This is Google's cache of http://www.isgp.eu/disinformation/Recognizing_media_disinformation.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 25 Dec 2009 22:32:37 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Text-only version

| Front Page
| Archives
| About
| FAQ
| Links
| Contact
| How YOU can help
| Index of institutes
| Intro
| Le Cercle
| 1001 Club
| Pilgrims Society
| Multinational Chairman's Group
| Sun Valley Meetings
| Bohemian Grove
| JASON Group
| Unacknowledged SAPs
| Beyond Dutroux
| "La Nebuleuse"
| Disinformation
| Peak Oil
| The UFO issue
| Miscellaneous
Recognizing disinformation in the media Twenty-six ways to slander and intimidate conspiracy advocates "If we had met five years ago, you wouldn't have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me. And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss has been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job... The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress." - 2002, Gary Webb, 'Into the Buzzsaw', as repeated by his fellow investigative journalist Nick Schou in the book 'Kill the Messenger' (p. 12). Webb's career was ruined after he published a series of articles tying the CIA to drug trafficking. He never recovered from the affair and ultimately killed himself. "In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility... In the primitive simplicity of [the mind of the masses] they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. " - 1926, Adolf Hitler, 'Mein Kampf', p. 472 About a year ago something began to dawn on me, and that is the fact that many people don't recognize media bias or disinformation very well. You'd be surprised at how many people can read an article about any given conspiracy topic and not recognize it when facts are being selectively presented, or when the conspiracy point-of-view is discouraged with jokes, personal attacks or unrealistic counter-arguments. This needs to change. Below you will find 26 tactics that can, and have, been used by the media against people advocating conspiracies. I've been gathering them over the course of a year by paying attention to newspaper, magazine and tv reports about controversial issues. The purpose of this article is two-fold : It will allow anyone to better recognize media bias and media disinformation; It provides people with a checklist they can use to prepare themselves in case they are invited for an interview and suspect to be ridiculed. As for the second argument, think of the ever increasing amount of bloggers, conspiracy-website owners (this author has been contacted, for example) and political activists. Other examples are upcoming investigative authors, potential whistleblowers and basically anyone prominent who thinks about speaking out in support of a certain conspiracy. List of tactics including additional explanations List of tactics only Tactics used
| 1. |  | Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by questioning the mental state of conspiracy advocates and pretending they are outcasts of society whose opinions nobody cares about.
Additional explanation: Insinuate that anyone interested in unfavorable subjects, which can even be as innocent as looking into the role of Bilderberg or the Trilateral Commission in the globalization process, is a complete nutter who needs his head examined. A subtler approach might be to pretend how we all get so tired of these people, for example by saying or writing, "Yes, I hear you thinking, here you have them again. But let's find out, what is it exactly that they want to convince us of this time?"
| 2. |  | Put the word "theory" behind the word "conspiracy", no matter how great the evidence, and preferably do this several times in the article to make the (supposedly) theoretical nature of the conspiracy really sink in.
Additional explanation: It's not unusual for a conspiracy advocate to use the word "conspiracy theorist" on himself, because somehow he has to set his ideas apart from the "coincidence theorist" or "human failure theorists". Followers of different ideas about history or science are often referred to as "theorists", and in those cases it has nothing to do with ridicule. However, misplaced or overuse of the term "conspiracy theory" will automatically prevent people from (openly) accepting this point of view because of the strong negative connotations attached to this term.
| 3. |  | Imply that conspiracy theories are literally made up out of thin air and that there never was any significant evidence to support any of them.
Additional explanation: Be as condescending as possible by taking on a parental role. Fill your news reports with words like "paranoid", "urban legend", "folklore", "myth", "fantasy", "imagination", "legend", "gullible", "hype", "hoax"., etc. Works better the more grades and authority you have.
| 4. |  | Present different pieces of the same conspiracy as independently made up and conflicting conspiracy theories.
