Saturday, August 30, 2014

On Being Misinformed

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” Mark Twain
When you consider the immense challenges and problems that lie ahead of us, which include climate change, peak energy and resources and ecological overshoot, you might begin to wonder why this isn’t front page news day after day. Indeed, after flicking through a few newspapers and surfing a few television news channels and finding not much beyond celebrity news, sports updates and political commentary, you might indeed begin to wonder whether the issues discussed in blogs like this one are not merely something for people with too much time on their hands to contemplate, or worse, a paranoid illusion. This naturally begs the very reasonable question: if our civilisation is indeed circling the drain then why isn’t it in the news very often?
This is a very interesting question and I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no single easy answer to it. Some people might insist that there is a global conspiracy to keep ‘the real news’ out of the reach of ordinary people, but having worked in several news rooms I can easily discount this from first-hand experience that no such conspiracy exists.* Instead, the answer is far more complex and nuanced and has its basis in herd psychology, money and the religion of progress. 
Taking the first of these three, herd psychology is probably the most obvious driver of the content that appears before our eyes in the form of newspaper print and television images. News organisations copy one another, and there is safety in numbers. The news media is traditionally a system of information dispersal that is hierarchical in its structure and relies upon a network made up of nodes of information providers that includes government spokespeople, company PR departments, experts, politicians and a bewildering array of people who claim to have a piece of unique information. Near the top of the food chain are news agencies who gather this diffuse information and sell it on down the network to other news organisations, who either republish it without modification, or else shape it to fit the style and prejudices of their particular audience. Thus a bland piece of information which states that the economy grew by 0.1% in Q3, can be interpreted as either a disaster or a cause to pop open the champagne bottles depending on whether the ownership/readership of the news organ supports government policy or not. 
When twisting information in this way to create a narrative there is an inherent danger. Propaganda, defined as the act of deliberately and one-sidedly shaping communications in a way that changes the thoughts and opinions of the target, has probably been practiced ever since humans learned to communicate by speech. Originally defined in religious terms—it derives from the Latin verb to grow—its use has become far more widespread and covert in modern times, with various techniques employed to ensure its efficacy. Two of the main techniques used today include omitting relevant information, and repeating the message ad infinitum. A prime example of this is the well-funded oil industry which uses propaganda to try and influence public opinion towards a belief that climate change is not real. It pumps money into key nodes in the upper echelons of the information hierarchy, notably small but influential think tanks and columnists in the right-wing news media, who then focus obsessively on small contradictions and anomalies in published climate science articles, creating doubt in the mind of the news consumer. By repeating this message over and over, the reader or viewer comes to a conclusion along the lines of ‘Well, if there wasn’t some truth in it then why's it all over the news?’
Of course, we're right in the middle of such a spectacle right now, with virtually all of the western media focusing dutifully on the official narrative that Russia is poised to launch a war against the peace-loving west. This is proving to be highly successful from the point of view of policy wonks in Washington, but disastrous to anyone who cares for the truth and enjoys living in a peaceful world. 
This kind of mind manipulation is not always sinister in the Machiavellian sense, but it does go to prove that messages can be hammered home effectively if the power structure and money is there (the west spent some $5 billion funding the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically-elected government, although you don't often see this fact published in the everyday media). It also leads to the creation of journalistic narratives, which are the bane of objective journalism. A journalistic narrative is a lazy way of conveying information that relies upon the fact that human beings love a good story. Journalism text books state that every story must have a human angle, which is a way of saying that nothing outside the human world is relevant unless it impinges upon us, and this is drummed into the heads of young reporters as soon as they start their careers. What they don’t state is that these human angles can take on a life of their own and create narratives that, once unleashed, are harder to strap down again than Frankenstein’s monster Adam. 
Once you are aware of these narratives it is easy to recognise them and it pays to be wary whenever you spot one. Going with the earlier example of economic news again, economics and finance journalists are able to employ the narrative of the sick patient. Because the vast majority of people understand very little about economics but, one way or another, have a vested interest in the economy performing well for their own personal wellbeing it necessitates journalists to use this sick patient metaphor. Hence all the talk of ‘recovery’. A recovery following a long illness is something that everyone can relate to—after all, they might not understand all of the medical terminology but they can certainly see that the patient has recovered when the colour has returned to his face and he’s sitting up in bed. The journalistic narrative of the ‘recovery’ which has been splashed all over the news for the last nine months or so makes good copy and will provide some cheer: the patient has made a full recovery - hurrah! But is it the truth?
In this case, the recovery that is being spoken of is framed in terms of GDP growth. But a little closer analysis reveals less to be excited about. The banking system is teetering on the edge of systemic collapse, personal debt has reached unprecedented levels, the velocity of money has plunged to depression levels, job security is at all-time lows—indeed almost every vital sign of the immensely complex system we call ‘the economy’ seems to be in a state of crisis—except for the stock markets, of course, which are inflated to bursting point from frenziedly feeding on liquidity. 
