Pages

Friday, April 14, 2023

Chris Trotter: Restoring The Narrative: The Political Logic Behind The Campaign Against Disinformation.


Perhaps Jim Morrison's hostility toward Establishment America was born out of his father’s role in the notorious Tonkin Gulf Incident. Not many people know that The Doors’ lead-singer’s father, George S. Morrison, was an admiral in the United States Navy. Even fewer realise that he was one of those commanding the US naval force patrolling off the North Vietnamese coast in 1964. The very same naval force that was “attacked” by non-existent North Vietnamese gunboats in an “incident” that never happened, but which served as the pretext for Congress’ “Tonkin Gulf Resolution”. The very same resolution that gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to escalate American involvement in South Vietnam to the level of full-scale war.

Jim Morrison wrote about “weird scenes in the gold-mine”. Today, we’d call the completely fabricated story that kicked-off the vast American tragedy of Vietnam “disinformation”. And the thing to remember, right from the start, about the Tonkin Gulf Incident is that it was official disinformation – i.e. deliberate lying by the state.

Too long ago? Ancient history? Okay. So, let’s bring everything right up to date.

Elon Musk buys Twitter and discovers that for years its previous owners had been operating hand-in-glove with the United States security apparatus in a massive effort to rein-in what the state deemed to be “bad actors” using social media to spread misinformation (unintentional lies) and disinformation (deliberate lies) across the Internet. Musk copies the celebrated American investigative journalist Matt Taibbi into “#Twitter Files”, and pretty soon the whole world knows what Establishment America has been up to.

Which is what – exactly?

Perhaps the easiest way to characterise what the United States Government has been engaged in is “patch protection”. Because a sovereign state is not characterised solely by the monopoly it enjoys over organised violence. Of equal importance (some might even say of greater importance) is the monopoly it is also supposed to enjoy over the creation and control of the stories that the nation tells itself. A state that loses control over these core political narratives hasn’t long to live. Exposed in #Twitter Files are the lengths to which the American state was prepared to go to shut-down the purveyors of alternative political narratives – to protect its patch.

Controlling the narrative was obviously of enormous importance in the circumstances of a global pandemic. Alternative versions of the significance of Covid-19 raised the spectre of large chunks of the population becoming convinced that the demands of the state, especially the measures it mandated to keep the population safe and to protect the public health system from being overwhelmed, were, in light of their “research”, unreasonable, unwarranted and unwise. For the scientific community, in particular, it was vital that this sort of misinformation and disinformation be countered with all the resources at the state’s disposal.

But, if the Covid Pandemic was the proximate cause of the US Government’s full-court-press against misinformation and disinformation, it was far from the only one. Those responsible for maintaining the national security of the United States were becoming increasingly uneasy about the capacity of the Internet – especially social media – to empower its adversaries. By making it possible for non-state actors to engage in the same sort of subversive and destabilising activities that had, hitherto, been the sole preserve of the US Government, social media was fast becoming an enormous and existential threat.

Brexit, and Trump’s election as President, had a worryingly familiar smell to them. Both countries’ spooks began to suspect that the United Kingdom and the United States had been subjected to something alarmingly similar to the sort of “colour revolutions” the US had unleashed on Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine. In the case of both Brexit and Trump, the state had lost control of the political narrative, with dramatically and irrevocably destabilising consequences. Cui bono? The Americans and the British were convinced that the bodies responsible were in some way linked to the Russian Federation – they just couldn’t prove it.

What they could prove, however, was the extraordinary impact that well-directed hate could have upon the minds of the ideologically and psychologically vulnerable. The exploitation of the Internet and social media by the ISIS terrorist organisation set new bench-marks for hateful propaganda. In the name of its “holy” cause, ISIS demonstrated repeatedly its followers’ willingness to carry out the most daunting atrocities. Hate proved to be a great mobiliser. Hate made things happen.

The ingredients had been gathered for the worst sort of state-sponsored stupidity.

Before the arrival of the Internet, both the British and American states had been superb manipulators (and, if that failed, intimidators) of the news media. Publishers were courted, editors were co-opted, journalists’ careers advanced (or retarded) by stories planted and details leaked. Certainly, there were always small outfits digging away in places they had no business sinking their little spades, but they could be handled. A bloke in a bar would suggest to his “reputable” media contact that the offending muckraker was an unstable “conspiracy theorist”. That usually did the trick.

