Marianna Spring, the BBC’s Disinformation and Social Media Correspondent, will be a familiar name to many readers of the Daily Sceptic, not least for her far from impartial coverage during the Covid pandemic.
Spring has now turned her attention to the response on social media to the disappearance of Nicola Bulley. For several days Spring’s article on the topic was given a prominent position on the BBC News home page.
A lot has happened since the mother of two’s disappearance. There are many different issues which a writer for our state broadcaster might have discussed in relation to the Bulley case. Speculation online has been rife. Some have allowed their imagination to run riot. And a small army of self-styled amateur detectives and nosey-parkers descended on the village, to the annoyance of both the police and residents.
But what – it could have been asked – were the various and perhaps unique factors in this specific case that led to so much speculation and rumour? Why are a small proportion of people driven to put forward or believe conspiracy theories? What inner need do such theories perhaps satisfy? And in what way did the online response distract the investigation, as the police have claimed?
But instead of examining such issues, as is often the case with Marianna Spring we find her operating yet again in her default position. Whichever subject she is writing about, be it Covid, climate, Ukraine and now about the response to the disappearance in St. Michael’s on Wyre, each of her articles uses the same formula. They all follow a similar pattern and have a single aim. Spring’s message is nearly always that there are legions of malicious actors, whether state-sponsored or otherwise, who want to deceive us and who are inflicting significant damage on society. In short, be afraid.
Yet you don’t have to look too deeply into what she writes to see that her conclusion rarely follows from her premises and is not supported by the facts. What she says does not add up. And, in following her formula, the reasonable opinions of a large number of people who are sceptical of the orthodox views held by politicians and most of the media are not only not given a fair hearing, they are ignored. Or worse, they are dismissed, even smeared. This is achieved by subtly and falsely associating them with what is in fact a very small number of people who hold bizarre and questionable views.
How does this formula work in practice? In her article about Nicola Bulley, Spring briefly acknowledges the difference between, on the one hand, speculation, and on the other, ‘conspiracy’ thinking, such as believing that those who were interviewed on camera may be crisis actors. But then she proceeds to do two things. The focus is almost entirely shifted to the relatively small number of people who are conspiracy theorists. By directing readers’ attention in this way, and laying the emphasis on this diminutive group, it helps create the impression that the number of people who believe such things is larger and more of a problem than is likely the case. This is what Spring does, again and again, whatever the topic.
And because the number of people who believe in and who spread outlandish conspiracy theories is extremely small, as is even shown by the figures Spring quotes in her article, it is therefore at odds with the message of alarm she wishes to impart. We therefore find that she has to resort to conflating two groups of people: those who speculate, or who are simply curious, of which there are many, with those who are card-carrying conspiracy theorists and trolls. Therefore, in the case of Nicola Bulley, while Spring emits her message of alarm with all the usual rhetoric and hyperbole, she mentions, in the same breath, speculation and conspiracy theories both together as if there is little or no difference between the two.
This was also largely the approach used during Covid. The reasonable views of many sceptics were ignored, misrepresented or effectively silenced by the BBC’s so-called disinformation reporters, who chose to simplify what was in fact a wide range of nuanced opinions. It often felt like the debate – if it could be called one – was portrayed as being between virtuous lockdowners on one side and selfish Covid deniers on the other – two polarised groups, of which only one could be right. Almost every day I see the same thing happening with other issues, such as with the war in Ukraine, and with those who challenge commonly-held assumptions about climate change.
Apart from anything else, Marianna Spring’s articles often strike me as poor journalism. Spring has a large audience and works for a prestigious organisation, despite the BBC’s declining popularity, so I think it fair to make this criticism.
It is hard to say to say whether Spring overstating the threat from conspiracy theorists is intentional or not. As with others in the media, Government and elsewhere who share her outlook, it is probably a bit of both. I suspect there are occasional brief moments of awareness in which there is the realisation that the facts don’t support the claims being made, but these thoughts are quickly dismissed because they undermine the message.
One doesn’t need to be a hardboiled cynic to think someone with her job title perhaps has an interest in taking this approach, to constantly try to justify her position. In Spring’s world there is a battle taking place, between the good citizens, who – like Marianna herself – are well-informed, well-educated and honest, and the mad and the bad, who wish to manipulate and spread lies. Her role is to help protect the gullible and unsuspecting public from their evil intent. It’s a nice little story. It gains the respect of your colleagues and bolsters one’s sense of self-worth. It pays quite well too.