So, from practically every angle we have an economic disaster for the majority of people, but every major news source we look at, from the BBC to the Sun, talks about ‘the recovery’ as if it were a done deal. If the economy were indeed a hospital patient it would be a very sickly one—akin to a doctor pointing at a terminal cancer patient in a coma and saying he is in recovery because his toenails are growing longer. But the journalistic narrative of ‘the recovery’, which was likely talked up by various ministers and think tanks has got out of control and is now unchallengeable because to challenge it is to try and prove a negative. Journalists can get away with writing about it without the need to fact check because it has entered into the realm of ‘received wisdom’, along with immigrants being ‘benefits tourists’, gas fracking being a ‘bonanza’ and any of the other narratives that have been hatched, incubated and let loose. The only way that such narratives can be brought back in line with reality is for some shock to the system powerful enough to make journalists snap out of their slumber.
So propaganda can create journalistic narratives which people then use as the building blocks for their thought patterns, creating further feedback loops which impede the flow of valuable ‘real’ information into the public realm. This in turn creates a ‘don’t rock the boat’ mentality among news media, because although news outlets are notionally in competition with one another, in reality they share similarities with a tribe mentality. There is safety in numbers and if one news outlet breaks from the pack a taboo has been broken and disastrous consequences could ensue. 
A further powerful driver of news content is - surprise, surprise - money. This should be obvious enough but I will illustrate it with an example from my own life. I once lived in a beautiful part of southern Spain among the mountains and not too far from the coast. Our small farmhouse was situated in an idyllic series of valleys, little touched by modern civilisation because the access was so difficult and the natural environment provided bounteous amounts of fresh food and spiritual balm. One day I decided to walk to the top of the highest mountain there and, upon reaching the summit, I saw a terrible sight. On the coast nearby there stretched an immense sea of white that went all the way to the horizon out to the east. I had heard about the alarming spread of plastic greenhouses that were eating up the land, but from my vantage point I could clearly see it was spreading our way and would soon engulf the entire area. Further research revealed that this was a huge get-rich-quick scheme in which thousands of illegal wells were being drilled into the aquifer to irrigate the greenhouses. The salad crops grown within were exported north to European supermarkets and in their wake they left a trashed landscape of fluttering plastic, depleted aquifers and poisoned wells. Furthermore, local politicians had decided to divert water from local rivers to supply this plastic salad industry, which would mean the life of the area where I lived would soon be gone.
I had to do something to try and stop this so I set up a small local newspaper with the aim of highlighting the threat. I called it the Olive Press, and it was run from a small office in the main provincial town of Orgiva. It attracted a lot of attention, and its green focus drew in lots of writers who were keen to voice their concern about the ongoing destruction of their local environment. It became a great success in all but one thing: money. Every month I found that costs seemed to go up, but income remained anaemic at best. Everyone, it seemed, said they loved it, but they also wanted it for free and were unwilling or unable to support it financially. Eventually myself and the other editor decided to employ a salesman, who in fact worked as an estate agent in the adjoining office block. The first thing he did was turf out all of the small advertisers who were having trouble keeping up with their payments, and instead focused on bigger advertisers. So it was out with all the crystal healers, dog groomers and men with strummers, and in with the larger real estate agents, private medical practices and dodgy-looking investment opportunities.
Soon the money began to roll in and we could relax a little. People further afield began to hear about the newspaper and we began to expand. The print run was racketed up to 20,000 copies a fortnight and we would drive all over the province delivering them in bundles. Most of the stories we covered focused on local corruption and abuses of the environment. 
But this greater coverage and exposure came at a price and soon the complaints started to come in. One estate agent said he was ‘embarassed’ to show a copy of the Olive Press to potential buyers. He said it might put them off investing property in the region. Another businessman cancelled his full-page advert because he said the news within was ‘too realistic’. The sales manager asked us if we could ‘tone it down’ and publish some more light-hearted pieces. Both of us resisted and, as a result, money became tight again. I wrote an editorial about how climate change would likely change the region to a dustbowl a few decades hence and was slightly shocked to see that it ended up being printed opposite a full page advert for a low-cost airline. A clear split had emerged between myself and the sales staff, of which there were now three. It all ended acrimoniously, of course. After a year more of dysfunction I was forced to leave the newspaper, selling my share to a former Daily Mail showbiz columnist, who abandoned its original remit and instead focused on the glitzy Costa del Sol, where there was much more money. These days it is the largest foreign newspaper in Spain, and is full of stories about celebrity sightings.
Afterwards I realised this experience had taught me a valuable lesson in how money warps and eventually overwhelms the messages that a supposedly unbiased media is meant to portray. And although this was just a small newspaper the same thing can be seen happening throughout the mainstream media as long as advertising pays for content. Thankfully, a proliferation of blogs has sprung up like weeds between paving stones, eager to supply information that ranges from the relatively objective to the downright opinionated - but without the corrupting influence of having to chase a dollar. 
Finally, although the above might shed at least some light onto why the news media is systemically incapable of being objective in assessing risk and communicating this to the wider public, there is another factor at play which is a lot less tangible. The simple fact is that some truths may be too unpalatable to recount. Delivering bad news on the state of industrial civilisation is a modern day taboo, and it should come as no surprise that news editors avoid it like the, ahem, plague. Although it might make a quirky opinion piece or two, the nebulous and often unquantifiable nature of the subject matter and the inevitably shrill reactions of those who object makes for nervous editors. Talking about ecological overshoot in polite company is like waving a red flag at a bull. Before you know it a sensible discussion about finite carrying capacities has sunk into a slanging match of hurled insults and vituperous abuse and any further discussion becomes impossible. Highlighting our own limitations as a species is always going to be controversial - it’s taking the human interest angle just a step too far. 