Additional explanation: This will result in people thinking that conspiracy theorists are in some kind of turf war, trying to protect their own little pet theories. The John F. Kennedy assassination is a great example. The overall theory most researchers agree on is that the CIA, largely through the mafia and anti-Castro militants, and with support of some important businessmen, was behind the assassination. However, skeptics have usually broken this overall theory in four separate pieces: theory 1: the CIA did it; theory 2: the mafia did it; theory 3: anti-Castro militants did it; or theory 4: big business did it. This is a ridiculous approach of course. Here's another example from Belgium which relates to the Dutroux affair: February 2, 2005, Nieuwsblad, 'Ze zijn vermoord maar door wie?' ('They have been murdered, but by whom?'): "Father Dellaert was grilled. Her [Carine's] mother, of whom he had divorced, threw some additional oil on the fire by claiming that he [the father] had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. Additionally the man had already been convicted once for sexual affairs. But he kept denying. Still, three months later he was in jail. But because of a lack of evidence justice had to let him go. Regina Louf, also known as X1, made up another story: she would have met Carine during sex parties." Here you have another world class piece of disinformation on which details can be read in PEHI's 'Beyond the Dutroux affair' article. What's important here is: A) the tone of the sentence that is underlined ("made up"), and B) the fact that X1's story is not at all incompatible with the claims of Carine Dellaert's mother. The father had been doing the abuse when the mother was away--which was most of the time--and also allowed his daughter to be abused by his circle of friends. This information came from Carine's former closest friend, who was ignored by newspapers and investigators. They also ignored all evidence showing that X1 had known Carine. In other words, this newspaper presented two witnesses with apparently conflicting testimonies, while in reality they described two aspects of the same crime.
| 5. |  | Carefully select the evidence that is to be presented. Leave out anything that cannot be explained. Focus on evidence that is easy to discredit, or at the very least, inconclusive.
Additional explanation: This is one of the most common and fundamental tactics used. The fact that the majority of the conspiracy community might reject a certain theory, or is aware of much stronger evidence, doesn't matter to the media, because the general public is unaware of that and has no time or interest to check the facts for themselves. This tactic might backfire during live interviews, unless a conspiracy theorist is picked who supports the theory that will be used to discredit the entire community. A great example of bogus claims continually being repeated and "discredited" by the media are the no-plane and pod theories of 9/11. Anyone who really does his homework knows there are many other aspects of 9/11 that are much more interesting--not to mention, true. Other examples might be reports that tie criticism on today's Zionist Lobby to holocaust denial, or people who believe in UFOs to fake Moon landings. If you're attacking an individual, and not a whole group, dig up every mistake in his work, however small, and discuss these flaws one after another. It will seem to most people the author's work is riddled with mistakes, while in reality 98 or 99 percent might be perfectly accurate, including the overall picture.
| 6. |  | As a talk-show host, don't let any person arguing in favor of a conspiracy speak uninterrupted for even one minute.
Additional explanation: As soon as the person interviewed tries to bring up a serious piece of evidence, immediately counter with a joke, a seemingly damning counter-argument (there's no time to further discuss anyway) or simply change the subject. Keep the interview nice and short so there's no time to go into any kind of detail.
| 7. |  | For interviews, preferably pick prominent individuals from the conspiracy movement who either have no credentials or irrelevant credentials. Place these conspiracy theorists against academics and other experts who have impeccable credentials.
Additional explanation: When doing basic research, in many cases a lower-educated person with some experience can do just as good of a job as someone who has his M.A. or Ph.D. However, highly-educated, respected individuals interviewed by the media are usually trusted on their word while it's necessary for anyone else to step by step go over all the evidence. There's seldom any time for the latter approach so the lower-educated conspiracy advocate finds himself in a severely disadvantaged position.
| 8. |  | During video interviews, allow the skeptics to present themselves more properly than the conspiracy advocates.
Additional explanation: Interview conspiracy theorists on video from angles that make them look a bit awkward, like really up close to show off that wart, or a little bit from below so we can all enjoy those nose hairs. Also, limit their make up, don't ask them to shave, and if possible, interview them in plain, simple clothes. Do the interview in an environment which further diminishes credibility, like a messy living room or next to a replica of a grey alien in a UFO museum. In contrast, interview the skeptical "experts" from their most affectionate angle with suit and tie in a nice and comfortable place. Make sure their make up is perfect.
| 9. |  | Quote from generally respected government investigating committees and present their conclusions as gospel.
Additional explanation: If anyone asks or says that these government committees are misrepresenting the evidence, instead of listening to the arguments the reaction will be along the lines of, "So everybody is in on it?", if needed followed by "Impeccable expert A, B and C disagree with you." After that the topic is steered away in a different direction. As stated in point seven: "Highly-educated, respected individuals [or institutes] interviewed by the media are usually trusted on their word while it's necessary for anyone else to step by step go over all the evidence. There's seldom any time for the latter approach so the [in this case high or low-educated] conspiracy advocate finds himself in a severely disadvantaged position."
| 10. |  | Automatically dismiss articles from conspiracy advocates as "unreliable", no matter how well-sourced these articles are.
Additional explanation: Don't go into the specific issues raised in the article. If the promoter of the article asks you to look at these issues, just ignore him and keep coming back to the fact the author of the article is "not reliable".
| 11. |  | Always question the motives of conspiracy theorists.
