3 ms·

This article was probably slightly too early to catch the latest development in an extremely concerning election so far. The latest coordinated disinformation

This article was probably slightly too early to catch the latest development in an extremely concerning election so far. The latest coordinated disinformation was around a photo from a hospital in Leeds where a 4 year old child had to lie on the floor of the accident and emergency department because no beds were available (primarily due to cuts to services from the incumbent government plus winter demand and general wider demand). The health secretary yesterday visited a hospital to respond to the incident and the political editor of the BBC (the state broadcaster) tweeted a story provided to her by government sources that a Labour (main opposition party) activist had punched a Conservative (government) staff member at the protest. The story was picked up by the political editor of ITV and all the right-wing papers (Sun, Mail, Express) picked up and amplified the story including via push notifications within the space of a couple of hours. Video then emerged showing that the activist in question had his back turned to the individual he was reported to have "punched" and the staffer had walked into the man's arm. However there has been no exposure as to who these government sources were who spread a lie in order to distract from the original story about the 4 year old. The disinformation isn't online, or isn't solely online, it's coming from government departments and it is being spread by theoretically impartial media sources such as ITV and BBC. This is an election which has seen at least 4 violent assaults on opposition party members - we're through the looking glass now.

sleavey 7y ago
And I bet the same media outlets that sent push notifications saying the staffer was punched did not send corrections via the same means. This taps into the problem that apologies for incorrect information in newspapers and TV are not given the same placement and coverage as the original misinformation. I'd be interested in a law that forces newspapers to print apologies in the same locations, font size, etc. as the original.
- UglyToad 7y ago
  I think that's one of the main changes which would help address the problems in the current media landscape. How many people would continue to treat The Times, for example, as a serious news source if they'd had to retract their "Muslim foster parents converting Christians" story as prominently as they'd splashed it? The risk I suppose is you need to avoid something like Singapore's Fake News laws where the government decides what is true. The other change I think would be positive is replacing "unnamed sources" with a disclaimer, for example "people who may or may not exist or be telling the truth". It's important to be able to use anonymous sources but it should be made clearer to readers that anonymity has an associated trustworthiness cost.
  - shrikant 7y ago
    What made it more galling in this specific instance is that Peston and Kuenssberg didn't even use the usual weasel words of "A source told me..." -- they reported it as a fact: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELYQnrMX0AEJ4-i?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELYQnrMX0AEJ4-i?format=jpg&name=...
trampypizza 7y ago
Peter Oborne wrote a good article [1] discussing the issues of relying on unnamed government sources to print stories. I think it has been a continuous source of highly questionable information and we really have no way of holding anyone to account. Also, appears there's lots of dead cats being thrown around. I often find myself wondering how we have got to a place that feels so nuts. Nobody is talking to other people with whom they disagree, they are just screaming at them. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-jou...
- iso1631 7y ago
  For those who don't know, Peter Oborne is a life long right wing commentator, working on a couple ofright wing newspaper (The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail) For him to raise the concerns he has shows that there is something seriously wrong.
thu2111 7y ago
primarily due to cuts to services from the incumbent government There have been no such cuts. This is a frequently made claim but it isn't true. Here's a graph of the budget of the Department of Health: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/BA1A/production/_94224674_health_spending_growth.png https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/BA1A/production/... As you can see it only ever goes up. This is in "real terms" i.e. with inflation taken into account. Usually activists who make this claim and are put under a bit of questioning pressure will admit that by "cut" they mean the budget was increased less fast than they believe necessary, which isn't the same thing.
- glomph 7y ago
  There have been cuts to services. That is not the same as claiming there have been cuts to funding. What is true is that the NHS has been severely underfunded (if they want to continue to provide the same services) and that services have been cut as a result. https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/ https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/
  - thu2111 7y ago
    Unless you think the NHS are burning the extra money, there are more services offered than before. It may feel like there's less, because there's more people now, so the increase in services is offset by the increase in population. But that's also not a cut. There's a fundamental design issue with any system that combines free healthcare with free movement. Neither party is interested in changing this situation, but Labour don't even pretend to try - they have adopted policies at their conference of essentially eliminating all immigration controls. It's hard to imagine what kind of budget a nationalised health service would require given no constraints on served population. Effectively it requires an infinite budget.
    - iso1631 7y ago
      Not really, free movement has lead to more tax take to be spent on the health care system. Health spending in every country has increased per capita (inflation adjusted), in the UK it has too. But in the UK, for 40 years, been way under that of countries like France, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and of course the U.S. The rate of increase hasn't increased either. This isn't an issue of (typically working age) immigration - indeed that offsets the problem. It's an issue of an increasingly older population costing more per head. In the UK there's also an issue that people stay in hospital too long because of a failure in social care.