David Hansard blogs here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Perhaps the articles are all written by Chat GPT?
It’s the classic self-fulfilling prophecy: journalist who makes a living reporting on conspiracy theories, finds conspiracy theories everywhere.
Not true. That claim is a conspiracy theory. Honest to God.
I must admit, I have stopped using the phrase ‘Thats impossible’, and have replaced it with ‘I think that’s unlikely’. e.g. man-triggered earthquakes, chem trails, nanobots, etc etc. So many things I thought were just rabbit hole bunkum have turned out to be true. I suppose the real answer to the difference between a conspiracy theory and irrefutable fact is currently running at about six weeks.
Was this:
a) Typical pro-Putin-climate denialist-antivaxx-far right-anti-trans propaganda,
or
b) The best article ever written about Marianna Spring.
?
Tricky one there, Jonny…but after much thought and soul-searching I think – think – I’ll go for (b)
Well talking of conspiracy theories hang on to your tinfoil hats because Ohio is still in the news. Another explosion, this time in a metal manufacturing factory;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11773411/Mass-Casualty-Incident-reported-following-explosion-metal-manufacturing-plant-Bedford-Ohio.html
Also, East Palestine launched their digID just weeks before the toxic train wreck;
”The town of East Palestine, Ohio shows how deeply embedded this agenda is in the plans of the elite. Before the town entered into the public discourse by becoming the scene of one of the worst environmental disasters in US history, the biggest piece of news to come out of it appears to be another iteration of the ongoing initiative to implement digital surveillance tools into public infrastructure. In late January, East Palestine officially launched its MyID program in order to equip residents of the town and neighboring Unity Township with digital IDs. The premise was purportedly to equip emergency responders with digital health profiles of those who they would be treating. East Palestine’s digital ID initiative was first announced in October 2022.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2023-02-19/east-palestine-launched-digital-id-program-weeks-disaster
Aaaand..despite not touching this documentation for 17 years….
”Why did the CDC update its page for vinyl chloride nearly two weeks before the Ohio train derailment? The CDC edited its profile for vinyl chloride just recently, removing a section on how the chemical affects children.”
https://ussanews.com/2023/02/20/cdc-updates-profile-for-vinyl-chloride-days-before-ohio-train-derailment-and-removes-section-on-how-it-affects-children/
Amazing coincidences Mogs. Truly amazing.
I really, really hate the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist”.
The way they are used implies conspiracies never happen, which is ridiculous, because they do. Often.
It promotes the 21st century delusion that authority is benevolent and that rich and powerful people have all they want and so could only have good intentions for others.
Well, not quite. Strangely enough, the theory that Russia blew up Nordstream 2 isn’t a conspiracy theory somehow. But the theory that the US did, is.
Also something can be a conspiracy theory or not depending on who says it. So if I say the WEF wants to implement a Great Reset and socially re-engineer the world, it’s’ a conspiracy theory. But if Klaus Schwab says it, it’s good sound public policy.
I’m thick. I don’t understand the article. Is it being suggested that she is a professional, paid-for, cynically disingenous, fake, conspiracy theorist? Never heard of her. A lure brings the nut-cases out into plain view? What are the job-requirements? That’s a conspiracy-theory and a half. I’m confused!
“It is hard to say to say whether Spring overstating the threat from conspiracy theorists is intentional or not”
Oh puh-leeze. There are too many articles on DS and elsewhere that suggest that so-and-so is just being naïve, or didn’t realise what he/she was saying, didn’t express themselves clearly enough, etc. I think we can assume the BBC employs reasonably intelligent people, who know exactly what they’re doing, and if they don’t then editorial could correct it. Delingpole on London Calling has already pointed out this tendency certain DS writers exhibit.
There is no “threat from conspiracy theorists”
Talking of Marianna, here are some exchanges I had with her colleague Michael Wendling when I wrote to him to complain about biased coverage of an early anti-lockdown protest. To his credit he answered me and engaged in some kind of debate; I found what he said quite revealing about the mindset of people like this:
“Let me be very clear. Of course there is a legitimate debate over government policy and legitimate questions to be asked. Many of the arguments and people you have mentioned have been reflected in a variety of BBC News reports. We’ve done a number of pieces about the Swedish approach, to take just one example.
