In a Guardian hack job entitled “How Russia spreads Disinformation via RT is more nuanced than we realise” Robert Elliot launched a full bore frontal attack on freedom of thought with an astonishing frankness evident for those with eyes to see. The article states:
The daily deluge of disinformation produced by RT and Sputnik is a vital component of the tactics that other authoritarian regimes are seeking to replicate. ...The volume of coverage, framing of coverage, and average engagement with that coverage is, at times, widely disparate [from that of western media].
Our research at the State Owned Media Analytics and Research programme has shown us that RT sometimes dedicates a disproportionate amount of time to pushing certain stories – such as the coup in Venezuela or the leaked memos from the British ambassador about Donald Trump.
• what is “disproportionate” and by what objective criteria do you measure this?
• how do you measure which stories should be pushed?
• do you take into consideration the stories that are not covered or pushed by the MSM?
RT’s coverage on the Venezuela coup attracted an average of 2,558 engagements (retweets, likes or shares) per online article, more than the BBC’s 1,780 engagements per article. [¶ ] And evidence is mounting to suggest they routinely disseminate stories designed to sow division in the west and pursue the foreign policy goals of the governments that back them, consciously or otherwise.
• evidence is "mounting" means what exactly? suggests in what way?
• the only “evidence” thus far cited is that RT got more hits than BBC on a story; and the only thing that suggests is that more people liked RT's coverage. Maybe they found it more balanced or reliable. Maybe it just better suited their prejudices. That “suggests” nothing about the intent of the “disseminator”
•“disseminate” - cute “to scatter or spread widely, as though sowing seed, spreading disease.
•“consciously or otherwise” - i.e. with or without intent to sow division? how do they “pursue” policy goals unintentionally? Gibberish.
It is difficult to demonstrate the extent to which this influences public discourse, but measuring the online activity of state media is a useful way to start.
• well, it is the only way to start - but the hidden assumption here is that "influencing” is a bad thing which ought not be allowed.
The methodology employed by these news organisations poses a series of questions for policymakers. If they are being used to destabilise civil society and widen social fissures, then what is the right response?
• rhetorical question, isn't it? rather like asking what do we do with those who poison wells.
Their coverage of the European elections in May focused on the success of populist parties like the Brexit party, while for the most part ignoring a surge in support for the Greens and other non-traditional parties on the left. Why is it that state-controlled media portrayed the results as a populist backlash against the European project, which, according to this narrative, seeks to suppress national identities and usurp nation states? Does it matter that they encourage UK citizens to question the veracity or impartiality of the news they consume from traditionally reliable sources?
• why assume that these "traditional" sources are "reliable”?
• people should question the news they consume from “traditionally reliable sources”
States will always use all the tools at their disposal to protect their national interests and pursue foreign policy objectives. But if the modus operandi of state-controlled media is to delegitimise institutions and sources of authority in the eyes of a section of the wider public, undermine social cohesion by amplifying divisive voices, draw attention to examples of western hypocrisy, and promote narratives of fear and uncertainty, then how do we respond?
• “states” includes the western states, does it not?
• what media outlets do the western liberal states use? BBC perhaps? NY Slime? Alt Fem Guardian
Disinformation does not consist solely of fabricated news stories, Photoshopped images or wild conspiracy theories presented as fact. It is often more nuanced, more sophisticated – and more effective – than policymakers or the public realise. Only by monitoring and measuring their influence can we develop strategies to counter their growing power and reach.
--o0o--
The
opening salvo to this entire Orwellian campaign to scare people into
trusting Big Sister and accepting the neo-liberal narrative was shot
by (Shut Her Up) Hillary in 2014 in testimony before Congress.
No question but that Hillary
was explicitly calling for a propaganda war -- or in today's verbiage
for “weaponizing” the media. Of course RT was in her sights
because it was winning. Once again, we got a version of the
Appeasement Narrative, for starting a war on yet another front.
To be sure the Guardian article is correct to say that governments have always
propagandized their interests. They put their best foot forward and
expose their protagonist's dirty linen. Plus ça change. For the rest of us, the
solution is very simple: read both accounts and hone your detective
skills. I certainly would not trust RT News for an objective account
on Russian elections but, under the same principle of skepticism, I
would not rely on the New York Slime for an objective account of U.S.
elections. Of course, the Slime will give us accurate reports on
figures and results but it will leave untouched the sordid underbelly
of oligarchic control over the process.
