The Control of Information
How the rich and powerful shape news and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown.
“Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion or thought control) refers to the way some people have tried to control the beliefs and behaviours of others.” Wikipedia.
Media and Information Literacy.
In its first Substack post, The Control of Information described media literacy as the most concerning of the information control techniques that are currently been practiced on an unsuspecting public. Media and Information literacy uses psychological techniques to train people, especially children, teenagers and students, to follow official narratives and to discard information that comes from dissenting or alternative views; however media literacy programmes do not restrict activity to vulnerable groups, but targets the entire population. Unfortunately, media literacy is often disguised by Orwellian-style language, for example, training courses are described as teaching ‘critical thinking’, in order to reduce risks caused by dangerous or harmful ‘conspiracy theories’.
Of course, developing critical thinking skills is to be commended, for example, helping people to evaluate a range of opinions in order to decrease online fraud or to detect untrue claims that are often made in election campaigns. Some media literacy courses may indeed offer assistance in these areas, although few unbiased sites were found during internet searches for this project. Also, children are more vulnerable on the internet, experiencing bullying, aggressive advertising campaigns, fraud, child grooming, or sites that glorify suicide or terrorism. Training courses that encourage children to think carefully when online are useful and some sites were found that offer children good advice. However, not all media literacy training for children has such lofty aims, as some have the same limitations as courses for adults. For example, in a report on media literacy for the UK government prepared by RSM UK Consulting LLP in 2021 (i)here, issues that were listed as appropriate for media literacy training of children and adults included prevention and challenge of online grooming, harassment and cyber bullying, items that are relatively easy to define and where harm is plausible. However, the report also extends the scope of media literacy training and gives equal emphasis to numerous vague concepts such as, preventing and challenging ‘unwanted behaviour’; ‘potentially harmful content’ and ‘inappropriate content’. These are far more contentious (ii)here, and likely to restrict knowledge, understanding and sharing of ideas, essential for critical thinking and for a functioning democracy.
Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers.
The Cambridge Social Decision-making Lab (CSDL), part of Cambridge University, is a significant player in the growth of the new form of media literacy worldwide. CSDL is partnered with, and funded by Google Jigsaw, CISA (Cyber-Infrastructure) part of the American government’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that was implicated in the Twitter files revelations (iii)here ,three American universities (Yale, Northeastern, George Mason), Facebook Research, Nuffield Foundation, DROG a Dutch game maker company (iv)here; and in UK the Behavioural Insights Team that has been accused of perpetuating fear during the Covid crisis (v)here, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Thus, like the fact checking industry, the media literacy industry appears to have a similar range of rich and powerful funders and associates.
CSDL is headed by a Professor of Psychology, Sander Van Der Linden (VDLinden) who began his campaign for ‘pre-bunking’ training in 2018. VDLinden describes ‘filter bubbles’, where people mix with others with similar views, and algorithms on social media that also tend to select the type of material that is preferred, hence confirming and reinforcing a particular type of information. This creates an ‘echo chamber’ where certain information is constantly repeated, including what VDLinden describes as ‘bad information (vi)here. The aim of the CSDL programme is to persuade participants to reject views of their peers and associates that do not coincide with mainstream narratives. Like fact checking training, most media literacy training directs people to follow a single narrative where debate is restricted within a narrow Overton window, with all viewpoints beyond the defined limits labelled as ‘false’, ‘misleading’, or ‘dangerous’.
Media literacy training for children, adolescents and students.
Media literacy trainers and organisations that target students often offer sensible and thoughtful descriptions of why media literacy is needed. Trainers often cite legislation that censors certain types of information, such as the UK’s Online Safety Act, as important, and many state that they tackle false news, misinformation and disinformation. Many refer to developing critical thinking skills so that individuals can independently reach better solutions and form opinions that are based on thoughtful consideration, rather than following the lead of others, or relying on their emotions. These are indeed ideals to which media literacy trainers should aspire, but closer analysis of their methods reveal that rather than developing critical thinking, they narrow the focus of participants. One example of how this occurs is the dependence on examining differences between one mainstream news story and another; as described last week, mainstream media outlets currently produce similar content and rarely compete for scoops, hence such comparisons can only be peripheral to news stories. Real differences of emphasis are between mainstream media and new forms of media, but media literacy training tends to discredit these voices rather than argue against their alternative opinions.