Additional explanation: Any conspiracy writer who has any kind of income from his writings can be accused of being in it for the money. Another popular accusation is that conspiracy theorists are anti-semites and have the same beliefs as fundamentalist Arabs. The latter tactic has been especially popular after 9/11 (for example, the false claim that thousands of Jews were aware of the WTC attack) and the London bombings (there was a report that one of the bombers was a 9/11 skeptic).
| 12. |  | Make the well known claim that everybody is in on the conspiracy.
Additional explanation: This can be formulated as a question or as a sarcastic comment, in both cases serving to ridicule and discredit the unprepared interviewee.
| 13. |  | Make a few jokes, usually involving little green men, Elvis, the grassy knoll, and aliens. Then there also is the classic "out to get you" comment.
Additional explanation: Jokes like these only serve to make conspiracy advocates uncomfortable by ridiculing them and to intimidate anyone from looking into possible conspiracies. Reading some of the articles of skeptics, these days it apparently also seems possible to suggest that the average conspiracy theorist really believes claims that Elvis was abducted by aliens. It should be quite obvious that in reality this belief is (virtually?) non-existent. December 18, 2000, BBC, 'Conspiracy Theories': "This [the National Enquirer] is the natural reading matter for those who sincerely believe that Elvis was abducted by aliens, this being more comforting than the traditional explanation that he simply took too many drugs."
| 14. |  | Ask if the conspiracy advocate believes in any other (unrelated) conspiracies.
Additional explanation: For example, when you interview someone who is skeptical about the official 9/11 story, ask him about UFOs; or vice versa. Even if the person only states he's open to the other conspiracy, it can be used to discredit him in the eyes of many people; even more so in follow-up reports. Example: "Person X is convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. He also recently stated he believes in flying saucers."
| 15. |  | Make the claim that governments can't keep secrets.
Additional explanation: In a way governments and intelligence agencies do have a hard time keeping secrets, especially in the West. There are a few "buts", however. First of all, a huge amount of coverage over an extended period is needed for a large enough portion of the public to change their beliefs or even take action. One or two one-time reports, even in a large newspaper, are not going to change anything, certainly not in the long term. People will forget or doubt themselves if the message is not continually repeated and eventually taught at home by their parents or at school. Secondly, counter measures to prevent exposure are usually in proportion to the sensitivity of the secret. Just by looking at the amount of investigators, witnesses and whistleblowers who have been intimidated or suicided over the years, it appears that the most sensitive secrets are highest-level involvement in the international drug trade, arms trade, assassinations, pedophile networks and terrorism, or, on a hardly lighter note, "legal" deep black programs involving extremely high technology. Without the internet we would still be absolutely clueless as to what is going on at this level. At least we now have a vague idea, even though there's still much that needs to be uncovered. None of these topics are discussed in the mainstream press or tv. And third, in addition to intimidation and assassination, psychological warfare and disinformation have been used to prevent the public from finding out about the deepest secrets and to discourage anyone from looking into them in the first place. Ridicule is a powerful weapon.
| 16. |  | Repeat the claim that we have free press because scandals are regularly exposed.
Additional explanation: Virtually everything can be discussed in the media except a handful of topics that are really important. If one allies himself with the Left it's possible, of course, to expose the Right to some extent, and vice verse, but it's virtually impossible to publish a serious article about the 9/11 Truth movement, government assassinations and terrorism, CIA drug imports, high level pedophile rings, or other extremely sensitive stuff which will change people's whole concept of government. This kind of stuff is just not done. And if you are uniquely in the possession of evidence that relates to some of the examples above, you run a good risk of becoming a victim of harassment, intimidation, financial ruining, and you could well end up dead.
| 17. |  | As soon as a conspiracy theorist brings up witness testimony, counter with the standard argument that eyewitness testimony is "notoriously unreliable".
Additional explanation: A former fundamentalist Christian turned professional debunker, Michael Shermer, took this argument to the limit during a July 2007 debate about UFOs on the Larry King Show. Even after others present told him that numerous military officers and pilots have claimed to have seen UFOs, and that the Phoenix Lights incident involved thousands of witnesses who all saw the same thing, Shermer just countered with: "... Eyewitness testimony is not all that reliable... Trained observers are no better than just regular observers."
| 18. |  | When aspects of the permanent government have slowly been exposed over the years, oversimplify by stating this or that conspiracy theory "has had its best time".
