The Disinformation Age

The recent situation with the faked Michael Jackson video made me think more about the general issue of disinformation.

Disinformation and propaganda are nothing new. In the 1500's, for example, England purposely engaged in a campaign of disinformation against Spain, inventing exaggerated stories of mistreatment of Natives by the Conquistadors. There certainly was mistreatment, but it was not like that claimed by the British.

But it's infinitely easier to create and spread disinformation now because of video technology and because of the internet. And as the techniques get more sophisticated and governments catch on to the potential, the problem is only going to get worse. We will have moved beyond the Information Age into the Disinformation Age.

It will become more and more difficult to know what's true and what isn't. Opinions among the general population will become more and more polarized. We can see that happening now with the debate over health care legislation in the United States.

The recognized news media will find their credibility to be more and more eroded. People will pay less attention to CNN and their brethren, and more attention to rumors and innuendo. People will be more inclined to believe only those things that they want to believe.

Taken to its extreme, this situation could paralyze entire governments, because no one will believe anything.

I think this could be scarier than any "doomsday" scenario.

 

As a corollary to this, you will have people believing the most ridiculous, farfetched, cockamamie stories imaginable. This site itself is a perfect example. How many threads can you count on the subject of some new law or government regulation specifically designed to restrict your "freedom" to whistle Dixie on odd-numbered days, or whatever? There are people who from all appearances truly fall for such laughable nonsense.

Casualties of the Disinformation Wars ...

 

what micheal jackson video?!?!

i wanna see it, link?!

 

Oops ... sorry, I see that I didn't make this thread about drugs or crackpot government conspiracies, therefore it's not very interesting. I'll make sure to correct that in the future.

 

This is quite a thought-provoking thread you've started here, Caliente. Nothing less than I'd expect from one of the most intelligent members of this forum...We are indeed living in interesting times where the nature of truth is under attack from all sides. It scares me that there are people that still trust the mainstream media. I wish I had the answers, but I seem to keep coming up with more questions about everything...

 

I think it's an interesting twist that the organized news media themselves will be the victims of widespread disinformation, just as much as we are.

All it will take is a few high-profile instances of faked or manipulated video being accepted as being true, and broadcast on the evening news. I hasten to add that I don't think CNN or the networks would dare do the faking themselves ... rather, they'll be the victims of submitted video.

The world is so hungry for news and the pressures to be the first with a scoop will cloud the news media's skepticism, and they will run video obtained from individuals or organizations that turn out to be manipulated. It's inevitable that this will happen, sooner or later. And as I say, the news media will be the victims just as much as we are, because rightly or wrongly they will be blamed, and their credibility will plunge straight into the toilet.

The problem of disinformation is going to force the news media to re-think the way they do business. It's going to force all of us to re-think where we get our information. It's going to force governments to re-think how they operate, because issues are going to be more subject to rumor and innuendo and manipulation than ever before.

As I say, I think all of this is scary as hell.

 

I don't think this issue is about trusting the news media. I mean, that's an issue all its own, and worthy of discussion too, but the news media are victims of disinformation campaigns just as much as we consumers are. The reason for that is simple ... the news media aren't the sources of the disinformation. What I'm saying is that while I don't necessarily have a lot of respect for CNN or Fox or whatever, I stop short of accusing them of producing disinformation themselves, certainly not on a large scale. In this sense, the news media would simply be unwitting pawns.

The sources of disinformation that we have to worry about are governments and other organizations that have an axe to grind, not to mention individuals who simply want to cause trouble. That was the case with the Michael Jackson video.

And speaking of which ... one poster in this thread felt compelled to leave a negative commendation (or whatever the proper term is) in my profile because I didn't post the link to the M.J. video. In the first place, I don't have such a link, and in the second place, the story was all over the news ... it would have been simple for the person to find it themselves.

But how childish and petulant is that? Did this person throw a tantrum and threaten to hold their breath, too?

HipForums is a varied board. There are threads that aren't intended to be serious, and threads that are. One needs to develop the faculty for telling the difference.

 

I'd like to disagree with the assessment of Fox.As I stated on another post a short time ago,Fox is no more "fair and balanced "than any of their talking heads.They are merely the media outlet for the republican party.Fortunately for me,I only have rabbit ears ,so I don't have to be subjected to the likes of Hannity or Mr Bill any more.

 

Perhaps so, but I was simply pointing out that I don't believe they intentionally produce disinformation. That's an entirely separate issue from how "fair and balanced" they might be.

 

Sorry,I still disagree on that point.I can't cite you any outright lies right now ,but I have heard them from the likes of Hannity, Coulter and Mr Bill. I listen to Hannity on the radio once in a while just to get my blood racing and he's a liar.Anyway I get your point tho.I guess what bothers me is the old saw"if it bleeds ,it leads".There has to be some good and interesting things going on other than the horrible killings and such they value so much.

 

I understand what you're saying. We should probably come up with a more clear-cut definition of the term "disinformation".

As I've been using the term, I mean a campaign of intentionally promulgating false information, and representing it as "news". That's not exactly what Hannity and those folks do, or at least I don't think it is. But then I don't normally watch them, so perhaps I'm off-base about them.

Another aspect of disinformation would be producing video that is faked or altered. The Michael Jackson video was a good example, making it appear as though Jackson was still alive. The scenes in the movie "Forrest Gump" where Forrest is shown in various historical situations would also be an example ... or rather, they would be if they were presented as "news".

Yet another example from a few months ago is that short video of a baseball game where the ball girl leaped 10-15 feet up the outfield wall to catch a baseball barehanded. That particular fakery was very good. It looked almost real, and lots of people were fooled.

Until now, if you made claims about some event and you had video of it, your credibility was pretty high. But that's no longer necessarily true. It's getting easier and easier for anyone to produce faked video. To me, that's the scary thing.

 

I agree with the part about distrusting the power structures.

But I think the idea that the "truth" is to be found in drugs is simply .... drug-addled delusion.

 

If only there were more people who thought like you two. I live on the east coast and we seem to be in the Stone Age compared to the enlightened thinking I see from many west coast posters.

 

I agree with that. I just don't agree with the drug part.

 

The first casualty of war is the truth. We are deeply immersed in a culture war, and all information technologies are tools and weapons to be used to further one cause or another. Expect these tools to be used as effectively as possible by both sides.

Those who expect the truth are frequently disappointed.

You seem to be someone who has studied Buddhism seriously. Does the use of drugs to achieve increasing enlightenment not violate both the word and spirit of the Fifth Precept? Buddha did not have access to modern drugs, nor is there reason to assume that he used the more primitive drugs of his time, in his personal meditation. Was the Buddha not fully and completely enlightened? Should we not follow him to nirvana rather than turning to follow other paths?

No one is truly enlightened. There are only those who see value in enlightenment, and those who don't.

 

I know what Skip meant.I was one for whom enlightenment was a word that had zero meaning.Some seem to come by their path naturally and others ,such as myself,needed a huge life-changing shock as was provided me by the use of psychedelics . As an alcoholic,emotionally stunted wild man I knew that my life would change for the better as soon as I indulged.I am not fully enlightened at all,but I am a hell of a lot better off mentally and spiritually after all these years for having taken the step into "the other side". I don't recommend it to anyone,however I probably wouldn't be alive if I had continued my ways.I was a danger to myself and others and I lost a fragile ego that made me such.-----My take on it.