DISINFORMATION
Do not be misinformed about this word.
Wikipedia says: “Disinformation is false information deliberately spread to deceive people.”
However, that is not how the word seems to be used in the real world where the concept has no connection with the word “truth” or even “deception.” Henceforth, I will speak of the word as it is actually USED…
To be exceedingly clear, disinformation can be 110% correct and truthful. Or, it can be 110% incorrect and purposely untruthful. Neither the correctness nor the truthfulness is important to the concept.
Let’s explore the idea of disinformation. For example, let’s say that “accepted science” says that INSECT G is 10 feet tall, blue, and eats only raisins. If, in this example, one scientist dissents and claims that INSECT G is less than 10′ tall…that scientist is now a “disinformationist.” It is merely a handy way to dismiss the one scientist who disagrees, or whose research disagrees, with the “official statement.” Is the one scientist right? It does not matter. Is the one scientist truthful? It does not matter. ALL that matters is that the one scientist opposes the “official pronouncement.” He is now dismissed because of his “disinformation.”
What if that one scientist is LATER proved to be correct? That also does not matter. All that matters is that, at the time of his disagreement, his view was in opposition to the official view of the scientific community.
So, the accusation of “disinformation” is not actually making a statement about the truthfulness or validity of information (we are talking here of HOW the word “disinformation” is used in real life).
During the first year of COVID there were many doctors, scientists, and well-known personalities who vocally disagreed with the CDC about the value of masking. The official CDC position at that time was that everyone should wear masks, even when alone. These doctors, scientists, and others who opposed masking mandates were proved true by science and admitted to be correct (in the 3rd year) by the CDC. However, even now, when stories are told about their ideas in the first year it is often claimed that they were “spreading disinformation.” So, this word merely means that they disagreed with some “official” pronouncement.
In other instances, doctors who promoted a treatment for COVID which the “official” source claimed was ineffective were also labelled as “spreading disinformation.” Strangely, when some of these treatments later became “accepted” treatments, those who promoted them BEFORE the treatment was “accepted” never lost the label “disinformationist.”
Even more odd, if you can stand so much oddness, is that (weirdly) those who still “proclaim” the (now outdated) official position from the first year of COVID are NOT labelled “disinformationists.” So, you can erroneously insist everyone MUST wear a COVID mask in your business TODAY because it “saves lives.” You will not be labelled as a person who “spreads disinformation” even though CDC admitted in early 2023 that they have no proof that masks saved a single life from COVID.
So, the word “disinformation” only works on the front end of an “official pronouncement.” Those who agree with the now dismissed “pronouncement,” AFTER the “official pronouncement” has be altered to fit even more current science, do not face the same shaming exercise. In other words, (and this is important) the word only applies BEFORE the full truth is known.
Is there any wonder that we have had trouble understanding the actual meaning of this word?
Now that we better understand how it has been used we have to determine WHY it is used that way. POLITICS. Truth is not important to politics. Being correct is not important to politics. And WHETHER you were proven correct later is also not important to politics. Not a perfect example: Adam Schiff proclaimed he had “proof” of Trump’s “Russian Collusion.” When it was later proved he neither had the proof, nor had ever even thought there was proof…he merely laughed because “he was believed.” Labeling people for “spreading disinformation” is about controlling the narrative. That is ALL it is.
So, if I hear that someone is “spreading disinformation” I laugh. I laugh because I know some individual or group is trying to control me, and others, with a single meaningless term.
It is like the phrase “free range” on a package of chicken. That is another meaningless phrase which means (literally) “this chicken was given the OPTION of viewing the sky” even though it probably never spent a second of its life doing so.
Disinformation means to dissent, but it only applies to dissenting to the “official view” before all the facts which formed that official view have been opened to critical review. Wow! That is exactly when dissent is needed, wouldn’t you think?
What if you were told “officially” that Inoculation F will solve a case of the hiccups? You get the shot only to find out that almost everyone who got the shot died within 25 days. You would have wished those who dissented had been allowed to go public about their concerns.
One should not swallow and untested “official view.” That’s the problem. An “official statement” which has not shown the science behind the view is probably the worst way to do politics in America. It opens the door to unholy and unjust control by one group or political party. So, rights are denied. So, freedoms are not allowed. So, dissent is not permitted.
What do you have then? I think you know.
Copyright 2023 Donald Whelpley
[PLEASE NOTE that Don is always open to discussing the thoughts and opinions he shares here and welcomes comments as shared in the comment section. He doesn’t use other social media platforms, as I do, and won’t see whatever you’d like to share with him if you post it elsewhere. ~ Sherry]
See more GUEST POSTS from Don!
Comments