sleavey 7y ago

And I bet the same media outlets that sent push notifications saying the staffer was punched did not send corrections via the same means. This taps into the problem that apologies for incorrect information in newspapers and TV are not given the same placement and coverage as the original misinformation. I'd be interested in a law that forces newspapers to print apologies in the same locations, font size, etc. as the original.

UglyToad 7y ago
I think that's one of the main changes which would help address the problems in the current media landscape. How many people would continue to treat The Times, for example, as a serious news source if they'd had to retract their "Muslim foster parents converting Christians" story as prominently as they'd splashed it? The risk I suppose is you need to avoid something like Singapore's Fake News laws where the government decides what is true. The other change I think would be positive is replacing "unnamed sources" with a disclaimer, for example "people who may or may not exist or be telling the truth". It's important to be able to use anonymous sources but it should be made clearer to readers that anonymity has an associated trustworthiness cost.
- shrikant 7y ago
  What made it more galling in this specific instance is that Peston and Kuenssberg didn't even use the usual weasel words of "A source told me..." -- they reported it as a fact: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELYQnrMX0AEJ4-i?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELYQnrMX0AEJ4-i?format=jpg&name=...

trampypizza 7y ago

Peter Oborne wrote a good article [1] discussing the issues of relying on unnamed government sources to print stories. I think it has been a continuous source of highly questionable information and we really have no way of holding anyone to account. Also, appears there's lots of dead cats being thrown around. I often find myself wondering how we have got to a place that feels so nuts. Nobody is talking to other people with whom they disagree, they are just screaming at them. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-jou...

iso1631 7y ago
For those who don't know, Peter Oborne is a life long right wing commentator, working on a couple ofright wing newspaper (The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail) For him to raise the concerns he has shows that there is something seriously wrong.

thu2111 7y ago

primarily due to cuts to services from the incumbent government There have been no such cuts. This is a frequently made claim but it isn't true. Here's a graph of the budget of the Department of Health: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/BA1A/production/_94224674_health_spending_growth.png https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/BA1A/production/... As you can see it only ever goes up. This is in "real terms" i.e. with inflation taken into account. Usually activists who make this claim and are put under a bit of questioning pressure will admit that by "cut" they mean the budget was increased less fast than they believe necessary, which isn't the same thing.

glomph 7y ago
There have been cuts to services. That is not the same as claiming there have been cuts to funding. What is true is that the NHS has been severely underfunded (if they want to continue to provide the same services) and that services have been cut as a result. https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/ https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/
- thu2111 7y ago
  Unless you think the NHS are burning the extra money, there are more services offered than before. It may feel like there's less, because there's more people now, so the increase in services is offset by the increase in population. But that's also not a cut. There's a fundamental design issue with any system that combines free healthcare with free movement. Neither party is interested in changing this situation, but Labour don't even pretend to try - they have adopted policies at their conference of essentially eliminating all immigration controls. It's hard to imagine what kind of budget a nationalised health service would require given no constraints on served population. Effectively it requires an infinite budget.
  - iso1631 7y ago
    Not really, free movement has lead to more tax take to be spent on the health care system. Health spending in every country has increased per capita (inflation adjusted), in the UK it has too. But in the UK, for 40 years, been way under that of countries like France, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and of course the U.S. The rate of increase hasn't increased either. This isn't an issue of (typically working age) immigration - indeed that offsets the problem. It's an issue of an increasingly older population costing more per head. In the UK there's also an issue that people stay in hospital too long because of a failure in social care.