Additional explanation: There are many reasonable questions that could be asked, like why the mainstream media has not been the one responsible for shedding light on the "conspiracy" they just mentioned, or why they don't expand on the information now the word has come out, or if there are similar conspiracies going on. Of course, some conspiracies are never mentioned, so this argument doesn't apply to them. The exposure we're talking about here mainly deals with Bilderberg and the Bohemian Grove, or more recently, the 1001 Club and Le Cercle.
| 19. |  | Start out with, or only report, conclusions, and leave out most, if not all, evidence that this conclusion has been based on. Also leave out all nuances brought up by the person that has been interviewed.
Additional explanation: Generally only works with pre-recorded interviews or a review of a person's work. As the conclusions that must be drawn from conspiracies or conspiracy theories are usually quite disturbing, especially to someone never exposed to this point of view, this tactic is one of the most effective in discrediting even men and women with impeccable credentials. Here's an example, a paraphrase from a recent Dutch article on Daniel Estulin's Bilderberg book (lost the article, which, by the way, was the inspiration for this article): "Estulin warns us that there's a plan for global dictatorship in which a great portion of the world's population will be exterminated. Those who survive will be implanted with a microchip in their brain." I can't tell if it's a good or a bad book, because I've not read it, but the intention of the newspaper is clear. Some day another example might be: "PEHI is claiming that leading officials in government (including prime ministers), business, the judiciary and intelligence are involved in illegal arms trafficking, drug running, pedophilia and terrorist attacks on their own population." What casual reader is going to believe that? It must be said though that PEHI has a significant advantage over book writers, because this site is freely accessible to everyone, so it's basically very easy for people to take a peek and check some of the facts reported in the newspapers.
| 20. |  | Oversimplify by stating that the official head of state must have been directly involved in planning and overseeing the conspiracy. Don't allow the subject to explain the transnational, largely privatized, permanent government in any coherent way.
Additional explanation: The permanent government, consisting of many different elements in business, politics, the judiciary, intelligence, the military, private clubs, and think tanks, seems to be the backbone of every conspiracy. Its existence is always ignored or denied, which probably has a lot to do with the major media networks belonging to this same government.
| 21. |  | Claim that the internet is responsible for the recent increase in conspiracy theories, because frothing conspiracy theorists are hyping each other up in chat rooms and message boards.
Additional explanation: It's true, of course, that the internet is responsible for the huge increase in awareness of conspiracies, the simple reason being that alternative theories are just as accessible on the net as the lies pushed by the government and mainstream media. However, anyone with a (conspiracy) site can tell you that links posted on forums will not get you many hits, as there always are a few individuals who drive everyone away by posting lengthy, irrational, and often abusive statements 24 hours a day. Skeptics will claim otherwise, but in reality few want to be associated with some of these forum people, including the average conspiracy-oriented person. Chat rooms are often private and generate even less hits. Most people use the internet to find and order books, read (alternative) news sites and use Google and Wikipedia to find additional information. That's it.
| 22. |  | Have a conspiracy theorist argue with a victim of a conspiracy who actually doesn't believe in the conspiracy. Even better, the victim is disabled and dying.
Additional explanation: Apparently a relatively new tactic, which was used by FOX News' Planet Mancow in November 2006 when they confronted Kevin Smith, producer of Infowars and Prisonplanet, with the disabled and dying 9/11 firefighter Brian Harvey. During the planning and recording of the show Planet Mancow used numerous other disinformation tactics, all of which have been described here
| 23. |  | When covering demonstrations, mainly focus on the eccentric and the violent. Ignore all the presentable, calm and intelligent demonstrators.
Additional explanation: It must be said that in anti-globalist (mainly US conservatives) or different-globalist (mainly liberals, including in Europe) demonstrations there's usually no shortage of eccentric individuals the media can pick from. On the other hand, there also are many knowledgeable individuals in government and business who have no interest in going to the streets with a bullhorn and a banner, but can very articulately explain what the present globalization process is all about and what is wrong with it. However, these are the people the media likes to ignore. Additional note: There's also some evidence that small, extreme left wing groups are used to disrupt peaceful demonstrations, followed by a heavy crackdown on all demonstrators (the 1999 WTO negotiations in Seattle for example). This, of course, gives the media yet another opportunity to further stereotype the anti-globalist and different-globalist crowds as uneducated, left-wing nutjobs.
| 24. |  | Don't write about the topics conspiracy theorists bring up. Instead, write about conspiracy theorists.
