The Campaign Continues

Quid est veritas

There are a few links to source material in this article. Because I advocate in this piece for a critical evaluation of material, this article should be treated accordingly. May I suggest a reading of Professor Petousis-Harris piece. Your assessment after a critical reading may differ from mine.

“Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.”
John 18: 37 – 38 (King James Authorised Version)

“And what is "truth"? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?”

Jesus Christ Superstar

If you thought that the fascination with misinformation and disinformation would fade into the background with the demise of the Disinformation Project you were mistaken.

Clearly the forces of a single universal truth have regrouped and a measured and thoughtful article by Helen Petousis-Harris – an Associate Professor in Vaccinology at the University of Auckland has been published in The Conversation under the headline “Deliberate disinformation campaigns are a public health risk – but NZ has no effective strategy to deal with it”. The article was reprinted in the Herald for 16 December under the headline “Covid response: Deliberate disinformation campaigns are a public health risk – but NZ has no effective strategy to deal with it” – a slight difference from the Conversation heading.

The starting point for the article is the recently released Royal Commission of Inquiry report about New Zealand’s Covid response which highlighted the harmful impact of misinformation and disinformation on public health. Professor Petousis-Harris observed that the report offered no solutions and that mis/disinformation campaigns fuelling distrust in Government are an age old problem that is difficult to counter.

Why it should be seen as a problem is not made clear unless the assumption is that distrust of government is a problem exacerbated by disinformation. But the Good Professor proceeds from her assumption by referring to a research study that she and others engaged in in 2010, analysing vaccine narratives for the use of logical fallacies defined by Aristotle. This analytical approach is developed.

The first thing that is stated is suggested as a proven fact.

“Research has meticulously mapped the contours of misinformation and disinformation surrounding vaccines. Experts highlighted that the conditions for the spread of misinformation were ripe before the pandemic.”

If one follows the link one arrives at a single article from the Herald for 1 December 2023 about an employment investigation after following a health agency worker spreading misinformation using government data about Covid-19 vaccines.

I would have thought some more significant data could have been advanced to support the assertion. But at least the argument is developed without the hysteria and hyperbole that accompanied Disinformation Project pronouncements.

The Good Professor then states

“Identifying misinformation and disinformation involves a critical evaluation of content and its source. A first question is the source credibility. Is the information from a recognised authority or reputable news source?

The next bit, logical consistency, is harder to detect. Does the information contain contradictions or logically impossible claims? Many false narratives are internally inconsistent or implausible.

Often there will also be at least some level of emotional manipulation. Disinformation frequently exploits emotions such as fear or anger to enhance engagement and sharing.”

I agree entirely with the approach. Critical evaluation of content and source is essential in any assessment of the reliability of information. That said merely relying on a recognized authority or a reputable news source may not be enough. There can be little doubt that often “recognized authorities” may have their own agenda and it would seem doubtful that a reputable news source exists in these days of declining public trust in mainstream media (MSM). Recent news stories about surveys demonstrate a “skewing” of the data and an absence of survey questions. Thus in addition to “recognized authorities” one should consider the primary sources and the evidential data.

The Good Professor then proceeds to demonstrate logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks and cherry-picking which is the practice of selecting data that support a particular argument while ignoring data that contradict it. This latter practice is something at which many MSM writers are adept. She then moves on to discuss conspiracy theories which she claims during the pandemic

“misrepresented scientific evidence and the intentions of health authorities and experts. The claim of cover-ups is often the final go-to when there is no other convincing argument.”

She concludes this section of the article with the statement

“Surveys have repeatedly highlighted a worrying trend: a segment of the public, including some health professionals, harbours scepticism about vaccines, fuelled by unmitigated misinformation.”

The countering of disinformation is the next topic in the article suggesting a co-ordinated approach and tailored messaging which has

“shown promise in increasing trust and positive health behaviours. “Pre-bunking”, which involves educating people on how to spot misinformation before they encounter it, is gaining traction.”

Education and an increase in media literacy is also recommended – something with which I agree whole-heartedly. But this is not directed to evaluating the reliability of the information stated in media (both MSM and social media) which in my view is critical, but is rather designed to the ability to detect disinformation campaigns and be less susceptible to their influences.

The Good Professor sees disinformation as a factor eroding social cohesion. If by social cohesion she means a commonly held belief in a set of circumstances then what is being advocated is a communitarian, collectivist approach to society that overrides the interests of the individual. Social cohesion developed as a watchword over the pandemic as a fancy term for conformity. I cannot support that. I favour a society that celebrates a diversity of views and an environment that favours the expression of those views.

The Good Professor concludes her section on countering mis/disinformation by suggesting

“Collaboration between governments, international organisations and tech companies is essential. These stakeholders must work together to detect and limit the spread of harmful content and promote accurate information appropriate to the audience (right message, right messenger, right platform).”