Examples of some of the methods used by media literacy trainers are listed below:
1. Media Analyzer (vii)here (Megan Mallon, 2017) This is a five point system in which the student is advised to (a) Look for spelling or grammatical errors (b) Is there an author listed? (3) Does the headline match the article content? (4) Are there references and citations listed? (5) Do photos have a citation or caption?
2. Allsides (viii)here. This site states that it helps participants to judge bias in information presented in the mainstream media; it describes news outlets as left, centre and right. It does not consider independent or local news outlets. It invites participants to check content and then gives its own analysis and explanations. However, as we have seen in earlier The Control of Information reports, most media outlets report similar facts. It would be more relevant to check mainstream reports against independent media.
3. SIFT media analysis (ix)here. This system involves a four stage evaluation of content. It is devised by a media literacy trainer named Mike Caufield, who has a series of videos online training videos. The four stages are (1) STOP! Before you share, you need to investigate (2) Investigate the source; Caufield suggests use of Wikipedia for this purpose, checking the provider of information rather than the information itself. He further states that mainstream media are most reliable sources of information on the web because journalists are trained in fact checking. He advises using up-searching and lateral searches, the same methods taught to fact checkers that may reveal smearing of dissenters and dissenting opinions. (3) Find a better source. If you find interesting information check it out by an internet search to see if it is also reported by sites described as reliable. (4) Trace claims, sources, quotes, and media reports by going back to source.
4. CRAAP is a five point system that is used in media literacy training (x)here. These are (1) Currency – is the information in this article up to date? (2) Relevance – is the information or discussion relevant to the subject? (3) Authority – check the author and sources and whether they are reliable. (4) Accuracy – does the article provide evidence. (5) Purpose – what is the purpose of the article, and why was it shared.
5. Videos, quizzes, games and multiple choice tests are also used in media literacy training.
One example of a media literacy game is a CSDL-designed media literacy game for young people called ‘Bad News’, which is described as a psychological inoculation (xi)here. Each participant is invited to act as a ‘super-spreader’ of false information during the games, using impersonation, emotional and polarising messages, conspiracy theories, discrediting others, and trolling. The participants are encouraged to think of posts that do not comply with official narratives as misinformation, disinformation and malinformation that has been posted by attention-seeking fraudsters. The game designers state that testing has demonstrated that this game has a ‘pre-bunking’ effect, increasing the likelihood of ‘immunity’ to what is called disinformation. When ‘immunity’ falls ‘boosters’, or more training is needed. This game has been played over a million times, it is translated into many languages and is used all over the world.
The CSDL works with governments to develop games for adults and children, for example, it worked with the British government to develop a game called ‘Go Viral’ during Covid-19 restrictions (xii)here. When doctors or scientists are introduced to the game, they are always imposters pretending to be doctors and giving false advice, creating the impression that all trustworthy and ‘scientific’ medical opinion inevitably agrees with government policy, and alternative views always carry risk. CSDL has also worked with the US government to design media literacy games at election times.
A feature of all these media literacy training methods is the emphasis of ‘reliable’ sources as limited to government bodies and large corporations. Rather than teaching critical thinking, they narrow the participants’ focus of what is acceptable. However, the views and opinions that are favoured by media literacy trainers are not necessarily in the best interests of course participants. As in fact checking training, the media literacy course facilitators encourage lateral searches, or searching for what other internet sites say about the authors. They also suggest reading upstream to find if the sources are credible. However, many of those who challenge mainstream opinions have already been smeared, so searches will usually reveal negative information and discourage exploration of dissenting viewpoints.
Media Literacy training course – an example.
