Misinformation: a series 1.0
The modern origin of misinformation and how it became viewed as a threat
As defined by Merriam Webster misinformation is simply "incorrect or misleading information"1 however the rise in popularity of the words use by governing bodies and authorities along with their willingness to censor what they deem as untrue maybe the most dangerous thing to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. It is dangerous for two reasons, one it gives a central authority the ability to govern what is and isn't considered truth, second it shuts down any opportunity for legitimate discourse or debate because anything labeled by that central authority as "misinformation" is not worthy of discussion since it's already been deemed "false". Having an agency of centralized "truth" poses a serious threat to policy making, freedom of speech and the democratic process in general because debate and discourse is essentially the scientific method for social issues and proposed policy and law. That's the whole reason opposition parties exist in a democracy is so that one sided policy and certain agendas can't just get pushed through.
However the censorship machine didn't start with COVID, neither did the modern rise of "misinformation". This series of articles will attempt to summarize the modern history of misinformation, its modern origins, its use pre-COVID and how the terms been used throughout the pandemic. This initial piece will focus on "misinformation's" modern surfacing and how it came to be perceived as a real threat. The recent history of being ill-informed started with the 2016 U.S presidential elections.
The year was twenty sixteen and an angry orange man was running against a fainting old lady for one the most powerful positions in the world. Outside of the candidates the electoral race also brought to light a new term "misinformation". The word misinformation was mostly used to describe the possible Russian influence campaign unfolding simultaneously during the presidential one. Several media outlets published stories about the likely influence Russia had on the election. The threat of their influence was so real that U.S intelligence agencies launched an investigation into it and on January 6th 2017 they published a 25 page declassified document summarizing their investigation.2
Intelligence agencies found that Russia had definitely attempted to influence the election, one of the papers key judgements is as follows:
"Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations-such as cyber security-with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state funded media, and third party intermediaries, and paid social media users or "trolls.""
The Russians had essentially attempted to sway the election using three main techniques. One was covert cyber security operations such as them hacking the DNC (Democratic National Committee) and obtaining several thousand emails that they then allegedly provided to Wikileaks who subsequently published them. The second method was state funded media which included a Russian funded news network called RT whose YouTube videos according to the same document received more views than other major news outlets. And the third methodology of attack was the unleashing of "trolls" on social media to spread conspiratorial stories and other propaganda or legitimate articles that supported Russian interests.
A screen shot taken from “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” showing RT’s YouTube views and other social media hits in comparison with other networks
First the Wikileaks story, in summary what happened is the DNC was hacked and several thousand emails where retrieved, these emails where than provided to the website Wikileaks who than in turn published them. The main story to come out of the emails was the fact that the Democratic Party seemed to be intentionally undermining the Bernie Sanders campaign while helping Hillary's during the primary portion of the election where party mates run against each other to see who will become the nominee to run in the general election for president. The party is supposed to stay strictly neutral during the primaries.
The report produced by American intelligence found "In July 2015 Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016." It goes on to speak of the Wikileaks story as follows: "We assess with high confidence that the GRU (Main Intelligence Directorate) relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to Wikileaks. Moscow most likely chose Wikileaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through Wikileaks did not contain any evident forgeries." (Bracketed portion added). As previously mentioned the main thing to come from the emails was evidence that the DNC was intentionally trying to harm the Sanders campaign.
An article by the Washington Post titled "Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC's leaked emails"3 covered the scandal and contained excerpts from the actual emails. In one it shows the DNC apparently trying to strategize to have Sanders faith or lack of it brought up while running in Kentucky and West Virginia, a clear attempt to steer religious voters away from Bernie. An email from DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall read: “It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God? He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist." Another email contained in the article showed evidence of the Clinton campaign working directly with the DNC. Bernie made accusations that the Clinton campaign was improperly using its joint fundraising committee with the DNC to benefit itself. An email from Clinton's lawyer to staff within the committee shows the Clinton campaign actively trying to manage damage control in light of the accusations. "My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign made are not true," Although the example of leaked emails is more or less just exposure of information rather than actual misinformation the fact that the Russians had gained access to such private emails within a major political party established them and in the future possibly other foreign entities as a legitimate cyber security threat and something that needed to be guarded against.