Additional explanation: A great example is when this author was approached by a journalist of a major Dutch newspaper in mid 2007. The whole email read, "Can I call you some time about your PEHI website? Maybe I want to devote an article to it in Het Parool." The thing that immediately popped in my mind was, "Why write about my site? Do your own investigative article on Le Cercle, the 1001 (perfect for a Dutch investigator), the Pilgrims, or whatever. You don't need to know anything from or about me. The less you say about me the more credible you are." So I declined. And seeing the article some weeks later I certainly knew I had done the right thing. It was yet another superficial article about conspiracy theorists (evangelists; reincarnation therapists) and there was no investigative journalism to verify some of the more serious aspects of the conspiracy community. There was, of course, space reserved for talk about the 13 bloodlines of the Illuminati and Icke's lizards. What a surprise.
| 25. |  | See if you can link credible writers to not-so-credible writers.
Additional explanation: Basically anything will do: a friendship, a compliment of one about the other, a reference in one of your works, etc. In the same Parool article mentioned in point 24, it was written that, "It is clear that Van der Reijden has let himself be inspired by David Icke... [lizards, blah, blah]" This is a really dubious statement, but the writer of the article can get away with it because at the bottom of my article it is mentioned that the first time I heard about Le Cercle was on a DVD of David Icke. Now, this cheap exploit can't really bother me, because the minute I put that minor acknowledgement there, even if it was with a good number of reservations about basically all of Icke's theories, I knew "skeptics" would sooner or later jump on it. And that's fine; anybody can visit my site and compare it to any newspaper articles written about me. Now, I know I'm not a particularly credible writer, but you get the point.
| 26. |  | See if you can dig up some dirt on a prominent conspiracy advocate.
Additional explanation: When it comes to politics, basically anything can be used against you: a criminal past, a few misdemeanors, dubious friends, having visited porn websites, cheated on your wife, a bitter ex-girlfriend, a son or daughter using drugs, etc. Personal attacks are the most often used against politicians because of their prominence, but they can also be used against conspiracy theorists.
Tactics without additional explanations Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by questioning the mental state of conspiracy advocates and pretending they are outcasts of society whose opinions nobody cares about. Put the word "theory" behind the word "conspiracy", no matter how great the evidence, and preferably do this several times in the article to make the (supposedly) theoretical nature of the conspiracy really sink in. Imply that conspiracy theories are literally made up out of thin air and that there never was any significant evidence to support any of them. Present different pieces of the same conspiracy as independently made up and conflicting conspiracy theories. Carefully select the evidence that is to be presented. Leave out anything that cannot be explained. Focus on evidence that is easy to discredit, or at the very least, inconclusive. As a talk-show host, don't let any person arguing in favor of a conspiracy speak uninterrupted for even one minute. For interviews, preferably pick prominent individuals from the conspiracy movement who either have no credentials or irrelevant credentials. Place these conspiracy theorists against academics and other experts who have impeccable credentials. During video interviews, allow the skeptics to present themselves more properly than the conspiracy advocates. Quote from generally respected government investigating committees and present their conclusions as gospel. Automatically dismiss articles from conspiracy advocates as "unreliable", no matter how well-sourced these articles are. Always question the motives of conspiracy theorists. Make the well known claim that everybody is in on the conspiracy. Make a few jokes, usually involving little green men, Elvis, the grassy knoll, and aliens. Then there also is the classic "out to get you" comment. Ask if the conspiracy advocate believes in any other (unrelated) conspiracies. Make the claim that governments can't keep secrets. Repeat the claim that we have free press because scandals are regularly exposed. As soon as a conspiracy theorist brings up witness testimony, counter with the standard argument that eyewitness testimony is "notoriously unreliable". When aspects of the permanent government have slowly been exposed over the years, oversimplify by stating this or that conspiracy theory "has had its best time". Start out with, or only report, conclusions, and leave out most, if not all, evidence that this conclusion has been based on. Also leave out all nuances brought up by the person that has been interviewed. Oversimplify by stating that the official head of state must have been directly involved in planning and overseeing the conspiracy. Don't allow the subject to explain the transnational, largely privatized, permanent government in any coherent way. Claim that the internet is responsible for the recent increase in conspiracy theories, because frothing conspiracy theorists are hyping each other up in chat rooms and message boards. Have a conspiracy theorist argue with a victim of a conspiracy who actually doesn't believe in the conspiracy. Even better, the victim is disabled and dying. When covering demonstrations, mainly focus on the eccentric and the violent. Ignore all the presentable, calm and intelligent demonstrators. Don't write about the topics conspiracy theorists bring up. Instead, write about conspiracy theorists. See if you can link credible writers to not-so-credible writers. See if you can dig up some dirt on a prominent conspiracy advocate. Author: Joël van der Reijden Written: January 17, 2008