As an example of media literacy training an online MediaWise media literacy course for seniors is described (xiii)here ; the training seems to follow the system of the Media Analyzer listed above. The course facilitators are journalists from mainstream media, and they emphasise that their news media uses lots of searches to verify information and is therefore likely to be correct. This ignores the extensive body of research that reveals that the wealthy and powerful, such as governments and corporations, influence mainstream media output in their own interests. The MediaWise course describes those who spread what they describe as false information. It states they are doing so for financial gain from clickbait and shares; from bad actors such as Russia that want to influence opinions and elections; from people who want to entertain; or people who share mistakenly ‘because they care’ and repost ‘false’ information in the belief that it will help others. This evaluation does not take into consideration the many professionals who appropriately offer information and advice that challenges government narratives, based on their experience and qualifications.
On the MediaWise course, reliable sources were named as mainstream media, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Center for Disease Control (CDC); Wikipedia, and fact checkers. These are all sources that are funded by government departments, corporates, and wealthy philanthropists; the same funders that support the fact check industry. The course facilitators state that ‘false news websites’ can look very professional, like authentic news sites; this description may discourage people from exploring alternative news sites that may give a wider perspective. However, such sites often feature experienced independent journalists who left the mainstream in order to allow them the freedom to practice better quality, in-depth journalism. This includes reporters from Consortium News, (xiv)here, and some Substack accounts, such as Jonathon Cook (xv)here, Matt Taibbi (xvi)here, and Paul Thacker (xvii)here. However, media literacy training deters participants from considering these sites as reliable.
One example of the smearing a credible voice on the MediaWise course was a reference to Professor Luc Montagnier (since deceased), a French Virologist and Nobel Prize recipient. (xviii)here. Although MediaWise call Montagnier a virologist they do not refer to his esteemed status, and further state that his opinion was incorrect because there is a contradictory statement on the World Health Organisation (WHO) website. However, Montagnier was more qualified than WHO advisers, thus his opinion only added to the quality of debate. By its nature science can never be settled and there is never a scientific consensus. Science evolves when other scientists challenge existing ideas and practices, moving knowledge and understanding forwards, otherwise, there would never be progress.
How extensive is media literacy training?
Media literacy is a significant industry in its own right, but it is also closely associated with fact checking. Many fact check platforms forming partnerships with social media corporations such as Google, Meta and Microsoft to offer media literacy courses in schools and universities, and to the general public. This may be online or in person. The extent and reach of the media literacy training industry is extensive; for example, the UK Media Literacy Task Force Fund website refers to at least 170 educational initiatives involved in media literacy training. It awards individual grants of up to £250,000 per year. (xix)here. In the media literacy handbook Don’t Believe The Hype (xx)here lists of media literacy NGOs cover several pages, and eighteen media literacy annual or bi-annual conferences that are held in North America, Asia, and Europe were also listed. Additionally two journals of Media Literacy were located, the Journal of Media Literacy Education (xxi)here, and the Journal of Media Literacy (JML) (xxii)here, published by the American based International Council for Media Literacy (IC4ML). This organisation, first formed in 1953, now organises conferences as well as publishing the JML.
In Europe, the earliest annual conference found was the European Media and Information Literacy (EMIL) Forum holding the first of its biannual summits in 2014, involving the European Commission, UNESCO, and the University of Barcelona (xxiii)here. The European Platform for Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) lists EMIL as the European lead authority for media literacy, and minutes of its annual meeting on 19 July 2023 are on EPRA’s website (xxiv)here, with European countries reporting their progress annually. For example, Ofcom represented UK media literacy provider at the July 2023 meeting, and stated that UK is preparing 1,000 new media literacy trainers, and it was planned that these would become operative in February 2024. Although no information on EMIL funding was found, it is probable that it is funded by the EU or EC.
An American NGO the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE) has listed its past conferences on its website from 1998, initially biannual but since 2019 these have become annual events. 8,000 members, 82 partners, and 300,000 educators are listed on its website. (xxv)here. Many of the partners are other American media literacy trainers. NAMLE is vast organisation with a wide range of media literacy activities, its funders include Google, Meta, Microsoft, Thomson-Reuters, and the usual American foundations (xxvi)here.
Moreover, media literacy training is appearing more regularly on mainstream media programmes. Some European radio and television programmes describe their fact checking methods to audiences, as does the BBC’s Verify programmes (xxvii)here. These television media literacy programmes describe how to fact check against narrative. This encourages audiences to use the same systems when they want to check information.