The second way Russia launched its influence campaign was through state sponsored media. In particular the news network RT formally known as Russia Today. RT America is a network that brands itself as an "anti-mainstream" alternative source for news content. It specifically utilizes social media, according to the intelligence report "RT is making its social media operations a top priority, both to avoid broadcast TV regulations and to expand its overall audience." The paper then reports RT's numbers "According to RT management, RT's website receives at least 500,000 unique viewers every day. Since its inception in 2005, RT videos received more than 800 million views on YouTube...." The funding for RT comes directly from the Russian state.
"The Kremlin spends $190 million a year on the distribution and dissemination of RT programming."
The government funds RT through an autonomous non-profit organization. RIA Novosti the Russian federal news agency set up the organization "TV Novosti" and uses the company’s formal independence to establish and finance RT worldwide. This funding structure did a few things, one it dis-associated RT from the Russian Government and two it avoided the Foreign Agents Registration Act (A United States law requiring foreign entities who participate in political or advocacy work to register with the DOJ (Department of Justice) and disclose a variety of information).4 The funding structure for RT maybe different from other Russian state sponsored media but the money is ultimately sourced from the Russian government and according to Simonyan (RT's editor in chief) "since RT receives its budget from the state it must complete tasks given by the state." and those tasks during the 2016 election: "undermine public faith in the US democratic process and denigrate secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency."
The third arm of Russia's misinformation campaign was the use of social media. The intelligence report summarizing the Russian influence campaign stated "This effort amplified stories on scandals about Secretary Clinton and the role of Wikileaks in the election campaign." The funding for the Russian social media campaign came from the I.R.A (Internet Research Agency) in Saint Petersburg which was essentially a base for "professional trolls". The agency is suspected to be funded by a pro Putin ally who has ties to Russian intelligence himself. The IRA's services had been previously utilized to support Russian actions in Ukraine. In an article published by Politifact; Watts, a senior at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and former FBI special agent said "Russian actors control fake social media accounts designed to look American, in hopes that actual Americans would be more likely to believe and repost false or pro-Russian narratives coming from those accounts."5 Russia also went as far as creating automated bots to post content that supported their interests to amplify the amount of posts and increase its presence on social media.
"Russian intelligence services would have seen their election influence campaign as at least a qualified success..”
To summarize Russia accomplished their 2016 influence campaign using a few main tactics; covert actions such as hacking and overt methods such as state sponsored media and flooding social media with either false or pro-Russian narratives. Russia has a long history of trying to run influence campaigns against the U.S however according to the intelligence report "...these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity and scope of effort compared to previous activities." The paper also concluded "Russian intelligence services would have seen their election influence campaign as at least a qualified success because of their perceived ability to impact public discussion." The report concluded that foreign influence in global democratic elections would likely be the new normal.
The Russia influence campaign on the 2016 U.S presidential elections did a few things. One it brought the term "misinformation" into the public eye. Two it established misinformation as a legitimate threat because it was being used by foreign entities against the Western world. Three it highlighted the volatility of social media to these types of influence campaigns. The actions of Russia caused Western governments to start taking action against future foreign influence and "misinformation" in general which lead to the cascade of events that will be covered in the future parts of this series. For now and this is very important to remember government wanted to find a system for "quickly diffusing false stories and conspiracy theories, and working with social media companies to tackle the problem of fake and auto-generated profiles." This idea is the seed that would plant the censorship machine.
Footnotes:
”Misinformation”, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misinformation
National Intelligence Council, "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections", January 6th 2017, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Aaron Blake, "Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC's leaked emails", Washington Post, July 25 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/
"Foreign Agents Registration Act", Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
Laureen Carroll, "Four things to know about Russia's 2016 misinformation campaign", Politifact, April 4 2017, https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/apr/04/four-things-know-about-russias-2016-misinformation