The BBC’s war on misinformation is blatantly one-sided, says UnHerd‘s Simon Cottee, as he reviews Marianna Spring’s Among the Trolls: My Journey Through Conspiracyland. The ‘misinformation’ in mind is almost always from conservative sources, while the ‘fact-checkers’ aren’t so accurate themselves. Here’s an excerpt.
Misinformation, or whatever you want to call it, has always existed. The difference today, as Spring explains in her book, Among the Trolls: My Journey Through Conspiracyland, is that it’s now “turbocharged”, spreading at a rate and volume hitherto unprecedented, thanks to the internet and social media. At the same time, an entire industry of journalists, academics and experts has arisen to hunt down, track and police misinformation. In some ways, this industry is just as creepy and alarming as the conspiracy culture it gorges on, mirroring its familiar pathologies of distortion and hyperbole.
Spring’s book shines a vivid light onto the assumptions and biases of those who toil away in it. This isn’t, of course, the book’s purpose. Spring’s aim, rather, is to journey into conspiracyland and to speak to its inhabitants in order to better understand who they are and how they got there. Her intention is also to show that what goes on in conspiracyland can cause suffering far beyond it. Often, she steps into the centre of her own story, relaying all the voluminous hate that she herself has received as a result of her reporting. She even reaches out to several of her trolls to understand their motives.
Spring argues that disinformation (i.e., deliberate lying) doesn’t just cause harm to private citizens and journalists like herself, but threatens the very fabric of democracy. She cites the January 6th storming of the U.S. Capitol as a primary example, even though democracy didn’t in fact die in darkness on that day — and the chance of Trump’s motley crew of mostly unarmed supporters seizing power was almost zero.
One side-effect of hate, Spring observes, is that it intimidates people and makes them fearful to speak out. She’s right, of course: many people, for example, are afraid to criticise or mock Islam because they’re worried that some Muslim believers might murder them for it, as happened to Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam in 2004 and in Paris in 2015 at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, where 12 people were coldly executed by brothers Saïd Kouachi and Chérif Kouachi. Many, too, are afraid to criticise the political claims and activities of Islamists, believing — with some warrant — that to do so will incur the damaging and sometimes dangerous charge of ‘Islamophobia’. This point holds with even greater vehemence within the Islamic fold, where Muslims have been murdered after hateful accusations of blasphemy and apostasy have been levelled against them.
However, Spring doesn’t discuss these examples, intuiting perhaps that were she to do so it wouldn’t be good for business or her personal safety. (‘How I Confronted My Jihadi Troll’ isn’t happening anytime soon over at BBC Sounds.) Nor does she show any curiosity about the huge, roiling global conspiracy theory called jihadism that has directly led to the deaths of hundreds of British civilians over the last decade and a half — to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Muslims and other minorities it has killed elsewhere across the globe.
The book goes on to argue that because hate undermines free speech it should be censored and that social media companies should be more vigorously pressured by governments to eradicate hate from their platforms. This is a weak and incoherent argument: even controversial ideas, such as the view that some women make poor football pundits, deserve to be protected from censorship. Of course, there are limits to free speech and there are laws that punish speech which causes direct and serious harms, such as incitement to violence, fraud, perjury and defamation. But the kinds of limits Spring has in mind are far more expansive than this and would permit the prohibition of a vast swathe of speech that is offensive but not dangerous. At no point does she consider that prohibiting such speech would itself cause serious harm to the very democratic values she claims to uphold.
Cottee reminds us that Spring “once told a lie to advance her career — she’d made something up on her CV” and also highlights that at one point in the book, in a part about racism, she writes that “a mural that honoured [Marcus] Rashford in Withington, the suburb of Manchester where he’d grown up, was defaced”, strongly implying that this was motivated by racism, even though it wasn’t.
He notes that ‘misinformation’ for Spring comes with the usual biases. As statistician Nate Silver has observed, the “term ‘misinformation’ nearly always signifies conservative arguments (which may or may not be actual misinfo)”.
Worth reading in full.
“Who fact checks the BBC’s fact-checkers?” asks Rod Liddle in this week’s Spectator, as he highlights a particularly egregious example of bias.
I don’t suppose it will surprise many Jewish people that BBC Verify – as staffed by people with ‘forensic investigative skills’ – used a rabid pro-Palestinian with links to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps when adjudicating on an alleged Israeli attack against a Palestinian aid convoy in Gaza. Verify – a new unit which is, of course, pristine and even-handed – turned to a ‘journalist’ called Mahmoud Awadeyah for an unbiased description of exactly what happened to the convoy, unbothered by the fact that this is a man who danced a jig of joy when Israelis were killed in a rocket attack and warned them that there was more of the same stuff coming.
