The War on Disinformation

[DaveofCali]

Disinformation is going to destroy this country if something isn't done, seriously. The Right Wing continually spews disinformation and there's no organized front to fight against the disinformation. Some websites do it, but we need more (and highly effective counterarguments that are easy to understand to be developed), and we need the effort highly organized and the counterarguments sent to just about everyone we know.

We need people to know the counterarguments against disinformation in order to be able to influence the "influencer class", or opinion leaders, the people in society that talk to lots of people around them about their opinions that are good in convincing others (and usually has high respect from others around them) and convince them of their viewpoints, can get this knowledge and spread it to everyone else, creating a whole chain of opinion change in this country.

I think a think tank with a mission statement of aggressively combatting disinformation should be created by Americans who want to save this country from the destructive path it is on now because Americans are being fed so much disinformation that they can't stop voting against their own interests and can't make the decisions necessary to save this country.



BTW. more information about the "opinion leaders" in society, from wikipedia:

"In his article "The Two Step Flow of Communication" by Elihu Katz, he found opinion leaders to have more influence on people's opinions, actions, and behaviors than the media. Opinion leaders are seen to have more influence than the media for a number of reasons. Opinion leaders are seen as trustworthy and non-purposive. People do not feel they are being tricked into thinking a certain way about something from someone they know. However, the media can be seen as forcing a concept on the public and therefore less influential. While the media can act as a reinforcing agent, opinion leaders have a more changing or determining role in an individual’s opinion or action." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_leadership

[HEyHEY]

1. Can we declate war on declaring war?

[freshwest]

2. Well said.

[johnaries]

3. I think I like the "gist" of your post, but it was hard to read.

After a while it was run-on, run-on, run-on laladaladee.

I think you have some good ideas to pass-on. May I suggest some paragraph-breaks, at the very least?

[tabatha]

4. It is absolutely vital that this is done.

Those on the left with money have to pony up just as those with money on the right have done for years. The people on the right are driven by their desire to dominate, hence they will spend whatever it takes to do that. Those on the left are more democratic, and have no desire to dominate. They have to see this as a need to inform and educate and get information and facts out - that should be their driving force.

[janet118]

11. Yes . . . the left-leaning rich tend to be apolitical

They would rather start foundations to support humanitarian or environmental causes while democracy is dying and the middle class is becoming extinct. The right is backed by corporations. How many corporate donors/lobbyists would fund a truth in media or investigative journalism foundation? And how many corporate media outlets would publish/broadcast their reports? That would be zero.

[DaveofCali]

5. BTW, also something from Thom Hartmann...

Thom Hartmann mentioned also about the "influencer class", and I myself learned about opinion leaders in a marketing class, but it is also Thom Hartmann that routinely talks about the importance of knowing psychology about people in order to make effective messages to them (example: Thom's book called Cracking the Code). Such a thinktank should be dedicated also to thoroughly understanding psychology, perhaps with the help from people from the marketing / advertising industries, in order to be able to create effective counterarguments that will resonate well with people.

[snot]

6. Great post; totally agree. AND, maybe,

part of what might be helpful would be to keep track of who said what and score them on their accuracy.

Significant opinion leaders et al. could be listed, with summaries of factual statements that can be proved false, with links both to a source showing exactly what they said and to the source showing it was false.

(It would be even better if records could be kept of how much air-time or publication space for writing they get, so one could calculate a falsehood ratio for each person; but that's probably too much to dream of.)

No judgement has to be made as to whether the falsehoods were intentional.

[elleng]

7. Propaganda is killing us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 – March 9, 1995), was an American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda along with Ivy Lee, referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations".<1> Combining the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Dr. Sigmund Freud, Bernays was one of the first to attempt to manipulate public opinion using the subconscious.

He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the 'herd instinct' that Trotter had described. Adam Curtis's award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self, pinpoints Bernays as the originator of modern public relations, and Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

[DaveofCali]

8. Counterarguments and counterarguments to the counterarguments should be given

Example:

"Social Security is going to go bankrupt if we don't do anything"

Counterargument: Social Security has a 2.6 trillion dollar trust fund, and will not go bankrupt for another 25 years.

Response A to the counterargument: It will eventually go bankrupt, since more people are taking from it than paying into it.

Counter to Response A: Removing the income ceiling of $106,000 will easily solve the situation with Social Security.

[DaveofCali]

9. The definition of disinformation

From Merriam Webster:

Definition of DISINFORMATION: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth "


From Wikipedia:

"Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately with intentions of turning genuine information useless. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout)."

[Ohio Joe]

10. It is not disinformation the right spreads, it's lies

Call them what they are.

[midnight]

12. Fairness Doctrine was Repealed by Ronald Reagan....

The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, according to proponents, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. (Since cable’s infrastructure is privately owned and cable channels can, in theory, be endlessly multiplied, the FCC does not put public interest requirements on that medium.)

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Formally adopted as an FCC rule in 1949 and repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan’s pro-broadcaster FCC, the doctrine can be traced back to the early days of broadcast regulation. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053

[ProgressOnTheMove]

13. Exactly communication is everything it means promoting podcasts like crazy getting folks iphones...

if necessary so they can get these downloads via free wifi if need be. But the word must get out abundantly it should be the only priority of every progressive promoting Alan Colmes show to Democracy now every great forward thinking show.