What
the Guardian article slides over grossly is the simple fact that we
do not read the news; we
judge it. Or should.
Every time we pick up a magazine, or newspaper or tune in on a
chatter-show, we should recall that we are in the position of a juror
listening to and ultimately weighing
testimony. For that is, ultimately, all the “news” is -- a
hearsay account by a witness as to some occurrence or fact. It makes
no difference whether the witnesses is ill or well intentioned,
for in either case his account is subject to bias, to errors of perception
... and... errors of
judgement on his part. There is very little “purely” factual
reporting in the vein of empirical litmus tests. In subtle ways
mental judgements are always brought to bear on perceptions.
Intelligent people understand this. People who have lived in
press-controlled dictatorships understand this. They learn to read
between the lines, to
remember previous and
inconsistent reports, and to
assess the likelihood of the thing asserted, in light of the common experience of mankind. They exercise their brains and their judgement. That
is what freedom of the press presupposes.
But
the Guardian, the Slime, Shut Her Up Hillary, Heiko the Idiot and
Jucinda the Lord Protectress do not want you thinking. They want to
turn your brain into a passive sponge for safe and sanitized news
which they will present to you. NO CHILD HARMED.
This
is an old canard and it uses the same cry it has always used:
SEDITION. We have already written about John Wilkes and the North
Briton No. 45 - a story
all Americans ought to know and might know had they not been assured
by such safe and reliable punjarums like Paul Klunkman that Murka
was the “birthplace of democracy.” In response to Wilkes'
scurrilous (if not quite fake) news about King George III, Parliament
brought down upon him the
full force of the sedition
act.
In
England, speech was seditious if it brought the Crown or any branch
of government into "hatred or contempt" or if it
promoted discontent or hostility between citizens. The law had its origin in a 1275 statute of King
Edward I (“of fierce tempre”) which established the Star Chamber
and outlawed the telling or
publishing of “any false news or tales whereby discord or occasion
of discord or slander may grow between the king and his people or the
great men of the realm.” (Slander and Sedition Act, 1275, 3 Edw.
1, C. 34 (England)). As one might expect, it was sometimes called
“blasphemous”
libel.
In
the case of De
Libellis Famosis (1606)
5 Co Rep 125a, 77 ER 250, it was ruled that truth was not a defence.
The King might be a gouty pig but it brought his reputation equally
into disrepute to say so. Ernst
Kantorowicz
(The
King's Two Bodies)
wrote
a lengthy juridico-theological tome on the interesting christological
concepts
involved in this and
like tenets.
The
full import of De
Libellis Famosis
bears note,
“The
Star Chamber ruled, first, that a libel against a private person
might be punished as a crime, on the theory that it might provoke
revenge and, hence, a breach of the peace. Second, the Star
Chamber held that a libel against the government might also be
punished criminally and was especially serious because "it
concerns not only the breach of the peace, but also the scandal of
government." Third, although the statute of 1275 had insisted
upon proof of falsity, the Star Chamber ruled that the truth or
falsity of the libel was immaterial under the common law; thus, even
a true libel of government could now be the subject of criminal
prosecution.
The rationale of the Star Chamber decision was straightforward: If government is to govern effectively, it must command the respect and allegiance of the people. Since any utterance critical of government necessarily undermines this respect and allegiance, it must inevitably tend, however remotely, toward disorder. Moreover, a true libel is especially dangerous, for unlike a false libel, the dangers of truthful criticism cannot be defused by mere disproof. It was thus an oft-quoted maxim after 1606 that "the greater the truth the greater the libel." The potential benefits to be derived from bringing governmental shortcomings to light were not seen as sufficiently valuable to justify the exclusion of true libels from the reach of the criminal law. The Star Chamber's open-ended formulation of the crime opened the door to essentially unchecked suppression of dissent. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, prosecutions for seditious libel ran into the hundreds. [Source ]
The rationale of the Star Chamber decision was straightforward: If government is to govern effectively, it must command the respect and allegiance of the people. Since any utterance critical of government necessarily undermines this respect and allegiance, it must inevitably tend, however remotely, toward disorder. Moreover, a true libel is especially dangerous, for unlike a false libel, the dangers of truthful criticism cannot be defused by mere disproof. It was thus an oft-quoted maxim after 1606 that "the greater the truth the greater the libel." The potential benefits to be derived from bringing governmental shortcomings to light were not seen as sufficiently valuable to justify the exclusion of true libels from the reach of the criminal law. The Star Chamber's open-ended formulation of the crime opened the door to essentially unchecked suppression of dissent. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, prosecutions for seditious libel ran into the hundreds. [Source ]
As
noted, British sedition laws were extensively used in the 18th
century most notably against John Wilkes, who was a scurrilous extremist ("activist" to his friends) who bravely challenged the extent of freedom of
speech and media freedom in Britain at that time through his
publication North Briton. It was eventually declared seditious by
parliament and was publicly burned. The Colony of Maryland sent him
45 hogsheads of tobacco to aid in his defence; and it was the libel-for-profit, scandal-mongering Wilkes that
the Framer's most recently had in mind when they enacted the First
and Fourth Amendments. As James Madison, put it
"Liberty
is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it
instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty,
which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction,
than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential
to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency."