The lead media literacy trainers in Africa are Africa Check and PesaCheck. Africa Check states it has trained 10,000 persons in media literacy, with funding from the UN Democratic fund (xxviii)here. PesaCheck extends over 16 African countries in Central and East Africa, and undertakes media literacy training in several African languages, in conjunction with African universities (xxix)here. The funding for Africa Check and PesaCheck Is mainly from European and American sources, including Western governments, social media corporations, United Nations departments, and wealthy Trusts such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (xxx)here and (xxxi)here.
In Asia, media literacy conferences and workshops are organised by the Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development (xxxii)here, with local fact check platforms offering media literacy training, for example, fact check platform Mafindo, supported by Google, teaches media literacy in Indonesia. (xxxiii)here. Fact Check platforms Logically and Newsmobile were funded by Meta to undertake media literacy training in India, in 2021 (xxxiv)here. In South America, the Argentinian fact check platform Chequeado that heads the umbrella Portuguese and Spanish platform Latam Chequea also teaches media literacy (xxxv)here.
Is it dangerous to stray from official narratives?
Moreover, in VDLinden’s book Foolproof, examples are given of people who were ‘fooled’ and undertook criminal activity or dangerous actions following the receipt of false information. However, sometimes false information causing injury, harm and other adverse events, including death, can occur when information is provided by governments, officials, and professionals. For example, some women took Thalidomide in pregnancy with disastrous consequences for their babies (xxxvi)here. In the 2020 Covid pandemic there are examples of the non-pharmaceutical interventions imposed by governments, officials and medical personnel causing physical, social, emotional, educational and psychological harm (xxxvii)here, with negligible effect in reducing viral transmission (xxxviii)here.
Throughout history, rulers and governments have controlled information as a means of controlling populations. There have been many examples of governments and rulers not acting in the interests of its citizens. VDLinden describes the policies of Nazi Germany, and false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in his book Foolproof: both led to war with extreme suffering and loss of life. Censorship and propaganda by all governments and war leaders at times of conflict has been well recorded; this misleads both combatants and civil society. Literature is extensive, a few examples are Virgil Hawkins Stealth Wars, Philip Knightley’s (In War Truth is) The First Casualty, and David Miller’s Tell Me Lies.
Media literacy trainers ideally need to instruct people how to seek information from a variety of sources, including seeking out dissenting opinions and original sources. Ideally, trainees could be taught how to evaluate opposing positions and practice respectful debate, in order to form opinions that are based on full information. They should also be prepared to change positions if new convincing information is presented. Rather than smearing those with opposing viewpoints, people could be encouraged to understand the importance of mutual respect and ongoing dialogue. This would be more effective than the current media literacy system which influences trainees to only follow information from official sources.
Dissenting opinions may be right or wrong, but what is important is that citizens should be able to freely listen, evaluate, form and express their own views without having their minds trained to reject views that offer new or different ideas. Yes, adults should be able to listen to fake news, misinformation and disinformation and form their own opinions. Why not?
Conclusion.
Media literacy and training in critical thinking has the possibility of teaching students to be self-aware and better decision makers. But in its current form, it cannot achieve that; today’s media literacy training is a form on mind control, that smears those who hold other viewpoints – many of whom are using their own skills to think critically. The industry is dominated by funding from the powerful and wealthy, including government funding, similar to the fact check industry.
The industry uses a range of methods to train participants to think in a particular way; methods are innovative and designed to be attractive to children, adolescents and students. By 2024, the media literacy industry may well exceed the size of the fact check industry, and is still developing both in it methods, size and reach. It is also becoming more professional, involving academics and research, professional journals, it is developing systems of training trainers, and holding regular conventions and international meetings. Trainers use compelling language to persuade audiences of the importance and ethical approach of their work. These disguise the psychologically devised methods of thought control by using Orwellian-style language, such as ‘developing critical thinking skills’ and ‘promoting online safety’.
People and especially children are unaware that their taxes – and their parents taxes – are being used to train them to think in a way that suits their governments and its wealthy allies – large corporates and the very rich that create policy. This undermines human rights, freewill and democracy.