The problem is the whole concept is “philosophically flawed”, says Liddle. BBC Verify was unveiled last year as dedicated to “radical transparency”, employing 60 journalists trying to finding the real truth about what is happening in the world. “This rather prompts the question of what the BBC’s 2,000 other journalists spend their time doing. Making up lies? Evading reality? Knitting? … You do not need to be Jacques Derrida to believe that in this complex world of ours it might not be possible for 60 hacks to arrive at incontestable truths on every issue that comes before them.”
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.
I hope they get the traction they deserve for sticking their necks out. They’re doing it for all of us.
Well said Stewart.
Heroes.
Amen!
The dam will break, folks, we just have to have patience.
In the meantime, we all of us, however insignificant we feel in the grand scheme of things, must use every interaction to be the still, small voice of calm. It’s what I have found the hardest, in the face of such crimes, but it’s the only way to turn the tide against the crooks and their functionaries.
There are the wolves who have eyes only for the sheep. There are the sheep who have eyes only for themselves. Then there are the sheep dogs who must have eyes for both. Pick your role.
There may come a time when it will be necessary to heed Gandhi’s words, but I don’t think it’s just yet…
It is better to be violent if there is violence in our hearts, than to wear the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence.
Or,
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Thank you, you Indian doctors (and President of the Bar?) for having the chutzpah to call for a halt to this evil exercise. (Didn’t one state go down the ivermectin route and do quite well for peanuts? Uttar Pradesh?). Another small group of professionals micturating into the wind? Is it the sound of one hand clotting? Or crawling towards the tipping point?
Why aren’t the heart surgeons and circulatory specialists (in the UK especially), the consultants and leaders of cardio-vascular professional organisations being doorstepped by journalists and quizzed about what’s happening on the ground? Why aren’t these professionals themselves blowing the whistle on these alarming excess deaths? Because a) there are no journalists anymore, (with very few honourable exceptions) but simply advertorial hacks for big pharma. And b) the heart specialists now have full trolleys even unto the crack of doom. Can it really be that simple?
They have all been bought. There’s money for everyone. Every level has benefitted. Isn’t the Heart Foundation normalising the young dropping down dead on sports fields: it’s always happened, they opine, don’t you remember?
Meanwhile, we merely shuffle about the shambles awaiting our turn. ‘It could be you!’
Buddy, can you spare a D-dimer? But answer came there none.
Would a freedom of information request ever give us the data on how many Cardio consultants and indeed top medics generally had themselves jabbed? When were they given the heads up that the job mandate was only an empty threat to get the weak minded to roll up their sleeves?
I’m assuming a minority of alert GPs (20%?) didn’t take it and nor did their families, but dished it out with gay abandon. Ker-ching, hypocrisy and wilful blindness – there’s a Germanic hybrid word lurking in their somewhere waiting to be coined.
O Mores! Tempura Mores! (Our battered way of life!)
It will take a while for those who have been conned into taking a risk to admit it, as well. If, or when that happens, there could be a severe of loss of reputation for some, which could cause it’s own problems for us all.
Yes, I believe that quite a few higher-ups in health authority/regulatory bodies realise that something isn’t right. The Dutch parliament passed a motion some time back for the excess deaths to be investigated (this was following the excess deaths last autumn, I suspect the elevated/excess and sustained mortality since March 2022 is worse). The public health authority, the RIVM, and the regional health services that were primarily in charge of stabbing people, the GGD, are refusing to provide the data necessary for the investigation, citing privacy reasons. Utter nonsense of course, a 2-second glance at the GDPR shows that public authorities can have access to such data. Plus they had no such qualms announcing x number of people died of corona every day, but now we can’t have a mortality cause?
As far as I’m concerned their refusal to cooperate in something that obviously needs investigating is prima facie evidence they know full well that the vaxx is implicated in some way. If the excess is due to corona, as some are trying to claim, it means the vaxx failed big time, so why continue pushing it? If it is not due to corona nor lockdown health care issues, it must be the vaxx. The only good thing is, discussion is finally starting in the MSM regarding the elevated/excess mortality. People are not stupid, the refusal to find out what is causing it will have more people questioning what is going on.
And so the pendulum swings. Gathering momentum along the way.