But, the Internet – the f**king Internet! Now there weren’t just a handful of publishers to get on side. Now any fool could become a publisher – free, gratis, and for nothing. Now there were no properly-briefed editors to spike “irresponsible” stories, no ambitious journalists to steer into safer pastures. Now every bastard and his brother was a “citizen journalist” with audio and video capabilities yesterday’s hacks would have given their eye-teeth for. It was out of control!

So, of course, the spooks decided to set up special misinformation and disinformation entities to identify and neutralise the offending misinformers and disinformers. Matt Taibbi’s stories set out in jaw-dropping detail how the US national security apparatus recruited a small army of academics and techies to staff a host of “arms-length” research facilities and think tanks. Using the “data” amassed by these bodies, the spooks then attempted to turn the equivalents of the publishers and editors of yesteryear, Google, Facebook and Twitter, into their secret censors. And, God help us, it worked!

Even in the Shire, even in little New Zealand, the long arm of American spookdom – operating through the Five Eyes Network – found mischief it could make. The trusting Kiwis bought the warnings about the danger of misinformation and disinformation during a pandemic. That made sense. It also seemed sensible, at least to some, that following the Christchurch Mosque Massacres, something needed to be done about hate. In the absence of ISIS, Action Zealandia would have to do.

Following the American model, our very own “Disinformation Project” was set up by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Once established, it was shucked-off to the University of Auckland, from which it could take on an “independent” academic lustre. The Americans had warned their Kiwi mates that too close an association with the state would only encourage the conspiracy theorists to (rightly) accuse the government of abrogating the civil and political rights of its citizens. Suitably separated from the powers that be, however, this sworn enemy of unacceptable political narratives would find it pathetically simple to sell its wares to a new generation of journalists who had never heard of the Tonkin Gulf.

And how eager they were to buy them! When the genuine victims of misinformation and disinformation turned up on Parliament’s front lawn, filled with anger and consumed by hate, the Press Gallery’s terrified journalists couldn’t heap enough dirt on the unruly protesters and their shadowy sponsors. Or do enough to ensure that the New Zealand state’s monopoly over the creation and control of the nation’s political narratives was restored.

Chris Trotter is a political commentator who blogs at bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz.

7 comments:

Sven said...

Dead right Chris, New Zealanders have been scared into the rabbit, do not put your head above ground, otherwise you may catch the c 19, or the Russians or Chines will come and steal every thing we own, but the worst part is it is our own government who is stealing our democratic rights, right from under our own noses.

James A said...

Given that NZ likes to follow in the footsteps of the United, we mustn't forget the political elites' future weaponisation of the justice system.

Anonymous said...

What's arguably termed 'hurling the grenade' Chris? But, 'Unknown', has nailed it regarding the theft of democracy.

And in terms of other Govt. narratives, just look at the recent Posie Parker or 3 Waters commentary - talk about disinformation. The other trick is to call it 'Art' and then anything goes, as per Tusiata Avia.

TJS said...

" Twitter provides companies like Block Party access to the Twitter API enabling them to create platform manipulation tools that look and feel a lot like botnet armies. Block Party is used extensively by transgender activists, Antifa militants, and Black Lives Matter promoters to allow them to act in a coordinated manner to manipulate Twitter’s algorithms to silence conservatives."

TJS said...

"Tracey Chou is a self-proclaimed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion activist who founded Block Party Studios in 2018 to help amplify the visibility of marginalized communities while silencing their critics. Drawing on her experience as a software engineer at companies like Google, Facebook, and Pinterest,"
This is the tool used by the disinformation project.

TJS said...

Chou recognized that platforms like Twitter could be easily manipulated by a small number of users. In response, she developed Block Party, a platform manipulation application that uses machine learning to amplify acceptable points of view while censoring those who hold objectionable or unacceptable views.

Anonymous said...

Here’s a great example from Stuff for the disinformation debate - use the argument to diffuse the argument.
“Mike Smith, from the Iwi Chairs Forum, said the lead-up to the reforms had been highly politicised and marred with disinformation designed to scare people about co-governance.

That had ultimately caused the Government to shy away from things that needed to be done, said Smith (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu).

“So that's a very unfortunate situation. We're seeing that play out in climate issues, we've seen that play out in terms of Treaty issues and other necessary reforms over the last decade or so.”

Smith said the messy discourse had distracted from the core issues around water safety and sustainability. He said it should be less political, and believed one way to achieve this was by ensuring governance groups were made up of technical experts, rather than sector representatives.

But he cautioned that placing mana whenua in just an advisory role was not a fair representation of the relationship contemplated by Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”