The Control of information.
How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown.
“Fact checkers are narrative enforcers, consensus is not science, propaganda is a hell of a drug.” Dr. Sam Dube.
New forms of democracy and the need for control.
Whilst there are quiet times for fact checkers, the fact industry has to be geared to raise its game when a preferred story is circulating, especially if this is challenged by dissenting voices. On hot button issues, such as climate and health risk, the favoured narratives appear regularly in all print and broadcasting outlets, and are also prominent on social media sites. When citizen journalists put contrary version of events onto social media sites, offending posts are rapidly removed or have a ‘warning banner’ attached by fact checkers. Experts sometimes raise a counter narrative, such as a vaccine specialist expressing concern about vaccines, or a climate scientist not giving emphasis to the human cause of climate change. However, such views are not welcome in the mainstream media, they are heavily censored, experts are harassed and smeared, and their professional standing may be put at risk, even when their testimony is accurate [1] here.
This is not accidental, but coordinated. Mike Benz, a former US state official and director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, described the complex management system in the USA that controls information. For example, Graphika, an analysis company with Deep State ties, immediately began to analyse sceptical Covid accounts in December 2019, and generated maps of those criticising the Covid narrative and vaccines. Graphika was also part of The Virality Project that listed the types of claims questioning vaccine hesitancy, masks and lockdowns that needed moderation, even if such claims were accurate [2] here. Clearly at such times, fact check platforms are very occupied with moderating in line with their donors’ requirements.
Fact check platforms are also busy during election campaigns. Benz states that the information control mechanisms no longer see democracy as the will of the people, but instead the new definition of democracy is support for government institutions that enforce policy. In the USA in 2019, the censorship industry was tasked with defending democracy from ‘domestic threats’, i.e. from those who dissent. When an election candidate does not follow the preferred agenda, this is often viewed positively by the electorate. The candidate is smeared as ‘populist’, as if being popular is undesirable. The ‘populist’ has now replaced ‘terrorists’ as the number one enemy of democracy [3] here.
Trivial pursuits.
When there is not a major circulating story, it is notable that many of the facts that are checked are trivia; it is hard to understand why adults need a third party intervention on such minor matters, as fact checkers claim. For example, the American fact check platform Lead Stories published a fact check on 8 October 2019 which claimed that the story of a secret colour code on toothpaste packaging was false. Newsmobile in India fact checked a video clip on 25 December 2023 that claimed that President Modi had in the past been opposed to electric vehicles. On 15 December, 2023 PesaCheck found the story that Kenya’s deputy president snored in a meeting was untrue, and that a circulating video of a leaking roof was not from Uganda’s Entebbe airport. In UK’s Full Fact website on 2 January 2024, it was reported that a circulating video of a Tsunami in Japan was not a recent event but from 2011.
Although fact check platforms justify their efforts, human societies have successfully survived such rumours over millennia, and it is unlikely that these fact checking efforts make any significant difference to audience reactions. For example, the people who support the deputy president of Kenya will be more likely to welcome Pesacheck’s reassurance, whereas the people who oppose him are more likely to be sceptical of their report. It is necessary that the fact checking industry has a close relationship with those of immense wealth, as they fund an industry that has no independent means of survival. Fact checking of information is not to ensure accuracy, but instead moderates, or censors, information that does not coincide with official narratives. One method of controlling information is to ignore perspectives that may undermine discourses favoured by fact checkers’ sponsors.
Fact checking emphasis on hot button issues, 7tOctober 2023 to 6 January 2024.
In order to understand whether fact checkers examine important issues that are likely to influence opinion, or revert to issues of trivia even on hot button issues, I examined fact checks on the biggest news story during this time period, which was the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I examined the website of Agencie France Presse (AFP) as it is the world’s largest fact check platform, and investigated fact checks that relate to the distressing events in the Middle East in the above timeframe. AFP has a worldwide fact checking function, and is more active in fact checking than other newswires, such as Reuters and Associated Press (AP). AFP has an office in Israel and local staff on the ground in Gaza. It has itself suffered in the conflict, as its office in Gaza, was bombed by Israel in 2023 [4] here.
The aim of this short study was to examine (1) any inaccuracies or bias in the response of AFP fact checkers and (2) whether fact checks examined controversial issues that may influence or alter perceptions of audiences and readers.