I’ve long thought that 3 and 4 in the list above are necessary, and the least that can be done for the stabbed.
Heaven knows how much it might cost, but on what we know right now this is a genuine medical emergency.
A windfall tax on Prizer maybe? Say some $270 billion? (Current market capitalisation.) That should go a long way.
Trouble is, enacting measure 3 and 4 would require an implicit admission on the part of governments, health authorities, and health professionals, that something may be wrong with the stabs.
So expect delay as long as possible, in cynical disregard for the unfortunates they’ve duped.
Yet, as Alex Berenson says, I don’t think that delay can go on much longer.
Makes sense from a health & safety perspective. I wonder if the established medical groups in the DVLA and the CAA will take an interest. The DVLA have a long list of potential medical risks, to which another item could be added. Perhaps they are not allowed to yet, a cynic might say.
This is like a life dingy Vs a nuclear powered aircraft carrier unfortunately. Truth is irrelevant sadly.
I understand your pessimism, I genuinely do but as a rule the truth will out – it’s just a matter of time. A cliché I know but it’s generally accurate. Of course concerning vaccines we’ve this rather bizarre and arrogant impression that they’re the best thing since sliced bread – with little definitive evidence to back that up (even conventional vaccines we’ve had for decades, not these latest gene shot doppelgangers masquerading as such, which to anyone with eyes can see something is profoundly wrong).
I hate to bring politics into this but it’s clearly been a factor this time around. What’s at odds is this inversion of perception and scepticism where those who would’ve normally have sounded the alarm over big pharma and their insidious behaviour are the ones predominantly cheerleading this along – the typical left-leaning liberal who’s naturally suspicious of big business, perhaps rightly so, who’s traditionally and openly admit are out for profit (sometimes profit alone – but you have to sell a good product to succeed so at least we know where we stand). In this case though the left have this massive blindspot and it’s been those on the right who have ironically been the ones raising the flag. Why this is I’m yet to fully understand but I think it comes down to the left’s main ideological achilleas in that they’re proponents of everything government, so once they’re on board you can pretty much “sell” them anything if it’s sanctioned by authority – even if it comes from big business, those who they claim to distrust and require extensive regulation (that’s turned out well, the irony).
On a side note and not that I’m of any specific opinion, I’m not qualified, but even the existence of viruses and germ theory is contested, that’s why it’s called “theory”. Pharma is perhaps one of the largest if not the biggest lobbying business, becoming such a behemoth it’s almost beyond reproach, especially once it’s intertwined within government with no sign of abating so even basic questions like these are never even explored.
All being said, and I’m sure this has been proposed many times before, especially in regards to the pharmaceutical industry’s corruption but let’s hope their blatant overreach on this occasion will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back… at least eventually.
The narrative has collapsed faster than formerly healthy young athletes on the field after being jabbed.
The link below is to a Facebook page by Global News in Canada. The main report is by a 24 year old reporter, called Matthew Rodrigopulle, that seems to encourage parents of young children to receive a booster injection. Although, to be fair, the reporter does include an interview with a sceptical parent.
Just below the main report is a memorial for the reporter who has just died suddenly and unexpectedly of an unknown cause.
A word of warning: the top report contains distressing images of masked young children being injected.
https://ne-np.facebook.com/GlobalSaskatoon/videos/children-aged-5-to-11-eligible-for-covid-19-booster/5037172826387223/
I just looked again and the memorial for the reporter has disappeared.
Pretty well sums up everything I have been thinking and saying in my little corner of the medical world for the last year. Just added my signature.
I am extremely glad to see the term ‘so called vaccines’ being used.
Dr Shoemaker Double jabbed children in UK 5200-8200% more likely to die
https://rumble.com/v1hl9y3-dr-shoemaker-double-jabbed-children-in-uk-5200-8200-more-likely-to-die.html
This 4 minute video is a must watch.
Yellow Boards By The Road … for the love of humanity … and all the dead children
Monday 12th September 3pm to 4pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A332 Windsor Rd &
A329 London Road
Ascot SL5 8FE
Wednesday 14th September 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A4 Bath Road &
Pound Lane Sonning
Wokingham RG4 6TB
Thursday 15th September 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction B3408 London Road &
Wokingham Road
Bracknell RG42 4FH
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Unfortunately the timing of the release of this information is not ideal. From last Thursday until September 19th the attention of the world’s media is focused on the death of a 96 year old lady.
God Bless these brave doctors.