‘I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Voltaire, and others[i].
Is fact checking a ‘trivial pursuit? And is it necessary?
In today’s world, we are constantly told of ‘fake news’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ that challenges democracy and online safety. These terms are so commonly used and repeated that like all propaganda, they have come to be believed. But exactly what do these terms mean, who produces fake news, who evaluates how much disinformation is being produced and by whom, who defines what is true, false or hateful, and do those who claim to be arbiters of truth really protect online safety and democracy? Do ‘they’ have a democratic mandate to decide what is safe for you to read or see? Often the reason given for this new censorship model is the ability for what is described as ‘false information’ to spread virally via social media. But is it this ‘bad news’ or just different opinions, does it spread more rapidly, and does it matter? How big is this industry that moderates, debunks, pre-bunks and censors expression, who pays them, and what are the interests of those who fund?
There are three main systems that are used to control circulating information. The first is the fact check industry, or as described by Michael Shellenberger, an American journalist, the ‘Censorship Industrial Complex’[ii]. Why does Shellenberger, and his co-researchers give this industry such a name? In USA free expression is protected by the first amendment, the only country that forbids governments to interfere with speech; in other parts of the world, governments can and do pass laws to restrict the content that citizens are allowed to view or hear. This includes much of the developed world, such as UK, Europe, and Australia. Throughout history people have listened to old wives tales, tittle tattle from family and friends, rumours, and competing accounts of current events, and adults have always been able to make judgements for themselves about which story seems more real to them. Debate has flourished, and added to the quality of democracy, our knowledge and wisdom, and our understanding of ‘the Other’. Why has this changed, and why do citizens not protest at the increasing restrictions on their rights and freedoms?
The second area is the creation of approved content. Today, across media outlets throughout the world, a similar slant on almost all hot button topics as produced in mainstream media, be it newspapers, radio, or television. For example, Racket News, the Substack of American journalist Matt Taibbi, has produced compilation videos of dozens of very similar statements made from various television channels using exactly the same terminology, for example, on 22 October 2023 a compilation of often identical statements made on American television concerning the blowing up of the Nordsteam2. Why and how does this happen?
The third arm, and in my view the most sinister, is the media literacy industry. This involves methods of ‘pre-bunking’, or shaping minds so that there is more likely to be unquestioning acceptance of official information, and rejection of statements made by other actors, whatever their qualifications or experience. When people make a judgement on particular issues there have always been disagreements, but society has coped, survived, and flourished. Why does the media literacy industry focus particularly on the young, what methods have been used, how effective is it in controlling minds, how far has it extended already, and how dangerous is this development?
In amongst these three prongs of information control, to replace debate there is evidence of smearing, demonetarising, and removing those who attempt to raise awareness of alternative views, some of whom are experts in their field. Any view that questions mainstream narratives is labelled as ‘misinformation’ or saying something that is incorrect, ‘disinformation’ or purposefully stating something in order to deceive, and strangely, ‘malinformation’, or circulating correct information that is already in public view, such as on a government or corporate website, so that others become more aware of the information that those in power do not want ordinary citizens to know. Those who challenge narratives are smeared with derogatory terms, such as ‘conspiracy theorist’, ‘anti-vaxxer’, ‘Nazi’ ‘Putin-apologist’ ‘climate denier’ ‘terf’ and others. What exactly do these terms mean, are they applied correctly, and why can’t an individual make an independent decision that only affects them or their family, or that could have a positive effect on society? Speech that challenges official narratives is often given names, such as ‘hate speech’ or ‘antisemitic’, often with little evidence to support that description. Narratives that are not approved are called ‘fake news’ and often labelled ‘dangerous’ or ‘anti-democratic’. Yet free speech is the most important pillar of democratic society, as without it, people are unable to make an independent, informed decisions that are most likely to meet their own needs. How can restricting the circulating of diverse opinions protect our freedoms and democratic rights?
What is left on hot button issues, such as war, nutrition, public health, climate, gender, sovereignty and elections, is increasingly a single narrative, with debate only allowed on a certain axis. For example, in the Covid debate, there has been discussion concerning whether ministers kept to the Covid guidelines, or whether the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) were recommended at the right time. What is rarely debated is whether these interventions were necessary, and whether cheap and freely available treatments that some claim could have saved lives should have been denied to those who were sick. In UK, Brexit was widely debated, with politicians taking sides and the mainstream media actively involved. But potential more damaging restrictions on worldwide sovereignty in the form of new powers for the WHO to overrule world governments has received very little attention by politicians, or the mainstream media. Why? Is this the world that we want to leave for the next generation?
These are questions that this Substack will consider. I do not want you to agree with me, I want you to check everything I say, and let me know when I make mistakes, or where my perspective varies from yours. In the next posting, I will describe the worldwide extent of the fact check industry, how it works, and who funds it. I will leave you to independently judge whether these new trends are safe or democratic or what you want for yourselves and your families.
[i] I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It – Quote Investigator®
[ii] Michael Shellenberger: Exposing the censorship industrial complex | The Spectator