It has taken a while but at last we can see that the Government is becoming a player in dealing with mis/disinformation. It must be a concern if the Government is controlling the messaging.

But Professor Petousis-Harris is concerned that Governments and health organisations are reactive to misinformation rather than being proactive or worse still leave a vacuum. Her suggestion is that

“We need a strategic, well- resourced commitment from the highest levels of government and health leadership.

It takes courage and the ability to walk a tightrope between freedom of speech and protecting public health. Both are human rights.”

Her suggestion is to

“prioritise the integrity of our public health communications and bring all the facets we need to do this together. This includes media, tech companies, academics and community leaders.”

It was a relief that she did not include the Government in that list of organisations and that she recognized the tension that exists with combatting mis/disinformation and the freedom of expression.

Professor Petousis-Harris’ article is more measured and rational than the outpourings of the Disinformation Project and I have no difficulty with the underlying message. Reliable information is necessary so that people can make informed choices about their health options.

I emphasise the importance of an informed choice. Section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment. A properly informed choice is crucial to the exercise of that right.

But the problem that Professor Petousis-Harris does not address arises from the way that the messaging around mis/disinformation uses those terms as dismissive veto statements rather than as introductions to a discussion about why the particular information is incorrect or the conclusions drawn from it are wrong.

And following that is the question of nuance and a failure to recognize the differing views that may surround public health issues. In a sense mis/disinformation are not only veto terms but have the tendency to support stereotyping or generalization. And in many respects this is the basis of Professor Petousis-Harris article.

Let me give an example which I take from a comment to an earlier post.

There is evidence that fluoride has many benefits for oral and dental health. It may be obtained from fluoridated toothpaste or mouth rinses which can be purchased from pharmacies or from prescription based fluoride supplements thus enabling a choice for the consumer. In addition some public water systems include fluoride. Thus if the consumer drinks tap water, fluoride is consumed. There is no choice involved.

The public health people would argue that the benefits of fluoride speak to the advisability of having it in the water. It is argued that community water fluoridation is effective and safe.

On the other hand there is a perspective that there should be no additives to water. At its simplest, rain water is about as pure as it gets. Anything that is added is in the form of a contaminant. Thus, notwithstanding the health benefits that may flow from fluoridated water it is water that has been contaminated by an additive.

To make this statement is not misinformation nor is it disinformation. Yet it runs counter to the accepted view of public health experts. To advocate against water fluoridation as a contaminant, as many do, may well be countrarian as far as public health experts are concerned but it is not mis/disinformation nor is it a conspiracy theory. It is a validly held point of view that underpins a choice. And in the minds of those who favour that choice, the addition of fluoride to water means that the authorities have deprived them of the choice. If you want fluoride, say the contrarians, use the toothpaste or mouth rinses or supplements. Then you are not forcing them – the contrarians – to do something they don’t want to do.

Now I acknowledge that this is a simplistic example. But it highlights the problems that public health experts face when it comes to decisions involving the course that should be adopted for public health. Inevitably, like any Government decision (or decision made by a monolithic agency) a “one size fits all” approach is adopted and the interests of the majority take precedence over those of the minority.

But that does not mean that there cannot be debate and freedom of expression – to express or receive information – demands that there be open and properly informed debate that does not generalize, does not stereotype but does recognize the importance of nuance and respect, rather than dismiss out of hand using cancel or veto words, the views and opinions of others.

By all means let us, as the Good Professor says

“restore and maintain the public trust essential for overcoming this crisis and future public health challenges.”

But at the same time in building that public trust let us do so in a way that respects the variety of opinions, beliefs and points of view on these very personal and individual matters of personal health and bodily integrity.

In closing, this article was first published in “The Conversation”. This publication serves as a source for a number of articles. I have often wondered about the Conversation and how one becomes a part of it. It is a rather exclusive community.

The Conversation website states that

“To be published by The Conversation you must be currently employed as a researcher or academic with a university or research institution. PhD candidates under supervision by an academic can write for us, but we don’t currently publish articles from Masters students.”

That limits those who can publish quite considerably. I cannot publish a rebuttal to or comment about Professor Petousis-Harris’ article because I do not qualify for membership of the Conversation. If I were still teaching Law and IT at the Auckland University Law School – as I once did – I would qualify as employed as an academic with a University. But those days are over.

So remember when you read something sourced from the Coversation that there is a certain level of expertise that sits behind its articles but that its membership is limited. It is governed by a Charter and details about the organization can be found here. But as is the case with anything that you may see on the Internet, evaluate critically, check the footnotes, evaluate the data and never forget science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon’s Law – more a general observation - “90% of Everything is Crap”