However what we saw last Saturday was something very different. The organisers may have tried to tempt in people with the idea that they were simply dissenting from government policy. But the speakers repeatedly spouted bad science and conspiracy theories.
If you look at our health and political coverage online you’ll see a range of opinions and trustworthy information about what is still a very fluid, developing situation.”
And this:
“Of course those who believe in conspiracy theories are not going to call their beliefs conspiracy theories, and are going to call themselves mainstream, moderate people.
We viewed footage of the speakers and spoke to people who were there.
We have no obligation to give a platform to erroneous ideas. We don’t, to take an extreme example, broadcast the manifestos of mass murderers alongside police statements so that people can “make up their own minds”.
I’m not saying the people there were violent. Some of them were (as the story reflected) were drawn by legitimate concerns. But the speakers (Mr Icke and others) were not expressing mainstream views that would benefit from airing and debate.“
from they way the political class (including the MSM and dead tree media generally) handle any issue, it would be reasonable to conclude they just don’t understand nuance any more than they understand the Scientific method.
these are the people, remember, who want us to accept the truth of propositions about the physical world based on a head count (probably from their address books).
David Hansard has nailed it.
“And because the number of people who believe in and who spread outlandish conspiracy theories is extremely small”
Which people are these, Mr Hansard, and what “outlandish conspiracy theories” do they believe in and spread? What’s your source for this?
Alex Jones and other Sandy Hook deniers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08ll1q0
There are people on Twitter who think the Nicola Bulley tragedy was a psyop:
“Its such a sad, but strange case #NicolaBulley
Unusual that the partner & best friend are actors. The caravan site featured on TVs ‘Hunted’. The mass media attention. The bizarre misogynist menopausal snippet and such adamant initial focus on a ridiculously shallow river. PsyOp?
Yes, all theatre: 34.6%
100% genuine event: 14%
Unsure, admittedly v odd: 51.5%
544 votes Final results”
34.4% of 544 = 187
https://twitter.com/zoospacer/status/1626894338948038656
Q. What’s the difference between a conspiracy theory and real life ?
A. About 6 months.
Living in Australia and having no idea who Marianna Spring is, the picture at the top of the article needs a trigger warning.
Her head looks as if it’s about to explode in a cloud of smug!
Agree completely. I had never heard of her as I no longer watch the BBC news but thought she just looks smug.
Useful idiot, that’s how I’d describe her. Like the laughably titled science reporter Laura Foster who spread so much bullshit about the vaccines on the BBC. These people are too dim and too young to understand what they’ve got themselves into and who they work for. They’re like desperate interns, eager to please their superiors (who are also useful idiots I would imagine). The beauty of the attempted corporate takeover of the world we have been witnessing these last few years is that it’s self perpetuating, the corporate class is by definition without principles, so if you fill organisations like the bbc (or schools, or the NHS) with corporate minded people they will simply do what they are told.
Spring and Foster are living embodiments of the ‘banality of evil’
Never heard of her as an ex-licence payer but she certainly exhibits a very smug smile (enough already)
There needs to be a discussion about the use of the word “conspiracy theorist”, at all. All of science starts as theory or hypothesis and the most unlikely or most speculative may lead to the greatest breakthroughs. There needs also to be a discussion about the extent to which any fact can be fully proven. Some so-called facts only represent the level of human understanding achieved so far and is by no means the whole picture.
Never come across her since I don’t watch, listen to or read the BBC’s “news” (or anything else they produce except the occasional series available via Netflix).
She couldn’t look more smug and superior if she tried. Where on earth does the BBC find these people?
Oxford. People like her with their ‘girl next door’ looks and a solid family background and zealous approach to reporting flood out of Oxford every year. They consider that people who actually think beyond the narrow confines of acceptable debate are mad, bad or dangerous. You would think that someone who went to Oxford would be able to think critically and take a more balanced view but no, they don’t. I am getting the impression that Oxford doesn’t encourage radical thinking at all. It’s an exclusive club for people who did well at their A levels, i.e. learned thinking, good memories for facts etc but unfortunately makes graduates think they are somehow special and gives them confidence, verging on arrogance and, as you say, smugness.
“Disinformation and Social Media Correspondent”. Her job title should be enough to make anyone still daft enough to read the BBC news site to click away.
Are we sure that Spring is not a sibling of the Swedish Doom Goblin, but with a surgically enhanced smile?