Media: Remember That Whole Disinformation Thing? It Was All Made Up

Disinformation, BLM, and masks are mentioned as three moral panics that have caused significant harm to individuals, yet questioning them led to severe consequences. The media, which could not be questioned, later downplayed these issues, acting like they were never significant. Disinformation, once a key element of the Russiagate narrative, was used to enforce censorship and control speech under the claim that it threatened democracy.

Now, a recent article has dismissed the panic over disinformation without acknowledging the damage it caused. For nearly a decade, lawmakers worried about the types of speech social media should censor, claiming these ideas were damaging society. A new industry called “Big Disinfo” emerged to combat misinformation, with NGOs funding initiatives aimed at protecting democracy from false information. An article from Harvard highlights a “crisis” in misinformation studies, noting that despite years of focus, scholars struggle to understand misinformation's real-world effects, such as its influence on elections.

Key issues, such as how to define misinformation, remain unresolved. Polarizing debates hinder progress, with questions about Facebook’s influence on the 2016 elections still unproven. Misinformation is often understood as what the other side believes to be false. Efforts to censor dissenting views are seen as attacks on the First Amendment, but experts previously dismissed concerns about government interference with speech on social media.

According to a Politico article, the panic over disinformation is subsiding as the narrative around it crumbles. The original campaign against disinformation was largely aimed at preventing Trump from being elected, and with his second term now won, the urgency to maintain this narrative has lessened. Although Kamala Harris did not create a false narrative of her loss, Hillary Clinton is noted for giving rise to the disinformation controversy.

Even as Politico describes those studying disinformation as “researchers,” it admits the field lacks scientific credibility. Some scholars argue that the subjective nature of defining misinformation makes it unsuitable for scientific study. Critics say that the movement started as a partisan reaction to Trump, leading to biased definitions of misinformation, which unfairly target conservative viewpoints.

Research in this area tends to reflect a partisan bias, labeling conservative beliefs as dangerous and attempting to suppress them. The study of misinformation lacks the rigor of a true scientific field, resembling the unpredictability of witchcraft. Those participating in this arena are often perceived as motivated by financial gain and political agendas rather than genuine belief in their cause. Ultimately, it is suggested that those promoting misinformation narratives pose a greater threat to democracy than the beliefs they seek to suppress. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/media-remember-that-whole-disinformation-thing-it-was-all-made-up/