(Federalist Paper No. 10)
We
have never tired of citing James Madison because people, and today
particularly liberals, never tire of forgetting him. The First
Amendment stands in direct repudiation of sedition laws precisely against
the alleged “good” sedition laws are aimed to protect: the
peace and concord of the realm. Madison's
answer is unequivocal. Freedom is risky. It presents a clear and
present danger to the peace and concord of the realm. So
be it!
In
a famous dictum, Justice Holmes analogized the First Amendment to a
“market place of ideas” (Abrams v. United States (1919)
250 U.S. 616) -- a metaphor originally used by John Milton in his
Areopagitica (1644). But in
today's society, the metaphor unduly suggests consumer passivity
and, in tandem, the need for some kind consumer protection against
unsafe, injurious or contaminated ideas. That is indeed precisely
the cheating gambit resorted to by the pharisees of political
correctness. These snakes hiss and whine about “harmful
content” on the internet, as if one could get punched in the nose
by a computer screen. “Harmful content” to whom?
There
is no way one can get “harmed” by reading a book, looking at a
video, linking to on line material other than by knowing or thinking
things someone decides
one ought not know or think. Think about it. How in the fuck am I
harmed by being exposed to the blasphemous idea that Jesus did not
really rise from the grave unless it be assumed that (1) I actually
have an eternal soul and (2) that my eternal soul will be irreparably
damaged by not believing in the Saving Grace of Jesus Christ, bought
and pledged by his crucifixion and resurrection? The premise of "harm" always presupposes an iceberg of hidden assumptions. How am I harmed by
knowing that corrupt oligarchs who run the United States are leading
the country into war or causing ecological collapse? The only thing
that is harmed is the
narcotic assurance of not knowing -- the peace and concord of my
empty mind.
NO!
At the time Milton wrote there was no consumer protection in the
market. Caveat Emptor was the rule. And, whatever
might be said today of the need to regulate hot dogs and water,
caveat emptor applies most essentially to freedom of speech. The
First Amendment does not simply guarantee a “choice” of purchased
opinion -- it imposes an obligation to exercise judgement.
It is up to each of us to undertake to act as jurors of everything
we read, without having our verdicts being directed by Content
Guardians.
And
I will say it further: if you don't read RT News or China Daily, if
you don't read Stormfront, if you don't read Jihad Journal
or Socialist International,
if you don't read Institute
for Historical Revisionism -- in
short if you don't read the full spectrum of misinformation available
and if you content yourself with approved “reliable” sources like
the Slime, the Guardian, Le Monde, Die Zeit and the battery of
neo-liberal, Atlanticist
bullshitters, you are not being a responsible juror.
Not
only do Hillary, Heiko and Jucinda want to protect you from “harmful
content,” they are actively seeking to imbecilize you, in the hope that civil
society will be infantilized even more than it is. The supposed
evils, which the Guardian dangles before you like the terrible
spectre of an Erlkönig
are cribbed undiluted from Edward "the Hammer's" statute of 1275
sow division!undermine social cohesion!draw attention to examples of western hypocrisy!destabilise civil society and widen social fissures!
or,
as Nancy Peelousy put it
“We
must also be vigilant against bigoted or dangerous ideologies
masquerading as policy, and that includes BDS.”
