STOP fighting 'MISINFORMATION' - Advocate for Information Integrity instead!
Flipping perspectives one mini-poster at a time (These also function as a means of promoting Critical Balance Reporting Indicators.)
Back in 2021, the US based Brownstone Institute published this examination of the following concepts related to censorship:
illegal speech
free speech
misinformation
disinformation
foreign disinformation
lies
bots
the 21st century ‘Information War’
Four years later, on January 21, 2024, the Canadian Medical Association had a public release party for the results of a survey that claims to identify a high degree of ‘medical misinformation’ within wide swatches of Canadian society.
It appears the Canadian Medical Association is looking for solutions to an ongoing problem: that Canadians report encountering much misinformation online. Those following this discussion worry that Health Canada might use the results of this survey of less than 4,000 of our 40+ million Canadians to start seeding the notion that EVEN MORE censorship will be needed in this country since of course, ‘misinformation’ must be fought “with every tool in the toolkit!”
However, Albert Einstein is purported to have said:
As explained by a guide-to-quotations website:
The quote “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” is a profound observation about the futility of repetition without change. It highlights the irrationality of continuing a course of action that consistently fails to produce the desired outcome, yet expecting a different result each time. This concept is applicable in various aspects of life…
Image Source
So since the medical and media establishment have both been exhausting themselves playing ‘whack-a-mole’ with every new study or wise professor or insightful scientist, pharmacist and layperson who has been speaking of new evidence that counters the “official” (frozen in time) truths proclaimed from on high — why not try something completely radical?
This is what should be our challenge: expect news-providers AND expert professionals in all fields to jointly put out a buffet of viewpoints and supporting evidence. Have journalists focus on providing the context for the debate and demonstrate objective evaluation of the data.
Think of the opposing experts as the boxers and the journalist as the referee! This pressures everyone to ensure that decisions are made on the strength of evidence alone. Ta da!! Information integrity is restored! Readers can see this in action in the suggested rewrites of two articles in this post.
Forget trying to stamp out news of every new study you just haven’t been able to keep on top of. Demand coverage of both its supporters and its critics. Teach readers that science is an iterative process. Last year’s conclusions might not stand up to this year’s new data. Journalists guide readers through the process, letting them know of the tension between desired results, actual observations, and the possibly that different results might arise as further research is undertaken.
This is where all initiatives to build information literacy should end up; providing techniques and skills to bolster the ability to think critically, INSTEAD of bashing the people over the head with the like-ability factor and credentials of the pre-selected and ordained ‘celebrity experts’ expressing the pre-chosen point of view!
Everyone who insists that their viewpoint is the ONLY possible one is closed to learning about new developments in the field of study.
Ensuring a diversity of viewpoints is integral to the Critical Balance Reporting Indicators presented in this post. MISINFORMATION becomes a thing of the past. This is because no information is taken at face value alone. Instead, it is the role of the journalist to ensure that it is
only presented alongside references to a strong evidentiary base and
objectively reviewed alongside the evidence supporting an alternate point of view.
Absent coverage about any evidence base, journalists can also work at building peoples’ awareness re: common “red flags”.
The systematic use of the Critical Balance Reporting Indicators throughout all media formats and topic areas could possibly restore integrity to our information ecosystem.
As we read in the Global declaration on information integrity online:
The term “information integrity” is defined in this Declaration as an information ecosystem that produces accurate, trustworthy, and reliable information, meaning that people can rely on the accuracy of the information they access while being exposed to a variety of ideas. By using the term “information integrity,” we wish to offer a positive vision of a broader information ecosystem that respects human rights and supports open, safe, secure, prosperous and democratic societies.
This is part of what what Canada, along with 29 other countries, endorsed on September 20, 2023. Has your favourite news outlet reported on this declaration and to its impacts moving forward? If not, why not? Who would you need to ask to get an honest answer?
Readers can see the rest of the list here.
How can we make our way from this cognitive overload:
Image Source
to clarity?
Image Source
We teach people how to recognize what to avoid:
www.wordnik.com/words/propaganda
Misinformation = incorrect information
Propaganda = A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviour of large numbers of people
How can the Critical Balance Reporting Indicators help guard against Misinformation or Propaganda?
(a) Independent Reporting - the journalist goes beyond material supplied by one side or the other, asking additional questions WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE WHY HOW & consults multiple information sources in the quest for answers
(b) Contextualization - the journalist places the debate and its implication into the larger societal context, asking SO WHAT, NOW WHAT
(c) Source Transparency - the journalist clarifies how the sources were selected
(d) Accuracy - the journalist reviews the sources & the evidence provided, attempting to ascertain their correctness and validity. (Closely tied to Diversity of Opinion, in that sources are asked to comment on information provided by other sources.)
(e) Diversity of Opinion - the journalist seeks a multiplicity of viewpoints, each with positions and supporting evidence.
(f) Data Evaluation - the journalist demonstrates how one could judge the soundness of the presentation and evidence of each participant in the ‘virtual discussion’, aka in the article
(g) Objectivity - the journalist weighs the arguments against each other without demonstrating favouritism, simply showing lapses of logic, or other strengths and weaknesses within the argumentation
(h) Professionalism - the journalist maintains a neutral, reserved and professional tone while writing about the various viewpoints and the supporting evidence.
When following this format, there is no room either for incorrect or one-sided, unsupported declarations (messages aimed at influencing behaviour and decisions). In other words, the potential for misinformation and propaganda to lead individuals to incorrect choices is gone.
What remains becomes the basis for informed decision making using the best available evidence. This may or may not be the decision that for whatever reasons, people in ‘official’ roles or ‘mainstream’ positions loyal to some kind of narrative would want people to be making. Their problem is that they will have staked election campaigns, platforms and budgets around last year’s conclusions. They are worried their voters will judge them as ‘wishy washy’ if they make policy changes midstream - yet citizens need to be educated to expect decision makers to actually “follow the science” even when this leads to policy reversals. That this definitely can mean turning ones back on older conclusions that were based on older versions of the data and revising policy as needed. This is what the scientific method is all about, revising earlier hypotheses based on research findings.
But honestly, who would still want to continue using Misinformation and Propaganda, if messaging based on out of date facts and observations do NOT stand up to the challenge of providing a strong evidence base?
Who, other than those with a product to sell or a market to defend?!
In December 2023, Canadian independent journalist and podcaster Rav Arora was already writing about how on both sides of the border The Federal Government Paid Media Outlets to Promote the Covid Vaccine. And with that, most of the Critical Balance Reporting Indicators go out the window. Let’s reverse that now!
Thank you for your insightful article! The mini poster presentation method is great!