Thus we are left in the situation where people are able to pick and choose their media based on their prejudices. The wonders of the internet mean that one never has to be troubled by troubling news again and you can indeed configure it so that you are treated to a continuous stream of videos of celebrities pouring buckets of water over their heads. Alternatively you can set your feeds, blogrolls and social media likes to permit you to gorge yourself on stories of collapse, economic frights, pandemics, massacres, beheadings and ecocide until you fall down dead over your keyboard. And that's the magic of technology.
Was it ever thus? 

* On the other hand, I find it perfectly feasible that the editors and publishers of mainstream national press organisations are routinely called in for 'meetings' and asked 'politely' to avoid publishing material that is not in the national interest for reasons of security or to avoid economic panics.


  1. You are quite right there is no single easy answer to it. And no single conspiracy ether, there are many. Some have names, The state department, the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security and I'm sure 99% of the time all it takes is being asked politely in the meetings you mention.

    In fact I know so. I experienced something of it first hand. I wanted to inform some news agencies about something which had happened to me. I called radio stations and even snuck into an NPR facility at one point. Nobody would talk to me unless I sent them an email first. Let me repeat that. Nobody would talk to me unless I sent them an email first. To even talk on the phone required an email and this was a blanket policy across all, I'll repeat that too, 'all' news agencies in Seattle. Why an email first to even talk on the phone? Nobody willing to meet even under circumstances of their choosing without one? What gives? And why am I complaining about, just send them an email right?

    Problem was that what I wanted to talk to the news agencies about could not be sent through email because the people who had caused the things that had happened to me were able to monitor all my communications.

    They were making their abilities quite obvious to me. A case of got you sucker, who you going to tell. Nobody is going to believe you. They'll just say you need medication because there is no way you can prove to anyone that we have your phone and computers bitched. We can stop anytime we want, and the damage we've done can't be proved. Every memory stick you plugged into that computer broken until you replace the operating system you say, ha that's called a bug, so who you gonna tell crazy man. Hard drives and BIOS code go south all the time don't you know. They were pissed at me.

    News agencies had been informed to require introduction emails as part of the war on terror. This conclusion was obvious, mainstream news agencies were anyway. Mainstream media with their full trust of email were happy to do their part. The thought of anybody abusing a persons rights through such a policy, no doubt inconceivable!

    This was pre-Snowden; but I doubt the policy has changed. If you want to know more about what engendered my personal situation you can read about it on my blog. See my reply to josé in Homeland Insecurity.

    Russia about to poised to launch a war against the peace-loving west. What peace loving-west, the appointment of John F. Tefft as the new U.S. ambassador to Russia dispels that notion to anyone who cares to look into it. As you say, $5 billion funding the overthrow of Ukraine's government does not a peace-loving narrative grow.

    Government manipulations are most definitely involved in propaganda but you are right to say they are only part of total. At any given time their contribution to the total can be minor or it can be overwhelming. I imagine it depends on issue, importance, and policy for them.