Research into media coverage of the Israeli-Palestine conflict reveals that news content in mainstream television has historically tended to be biased in favour of the Israeli position, for example, the Glasgow University Media Group research into media coverage of the conflict. The results of these studies were published in Bad News from Israel (2004) and More Bad News from Israel (2007) by G.Philo and M. Berry. More recently, extensive research was undertaken into the current conflict by The Centre for Media Monitoring between 7 October and 7 November 2023, analysing more than 176,000 broadcast items on 13 news channels, and 28 online media sites. The report concluded that there was ‘overwhelming’ bias in favour of the Israeli narrative. For example, Palestinian sources were treated with scepticism, whilst information from Israeli sources were accepted at face value. Even when Israeli claims were disproved, commentators, presenters and journalists frequently repeated them without challenge [5] here.
Propaganda by all sides is a ubiquitous feature of war. This was explained by Philip Knightley, in his book The First Casualty (2004), in which he examines war coverage from the Crimea onwards. In line with Knightley’s findings, AFP states on its website that misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war surged online since Palestinian militants launched an unprecedented attack on Israel on 7 October 2023.
AFP has been accused of bias by both Israeli and Palestine supporters. In November 2003 an AFP representative appeared in front of the US senate accused of pro-Palestinian bias, by not using the term ‘terrorist’ to describe Palestinian militant groups [6] here. Emails leaked to Declassified In October 2023 describe the AFP ‘rules’ of reporting the Israeli-Palestine conflict, including, “…all stories’ opening paragraphs should at least mention: the deaths on both sides, the hostages held by Hamas, and Hamas’ unprecedented attack on Israel.” There was no requirement to describe Israeli occupation of Palestine, ethnic cleaning, apartheid, and the belief of some experts that Israeli action may constitute genocide [7] here. However AFP denies bias, stating that it has 50 staff working in Israel, West Bank and Gaza, its own staff in Gaza being displaced in the current conflict, and states it works to report events from both sides [8] here.
The AFP fact check section is erroneously labelled ‘Hamas-Israeli War’. This title does not represent the attacks on civilians in Gaza and the deprivation of food and water that are essential for survival, nor the plausible claims of genocide that were being made during the period of this study.
AFP had 140 fact checks on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict on its website during this period:
· 11 related to celebrity statements.
· 15 related to anti-war protests outside of the region.
· 10 related to foreign military or political events outside the region, including Yemen, USA, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iran.
· 3 related to events in West Bank.
· 1 related to events in Israel.
· 84 directly related to Israeli action in Gaza.
· 16 miscellaneous.
The 84 fact checks in Gaza fall into the following categories:
· Pictures from other conflicts, for example the Syrian or Ukrainian conflict, or earlier Gaza assaults misrepresented as part of the current Gaza conflict. It is unclear who posted these images, or their motives.
· Other images from video games, firework displays, paragliders not related to Gaza or Israel, misrepresented as part of the current conflict. Again, it is unclear who posted these images or their motives.
· ‘Pallywood’ claims of crisis actors pretending to be injured. The majority of these were identified by AFP as crisis actors and not real events (6 reports in total). Again, it is unclear who posted these images or their motives.
· Two fact checks relate to a disputed hospital attack [9] here.
In the context of war, except for the hospital bombing story these were mainly fact checks of fringe issues; the Israel and Palestine issue is polarising and AFP’s arbitration on minor issues is unlikely to change perceptions. However, there have been more important issues that would give more reader/audience insight into the conflict and influence debate but these were not investigated by the AFP fact check team. These included:
· As real images of Gazans were widely available at this time, AFP did not address the issue of who was posting false images, claiming them to be from Gaza, and why.
· Israel’s right to self-defence. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, stated in November 2023 “The right to self-defense can be invoked when the state is threatened by another state. Israel cannot claim the right of self-defense against a threat that emanates from a territory it occupies — from a territory kept under belligerent occupation” [10] here. This has not been fact checked by AFP.
· Although there is no disagreement on the brutality of the attack on Israel by Palestinian militants on 7 October 2023, there is evidence that some Israeli deaths were caused by the actions of Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). Victims were either caught in crossfire, shelled because of poor military intelligence, or purposefully killed by the IDF as part of the ‘Hannibal directive’. This is an Israeli policy of preference to kill hostages rather than being forced to negotiate for their release [11] here. The IDF actions were confirmed by an Israeli spokesperson in December 2023 who stated that it had killed its own citizens in ‘immense and complex quantity’ adding: ‘It would not be morally sound to investigate these incidents’ [12] here. This was not investigated by AFP fact checkers, although it was investigated by independent journalists and Al Jazeera television [13] here.
