I’ve been musing for some time on the subjects in the title of this post and the brouhaha concerning them. Let’s define a few terms.
A lie is the knowing telling of an untruth with an intent to deceive.
Misinformation is telling others incorrect things whatever the intention. It also doesn’t matter whether the speaker knows that what they’re saying is untrue. The only requirement for it to be misinformation is for it to be untrue.
Disinformation is a lie, particularly one told by the government. It’s propaganda.
There are also just plain differences of opinion.
I’m wary of the government trying to deal with misinformation. That trends into Big Brother pretty quickly. And I do not think our government should engage in disinformation at all. I don’t think that’s consistent with a liberal democracy.
In this post I’m soliciting examples of disinformation, misinformation, and just plain differences of opinion.
The clearest example of disinformation I can think of from the fairly recent past with Dr. Anthony Fauci’s remarks about wearing a facemask in March 2020. As he has subsequently admitted, he believed he was telling an untruth in discouraging people from wearing facemasks. He has also stated he had a good motive for it.
Many of the things that are claimed to be misinformation are actually differences of opinion. So, for example, although I think that anthropogenic global warming is real I recognize that not everyone agrees with that. When they air their disagreement that’s not misinformation.
The “lab leak hypothesis” for the origin of COVID-19 is one possible explanation for the disease. It’s not misinformation.
How about some other examples of misinformation, disinformation, and differences of opinion?
Unfortunately, truth is normally determined by those with the best command of the language.
Thus style trumps substance.
This is something that the framers recognized and so division of power.
Here’s another example. I think that Biden won the 2020 election but I don’t believe that those who disagree are engaging in misinformation. I think it’s a difference of opinion.
For anyone on line right now. Our host may be right in the sights of some very tough weather as of this writing. Like tornadoes. Very rare for Chicago. Your well wishes appreciated.
“I think that Biden won the 2020 election but I don’t believe that those who disagree are engaging in misinformation. I think it’s a difference of opinion.”
But after 2 years they still haven’t found any evidence so at this point it is lying, not misinformation. (Note that when the GOP tries to rig the outcome by bringing in partisan auditors they still cant find anything. They have lost nearly every court case, even with Trump appointed judges, to say nothing of GOP, Trump supporting secretaries of state. It might have been reasonable to call it a disagreement for 6 months or so but we are long past that.)
On differences of opinion I think you would say whether or not there is a continuing role right now for covid boosters. Whether we should support Ukraine.
On covid, disinformation I have had to deal with…
The vaccine has 5G chips in it
The vaccine will make you magnetized.
The vaccine has killed millions, more than covid.
The vaccine never stopped the spread of infection.
Ivermectin works 70% of the time for covid.
Interesting that you would choose the Fauci statement. Why not Trump saying anyone who wanted a test could get one. Or the virus would go away when the weather got better or all of the other claims it was going away. . Or claiming it was Obama’s fault we didnt have a test for the coronavirus (which didnt exist when Obama was POTUS). Claiming early on the everyone coming back to the US was being tested and if positive being quarantined. His travel ban stopped travel with China (40,000 Americans continued to travel, only Chinese were stopped). Claiming that HCQ was approved by the FDA to treat covid. Claiming that Cuomo set up death panels and lotteries in New York.
Maybe too many Trump choices to pick one?
Steve
PS- Good luck with the weather. Hope the dogs are OK with thunder, our cats get terrified.
Dave Schuler: The clearest example of disinformation I can think of from the fairly recent past with Dr. Anthony Fauci’s remarks about wearing a facemask in March 2020.
There were two concerns which were not necessarily in conflict: the extent of non-symptomatic infection was yet unknown, and the necessity of preserving masks for healthcare providers who had to work in close proximity to those who were infected. You might say Fauci was not entirely candid, but that does not make it a lie. His advice was consistent with the changing CDC recommendations.
Dave Schuler: So, for example, although I think that anthropogenic global warming is real I recognize that not everyone agrees with that. When they air their disagreement that’s not misinformation.
Some people say the Earth is round, and some people say the Earth is flat. It’s not misinformation: it’s just a matter of opinion.
I’ve come to believe Trump has no faith or concept in what truth is, only winning and losing, and cannot conceive of himself as a loser.
This may be old news to many but just ran across this myself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos
Redesigning the rules of the game to come out on top.
Redefining truth itself.
I thought that was obvious from the outset, Grey Shambler.
That’s right. The way to counter it is with a cool head, reason, and evidence not by banning it. The distance between banning false ideas you don’t like and banning true ones you don’t like is not particularly great.
Dave Schuler: That’s right.
If Flat Earth isn’t misinformation, then there is no such thing as misinformation.
“obvious”
Not to everyone, and yet even while obvious, for many a clear political choice as opposed to voting for those who hate us.
As extreme as that may seem, the populist democrat who holds office at present has completely lost credibility with the very people he claims to champion.
Why? Because donor money Trumps.
Let me expand on that. It has been quite apparent, at least to me, for the last 30 years or so that Donald Trump has a very transactional approach. Isn’t that a large part of what The Art of the Deal (published 1987) was about?
“That’s right. The way to counter it is with a cool head, reason, and evidence not by banning it.”
You do realize that doesnt work dont you? Lots of literature showing that if you calmly and with scientific evidence show that people are wrong they often just double down. When I had to sit in an ICU at 1:00 in the morning trying to explain to a pt and family that there were not chips in their medicines so the government could track them (I failed at this BTW) it was bizarre. On their side they had someone on the internet making claims as the basis for their claims, no evidence. I had science, basically all of physics, on my side.
Look at Wakefield. Lots of studies have since shown he is wrong and we later found out from people who worked with him that he made up a lot fo his data. What happens? Many people still think he is right and he may a movie with someone running for president. You claim it is possible Trump won when every investigation has shown the claim false.
You are correct in the sense that “banning” stuff really doesnt work. First, nothing is really ever banned. The claims get out through other means. Second, people are totally tribal so they believe what they want to believe. We are in another stage after post-modernism. There is no such thing as truth just tribal held beliefs.
Steve
“You do realize that doesnt work dont you? ”
Attempts to ban stuff don’t work either. The reality is that there will always be some non-trivial number of people who believe nonsense, and there isn’t much that can be done about it. Dave’s approach of a cool head, reason, and evidence is better – especially in the long run – than the alternative.
I’ve never been tempted to buy “Art of the dealâ€.
I suppose I always thought that Trump recognized objective truth but refused to be bound by it.
He wouldn’t step in front of a speeding car in denial now would he?
It’s a school of thought epitomized by Roy Cohn and Saul Alinsky.
No holds barred, no boundaries.
I suppose it’s only definition, after all, truth exists independently of belief, but not so in human society or especially in politics.
The Republican ground game hasn’t been as good as the Democrat’s since Newt.
A bit OT but very nice essay. Good to know that at least some judges treat the ethics of their position seriously.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/14/opinion/supreme-court-ethics.html
Steve