights activists, scholars, and victims have been warning against this day since the McCarthy hearings and Eisenhower's Farewell Address in 1961.
Case in point Cambridge Analytica, a US, UK, and NATO contractor (via it's parent company SCL and co-founder Steve Bannon), used intel election manipulation tech and Facebook data to throw both the Brexit vote and the 2016 election for Trump.
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, these same operators are decrying the threat to democratic institutions, transparency, and the "norms" and institutional values they spent their careers debasing and "controlling".
9
@Concerned Citizen
Are you saying democrats have to kowtow to republicans? How many republicans use guns in their adds taking aim at liberals through symbolism?
2
@Concerned Citizen - The difference between TV ads & Facebook ads is that the former are seen by all people watching the TV station in question at that time, while the latter can be targeted and sent to a specific subset of people. This means that it’s much tougher to keep an eye on them and to attempt to refute them—how can one refute something one hasn’t even had a chance to see?
3
The article concentrates on Social Media which I avoid. Nevertheless I get similar misinformation in BBC interviews with politicians.
I wish the BBC interviewers would challenge the worst of these. For example the Conservatives constantly imply that the Labour Party were responsible for the worldwide recession initiated by USA's banks. I wonder what they would be saying if they had been in power at the time.
15
We can all see that the internet has turned into a monster that is impossible to control.
It reminds me of the warnings given by scientists in 1945 about the invention of the atomic bomb that would also be impossible to control.
In a free society draconian measures to control the internet are illegal so we will have to be creative in finding solutions.
14