“Misinformation” & “Disinformation”
(Newspeak for “the other side of the story” - ie: the side they don’t want you to hear)
From day one in this blog, I’ve been warning anyone who would listen about the push in modern day “journalism” to discourage and ultimately destroy “both sides” reporting. It’s one of the main reasons I started this project in the first place.
Of course, corporate media types aren’t quite brazen enough (yet) to just completely stop reporting the other side of the story. But by now I think it’s become pretty apparent that labeling things “misinformation” or “disinformation” is how many of them intend to do accomplish their goal.
*for the record, in media lingo, the difference between the two seems to be that DISinformation is apparently a deliberate attempt to mislead people, whereas MISinformation happens more by accident. If you want to read more, check out this bizarrely long article on Dictionary.com. Either way, as far as corporate media outlets are concerned, they are both bad things that must be extinguished.
The attack on Joe Rogan & Spotify was this week’s most obvious example (though that one was also fueled by the fact that Rogan’s podcast’s ratings outperform every single corporate news & opinion program by a mile), but the fact is, I’ve seen a ton of media articles on multiple platforms over the last few years, including in my daily journalism newsletters, about “misinformation” and “disinformation.” And when everyone in media is suddenly using the same bizarre terminology (remember “baseless?”), you know they’re up to something.
NPR was an early adopter of the campaign against “misinformation;” they published this piece, on How to Spot Misinformation, in 2019. This year, though, things have jettisoned to a whole new level. Now, two of the biggest names in the industry – the New York Times and Washington Post - have reporters solely dedicated to finding and dispelling “misinformation:” the Times via their new Tracking Viral Misinformation series, and the Post via a dedicated reporter assigned to the “misinformation and social media companies” beat (see this Substack post by Alex Berenson to learn more about that). None of this “misinformation”-seeking should be confused, of course, with the work of George Orwell’s fictional Thought Police, from his book 1984 (I’m kidding. Actually, no… I’m not).
What’s scary to me is that this pursuit to eliminate “misinformation” is now spreading like a cancer to other powerful industries. Nevermind that we hear politicians tossing the term around on an almost daily basis. Per this Axios piece, an organization called “NewsGuard” has paired with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT / an AFL-CIO affiliate / teacher’s union with 1.7 million members) to start providing our children “the skills to spot disinformation.” The hope of the AFT, says this Axios piece, is that this training will be provided to “tens of millions of students around the country” (again, the “schools” in 1984 taught children similar things as well, and ultimately trained them to rat out their own parents if they were caught peddling information counter to the established narrative). For reference, this Breitbart piece notes that NewsGuard rates Rolling Stone a credible source of information (yes, the very same magazine that published the piece I discussed in my last post, about the completely made-up fraternity house-rape story that no one at the magazine ever bothered to verify).
Of course, there is one major issue that those trying to implement a lockstep campaign against “misinformation” & “disinformation” didn’t consider. A writer named Jim Treacher on Substack (another platform that has been successfully stealing disgruntled legacy media customers for a while, now) \pointed it out in this post; turns out, attempts at labeling and censorship of people like Rogan can easily backfire and draw more attention, not less, to the “offensive” content. Treacher’s post is about the 1980’s-era push by Al & Tipper Gore to implement a label warning system on “offensive” music. Read the blog and listen to Dee Snyder’s testimony if you have time (he’s the lead singer of 80’s band Twister Sister) – it’s a pretty fascinating story of how those labels came to be.
I thought of that whole backfire problem again yesterday, when I read this piece about Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and how more Democrats watch his show than watch either CNN or MSNBC (in that same time slot). Yes, that’s right – DEMOCRATS watch TUCKER CARLSON. This, after listening to corporate media outlets tell us for what feels like eons, now, that Tucker Carlson is a dangerous “right wing extremist” who must be stopped at all costs.
Here’s a crazy thought - maybe people like hearing the other side of the story when it comes from a competent reporter. They may not agree, but maybe they like hearing it nonetheless. Who wants to tell the Ministers of Misinformation over at the New York Times and Washington Post?
Speaking as a veteran journalist myself, I have some major concerns about the concept of “misinformation.” What kind of arrogance does it take to declare that something someone else says is “misinformation?” Maybe what they’re saying is wrong. Maybe it’s right. Maybe it’s a little of both. Either way, isn’t it just their honest opinion? By disregarding this fact, “misinformation” accusers are essentially saying that they know what’s right and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. That’s bold.
So, is it really “misinformation” when someone who’s suffered through vaccine side effects says the shots have the ability to cause harm in some people? Or is it their opinion, based on personal experience?
Is it really “misinformation” when a doctor who’s prescribed a drug like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin thousands of times to treat Covid patients says he or she thinks those drugs are effective? Or is it his or her informed opinion, based on professional experience?
Take that last example one step further and ask yourself this: why should any of us be more willing to trust journalists – people who spent four years in college studying communications – over medical experts who have a differing viewpoint than, say, the CDC or FDA? What makes a journalist uniquely qualified to determine what’s right and what’s wrong when it comes to medicine? Shouldn’t a reporter’s job just be to tell us both medical professionals’ opinions and let us decide for ourselves? I guess the bottom line once again is that reporters don’t think we’re smart enough to do things like that. But somehow they think they are.
A year and a half into this blog, we’re witnessing a fascinating time. As corporate media outlets shed customers / viewers / readers at alarming rates, they’ve amped up the fight to remake the industry. Rather than admitting they’ve been headed down the wrong path for years, now, they’re doubling down and digging in every chance they get. Almost daily for two years, we have been subjected to propaganda pieces lashing out at people who dare to question the corporate media narrative: Doctors who’ve successfully treated thousands of patients with repurposed drugs; the man who holds numerous patents for the technology behind the MRNA vaccines; media figures like Joe Rogan (whose only crime near as I can tell is asking logical questions of people who think outside the box. Well, that and having podcasts that go on for way too long.).
The key thing to know, though, is that everything the media is doing right now to suppress and control the flow of information nationwide is being accomplished via every one of the methods we’ve explored together in this blog. “Journalists” in corporate media have no new tricks up their proverbial sleeves – they merely keep using the same, old tired ones to spin news stories into their rubber-stamp versions of “the truth.” It’s almost like a bad remake of the Groundhog Day movie. But instead of waking up every day to “I Got You, Babe” by Sonny & Cher, we get pummeled with infinite variations on the “misinformation” theme:
COVID MISINFORMATION!
ELECTION MISINFORMATION!
VACCINE MISINFORMATION!
… and the list goes on.
And on.
And on.
Until we decide, as Dee Snyder and his bandmates so eloquently once noted, that “We’re not gonna take it anymore.”
This will likely be my only post in February, as I’m working on two large stories this month. If I find time to squeeze in a quick post 2/18, I will; otherwise, you’ll hear back from me again in early March -