    What you said about attaching the human angle and narrative is very interesting. It is as if the human stories like the 'sick patient' metaphor worm their way in to our subconscious where myth and dream normally live to make us human. Once there these narratives strip us of our humanity and we become servants and automatons to a lie.

    1. I tracked down your reply to Jose - very interesting. A lot of sock puppet attention is aimed at 'respectable media' because they get the most exposure. I once read an article about bees vanishing - the article had only just popped up online on a major news site - and I think I was the first to leave a comment to the effect of 'How sad, if the bees go, we all do.' Within the space of a minute someone had replied, at length, with a battery of statistics to 'prove' how we don't need bees. Such clumsy sock puppeteering exposes them.

      As for the sick patient - yes, we have to anthropomorphise our inhuman systems so that they are understandable by the majority. The effect that this is having on our psyches is probably quite damaging.

  2. Its complicated only in the sense that there are alot of ways to manipulate the news media, many of which you have documented, and money and intimidation remain at the top.

    To defend newspapers a little, climate change isn't really something that newspapers can cover, since newspapers are geared to covering things that happened that day or the previous day, by definition, as are daily newsprograms. You just can't do that with gradual changes in the atmosphere. News magazines have attempted to cover climate change and published some alarming articles.

    Also as you said, what is going on is so depressing that I don't think its possible to function without some degree of denial.

    Peak oil is a more puzzling situation. First, since peak oil actually happened almost a decade ago (and this has been documented by international organizations), people who call attention to it should be on stronger ground that people who are worried about climate change, which is more speculative. And peak oil doesn't have the pattern of stories basically saying that this is something to be worried about, though downplaying it, and then a swarm of attacks by denialists. Instead it has been ignored completely. There is not even any attempt to suppress IEA reports, just complete silence. And its pretty much impossible to understand world events in the past fifteen years, including the current crisis in Ukraine, without understanding energy.

    1. Well, I used to write articles for the Guardian as a stringer based in Scandinavia. What I really wanted to write about, though, was the consequences of peak oil and resources i.e. the consequences on our society (human interest ... right?). I had a couple of email exchanges with the editors there (not THE editor), and the basic reply was that:

      a) You can't right articles about unproven hypotheses

      b) It's all a bit 'out there' and they want to retain their reputation as a respectable and serious news source

      c) In any case I was not 'qualified' to do so as I'm not an academic

      It's these kinds of exchanges that highlighted to me how the media mind works. Interestingly I can see now that Dr Nafeez Ahmed has become their radical in-house truth-teller and regularly publishes perceptive and hard-hitting articles about energy ... although you'll have to look hard to find them because they rarely make it near the front page.

  3. Thanks for tackling the topic of misinformation. I wonder if perhaps we have no choice but to be misinformed. What after all are the alternatives? The hard reality is that there are no alternatives to oil, that to reverse the negative effects of human civilization on the planet, we cannot simply switch to alternative fuels but have to face a life with less energy. We have to face a world with a population that will shrink for a while until it reaches a new balance with a much diminished energy supply. Who wants to tell their readers that they will be demoted to impoverished peasants or weed eating foragers? Even the relatively informed energy and decline bloggers chant the mantra that if only we had used our oil wealth to finance a smooth transition into a lower energy future, we would be so much better off. How do you make a descent into poverty go smoothly?
    My personal opinion is that material poverty does not need to be miserable if we are rich in personal interactions and activities that we enjoy. I probably won't live long enough to see it, but what would be so bad about living in a world where the air and water are clean not because of government regulations but because there is much less industry to create pollutants? And what if you can just walk a short distance to be out in nature instead of having to take a vacation once a year to do it?
    I imagine that the editors in the media industry feel like they are the adults and their consumers are the children and that they must be shielded from the bad news that the pleasant life they are used to is going away.
    As for your closing paragraphs, I prefer the present state of free for all information and misinformation peddling to the old state of a unified misinformation front that allowed millions of people to march off to war, thinking that they were doing it for the greater good.

    1. There's plenty more I could have included - such as the consolidation of the media under corporate control, and the various forms of mind control and thaumaturgy employed. Have you ever read Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent'? It's a clear guide to how the media is used as a tool of foreign policy i.e. propaganda.

      'How do you make a descent into poverty go smoothly?' I think this is possible on an individual level, but at the level of nations it is impossible under our current setup. Politicians are employed to make our lives better (or at least materially more wealthy) rather than worse. As for other bloggers saying that we would use any extra energy wealth wisely I would ask 'where is the evidence'? If, say, we cracked affordable fusion power then I'm sure it would be put to work immediately to boost the EROEI of dirty fuels such as tar sands and shale gas. That's just the way we work.