The trajectory bears note. It began with Hillary's call for counter-propaganda -- a new cold war of words. While this was hardly unprecedented, it was concerning depending on the amount of government management that might be brought to bear. After all, it was Donald Rumsfeld, who back in February of 2003, blithely remarked that the U.S. would be undertaking counter-information "dark ops." He seemed to find it amusing that one would never be able to tell who really might be behind some report or opinion. Fast forward 13 years. Accusing the Russians of what Rumsfeld promised to do, the trajectory then hit the next stage with Neo-McCarthyite scaremongering against subversive fake news which supposedly deprived Hillary of her rightful due thereby undermining our democratic processes. From that pivot point of vengeance and hysteria, the trajectory very quickly metamorphosed into Heiko and Jucinda's call to securitize the internet against so-called "violent extremist" and "inappropriate" content.
Today's Guardian screed could not more clearly state what these scumbags of safety and correctness are about. They spit it out at your face. And as they do so, they tell you that you need to be protected from things that are “masquerading” as policy, as news, as something you might want (but ought not) to consider. No...no! There is no need for you to consider anything! The acceptable “choices” will be given to you in due and proper course. Otherwise, do not read what we don't want you to read, and hate what we tell you to hate.
Today's Guardian screed could not more clearly state what these scumbags of safety and correctness are about. They spit it out at your face. And as they do so, they tell you that you need to be protected from things that are “masquerading” as policy, as news, as something you might want (but ought not) to consider. No...no! There is no need for you to consider anything! The acceptable “choices” will be given to you in due and proper course. Otherwise, do not read what we don't want you to read, and hate what we tell you to hate.
While 1984 states the paradigm, what our
rulers have learned since 1949 is that hate can be managed more
suavely under a veneer of civility, appealing to so-called
humanitarian principles accepted a priori. “Hate” is replaced
with “unacceptibility.” The epithet is the proof. Anything
labelled “inappropriate” (or fascist, or extremist, or racist
or chauvinist, or xenophobic or homophobic or antisemitic or any one
of a veritiable lexicon of virtue signalling epithets) is disparaged
with an annoyed contempt. Anything branded is rejected as “potentially
dangerous” with furrowed concern. But this is merely a question
of modulation and volume. When it is necessary to dial up the
frenzy, it can be done as it was in 1991 or 2003.
Moreover, as we have also discussed before, it is never simply a matter of banning some speech or opinion which is actually injurious to the status quo. It is always a question of tendencies. Just as truth as not a defence, seditious libel statutes never required proof of actual harm but only of a tendency to give rise to harm -- or in today's pleonastic lingo of a potential danger. The ferocious claw of state will be brought down on anyone who rubs the cat the wrong way.
And
while the Guardian blabbers about extremist content, hate speech, and
fake or weaponized news, it publishes crap like the following:
"The
unemployment rate rose [sic] one-tenth of a percentage point to 3.7%
as people entered [sic] the labor market."
How
Orwellian is that?
During the 1950's and 60's when the United States was happy and
prosperous, there was no need to fabricate statistics as to the
availability of grams of chocolate per capita. But in the 1990's as the long
term trajectory of economic decline became clear, it became necessary
to engage in statistical double-think to keep the people cohesive and
ignorant as to their own state of well-being. As economic and
ecological collapse continue unabated we can expect the mainstream
media to feed us more lies as to the true state of affairs and Truth
Warriors like the Guardian will urge us to emphatically reject
examples
of western hypocrisy brought
to our attention by hostile actors.
This article is not just a matter of some techie seeking to justify his employment. It is part and parcel of an assault on freedom of speech and an open internet that has been going on with vengeance in the past two years. Google's algorithms are being adjusted so as to steer users to "mainstream" content. You Tube is demonetizing, marginalizing and outright suppressing content it arbitrarily bans as "extremist" or "dangerous" or guilty of some unspecified "inappropriateness" under so-called "community guidelines." It is straight out of the Nazi playbook. The fact that the bans may appear inconsistent and irrational is no comfort. Arbitrariness is a well tried method in the arsenal of despotism. Why? Because, as was said, "the question is not what is prohibited but what is allowed." That is exactly the state of generalized uncertainty all tyrants are delighted to engender.
There is no life without oxygen or without strife. Howsoever stuffed with righteousness Hillary the Scorned, Heiko the Idiot , Jucinda the Mournful and their long train of politically correct, liberal virtue warriors may be, they are suffocating the life out of civil society.
There is no life without oxygen or without strife. Howsoever stuffed with righteousness Hillary the Scorned, Heiko the Idiot , Jucinda the Mournful and their long train of politically correct, liberal virtue warriors may be, they are suffocating the life out of civil society.
©wcg 2019