· A story of ‘40 beheaded babies’ during the 7 October attacks was widely reported in mainstream news. Al Jazeera journalists found no evidence to support the claim and further stated that an Israel spokesperson apologised for misreporting the story [14] here. Other independent journalists found only two infants were recorded as being killed on 7 October in Israeli records [15] here. Although this story was repeated in the media even after it was discredited, this was not investigated by AFP fact checkers.
· The Israeli claim of Israeli women being ‘systematically’ raped and gang raped by Hamas militias was widely publicised, but denied by Hamas officials. Discrepancies relating to the Israeli account included public comments made by family members [16] here. Contradictory claims by witnesses, and lack of forensic evidence [17] here and [18] here. However, in March 2024 The Intercept reported a story given to them by a New York Times (NYT) whistle-blower. An internal dispute at the NYT concerned a story of this rape allegation published in December 2023, that could not be verified. Israeli hospitals and rape crisis centres were checked and no rape cases had been treated. In a centre supporting survivors, therapists stated that no one had reported sexual assault [19] here. The Israeli prosecutor reported that no forensic evidence to support this claim nor victims had been found [20] here. Independent journalists stated that although there was the possibility of sexual violence on that day, as this often occurred during war, there was no evidence to support the claim of the systematic use of gender based violence [21] here and [22] here. Neither the rape story nor the NYT dispute were investigated by AFP fact checkers.
· On 4 January 2024 whilst being interviewed on LBC television, the Israeli Ambassador, Tzipi Hotovely claimed that the tunnels were under “every school, every mosque, and every second house” and called for destroying every house in Gaza [23] here. Although this claim was controversial, it was not investigated by AFP fact checkers.
· During this period, legal experts stated that Israeli actions in Gaza amounted to genocide. It was reported that a claim of genocide was being prepared in December 2023 by South Africa on behalf of Palestinians[24] here; the case was bought before the ICJ on 11-12 January 2024. This claim was rejected by Israeli, British and American governments, yet despite the controversy there was no investigation by AFP fact checkers.
· Israel alleged that the headquarters of the Hamas military wing were located under the largest hospital in Gaza, the Al Shifa Hospital [25] here. This was denied by hospital staff. This was not investigated by AFP fact checkers.
· Israel has economic incentives to remove Gazans from their homeland. There is a huge unexplored gas field off the Gazan coast, the East Levant Basin. This section belongs to Palestine, but Israel has been in secret talks to develop this field and take Palestinian assets. Additionally there is a planned development of a canal and a new trade route through Gazan land [24] here. Although this has been reported by the independent media, it has not been investigated by AFP fact checkers.
High profile events, such as those listed above, if investigated fully in the mainstream media could sway public opinion to demand a ceasefire, and force politicians to put pressure on Israel to halt its actions in Gaza, thus protecting Palestinian lives and human rights. However, AFP fact checkers have failed to investigate.
Instead, AFP has in the main investigated inconsequential issues; some of these, such as describing images of other wars inaccurately attributed to Gaza, or actors playing the part of Gazan victims undermines the real story of Palestinian suffering during the Israeli bombardment. The AFP investigation avoided the more important issue of who was posting these images, and why. The only AFP investigation of substance was the bombing of a Gazan hospital, where both Israel and Palestinian militias blamed each other for this tragic event with a large loss of life, as displaced people were killed whilst taking refuge in the hospital car park. AFP concluded that there was no evidence of this being caused by an Israeli weapon, quoting the French Government as its source[i].
Conclusion.
Many facts checked by fact check platforms are trivial and of insignificance, although fact check platforms’ activity increases when there is a prominent story with dissenting voices. This includes hot button issues such as the Covid story and elections. The immediate response to such events is not accidental – an American analyst points to the complex systems supporting preferred narratives, that swing into censoring activities when dissent is expected.
Even when fact checkers check hot button issues such as war, using the example of AFP’s performance in the Israeli-Palestine Conflict shows that fact checks (1) tend to keep to fringe issues and avoid controversy, and hence do not add to audience knowledge and understanding, and (2) fact checks tend to favour the narrative of Western powers. It is hard to justify the time and money spent on AFP’s fact checking of this horrific conflict if such checks do not add to audience/reader knowledge and understanding, unless this is deference to the fact checkers’ sponsors.
However, a further interesting point is that on two occasions, it was revealed that whistle-blowers at mainstream media outlets (NYT and AFP) leaked documents revealing possible bias. Whether these dissenting journalists were right or wrong, it is interesting that they were prepared to publicly challenge editorial decisions.
The fact check industry is extensive but has to be kept ‘at the ready’ for when a controversial new discourse begins to circulate. This preliminary study demonstrates that fact check platforms often check trivial and unimportant issues that adults can easily deal with themselves.