      When all is said and done, the various media outlets, be they newspapers, TV news channels or blogs are really just politically-contorted models of the world that purport to represent the real world but fail badly. If you choose to base your world view on information taken form tabloid newspapers then you can expect to be blindsided when the real world of energy depletion, resource wars and homicidal war bands collides with the fictional one of celebrities, iGadgets and fast cars.

  4. Great article, thanks J.

    To expand on the use of metaphor, and how it shapes our thinking:

    "The way we talk about complex and abstract ideas is suffused with metaphor. In five experiments, we explore how these metaphors influence the way that we reason about complex issues and forage for further information about them. We find that even the subtlest instantiation of a metaphor (via a single word) can have a powerful influence over how people attempt to solve social problems like crime and how they gather information to make “well-informed” decisions. Interestingly, we find that the influence of the metaphorical framing effect is covert: people do not recognize metaphors as influential in their decisions; instead they point to more “substantive” (often numerical) information as the motivation for their problem-solving decision. Metaphors in language appear to instantiate frame-consistent knowledge structures and invite structurally consistent inferences. Far from being mere rhetorical flourishes, metaphors have profound influences on how we conceptualize and act with respect to important societal issues. We find that exposure to even a single metaphor can induce substantial differences in opinion about how to solve social problems: differences that are larger, for example, than pre-existing differences in opinion between Democrats and Republicans."

    Metaphors matter!


    1. Metaphors sure do matter ... and I don't mean that metaphorically!

  5. I'm starting a newspaper to cover the long decline and provide resilience communities with accurate information to guide them through the trouble ahead. Most of the people I know don't believe anything anymore because accurate information that isn't hyperbole is nearly impossible to find online. Although I realize there are numerous barriers that prevents a newspaper from serving the community and remaining economically viable, I don't think it is necessarily impossible. That being said I was wondering if I could ask you about budgeting issues.

    1. Sure, fire away (although I don't know if I would be of any use).

  6. Hi Jason. Thanks for the very cogent explanation of the situation.

    It is fascinating though at how such a situation can be turned on its head very quickly. A few examples come to mind, but I thought that you may find this one to be interesting: Environmental activist draws anger, support and possible charges. My understanding is that outcome for this guy is not good as they are throwing the book at him, but what is also interesting is that it clearly shows just how under resourced and possibly also unquestioning the fourth estate has become.

    1. Hi Chris - thanks for the link (naughty fellow!). I'm glad you found my explanation helpful - I've been on the receiving end of a barrage of hostility recently for questioning the fourth estate's 'neutrality'. Specifically, if you question ... yes, question! ... just who shot down that airliner in Ukraine you are accused of being a Putin (read Hitler) appeaser.

      Secondly, if you accuse the British press of doing every low-down trick in the book to ensure more than 50% of Scots were scared enough to vote 'No' in the independence referendum, you get accused of 'hating your country'.

      This all just leaves me shaking my head sadly. It would seem that an objective press is all well and good in uncontroversial times, but when anything important comes up people simply revert to tribal 'us vs them' mode.

      Here's a little video about some of the tricks the respectable media used in the run up to the Scottish vote.

    2. Hi Jason. Thanks for the link. It is telling that most of the negative news relating to the Independence focused on purely future economic predictors. I'm sorry to say that it is an extraordinary point of view from my perspective that future gaps between government incomes and expenditures should even be mentioned with a straight face. The reason for this is simply: quantitative easing by the BoE - the talk simply doesn't fit the facts on the ground.

      Honestly, I try and pick my fights. The guy in the link proved what had only been previously discussed: The fourth estate is severely under resourced and articles delivered by PR firms are treated as news. It is a sad state of affairs.

      The backlash against that individual - from my perspective - far exceeded the nature of the crime and that in itself was a telling indictment.

      Dunno, really.

    3. Yeah. Forgot to mention, that it would be a fascinating story to find out just what happened to the guy. Cheer. Chris

  7. as to: "(the west spent some $5 billion funding the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically-elected government, although you don't often see this fact published in the everyday media)"
    It is a total cost since the end of the WW II and it doesnt seem a highh price for defending the evil odius totalitarian regime.
    U musn/t have ever lived in post sovet countries to call this regime democratically-elected. Gosh! the fact that US has some secret action doesnt entail that the Russian political system has any better merits and advantages than our wetern.
    Even in times of deep iron curtain there lived those useful idiots/pretentious aesthete who claimed that Soviet Union was the worlds paradise.
    Guys the years of living in peace has drowned ur ability to see facts and read in between lines.

  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


I'll try to reply to comments as time permits.