Clare Jackson in her book ‘Devil-land: England under siege 1588 – 1688’ states:
“Moreover all information – whether audaciously printed or whispered rumour – could be denounced as erroneous, misleading or damaging. Royal courtiers and foreign ambassadors alike detected an unwelcome rise in ‘false news’, fearing that London’s Royal Exchange could rival the Rialto in Venice or the Piazza Navona in Rome as a notorious site for rumourmongering”
Chris Keall in The NZ Herald (4 March) sets out ways to address “misinformation” while failing to define the term. In short, he subscribes to the suggestion by Don Christie that all that is needed is for existing laws to be enforced.
In the bad old days, the information technology of the printing press was regulated quite severely, especially during the reign of Charles II and James II with the enactment of the Licensing Act 1662. This set up a rigorous licensing regime that came to an end in 1696 when the Act was not renewed. An unintended consequence of that was the enactment of the Statute of Anne 1710 which formed the foundation for our modern law of copyright.
Plus ça change?
The term ‘misinformation’ is a curious one. It is frequently used in commentary, especially in the context of the covid pandemic and it has been used in a number of official publications (The Disinformation Pandemic; Sustaining Social Cohesion in Aotearoa New Zealand).
In those publications it has not been defined. It seems to be assumed that its meaning is understood.
Yet the way in which it is used seems to suggest it is a veto word and that the subject matter to which it refers is to be discounted as misinformation without further explanation.
My training as a lawyer and as an academic has taught me to question assumptions. As a lawyer, I have been concerned in establishing a proposition by supporting it with specialised information which lawyers call evidence. As a judge, I was required to give reasons for decisions. As a PhD candidate I had to justify every assertion and assumption I made. In all three examples intellectual rigour is required.
If a speaker or writer asserts there is misinformation, the question that first springs to mind is ‘what is misinformation’. What does the critic mean when he or she asserts that the subject matter of the criticism is misinformation? What is the definition of misinformation? Or is it a term with a number of meanings and the correct meaning depends on the context in which it is used?
Perhaps we should start by breaking the word down. ‘To inform’ is a verb and means to give or impart knowledge of a fact or circumstances – to tell someone about something.
‘To misinform’ qualifies the word ‘inform’ with the modifier ‘mis’ and means to give someone false or misleading information (we will look at ‘information’ in a moment) – to tell someone something that is not correct.
‘Information’, like the verb ‘to inform’, derives originally from Latin informare – to inform. It is the nominative (noun) version of the word and has a variety of meanings. The most common synthesis of these meanings is material that informs. Information need not be verbally transmitted. It may be by way of written material or material that is gathered by the senses and which may then be interpreted into something that provides meaning to or knowledge about what has been experienced. Information may be data which is then analysed and interpreted into a form that has meaning to the person being informed.
An oxymoron?
Some might say that ‘misinformation’ is a contradiction in terms. If information is to apprise one of something that informs – that is, knowledge of a fact or circumstances – something that misinforms and gives false or misleading information cannot be information because information must necessarily be factually true.
There are some who would say this sort of argument is pettifogging and to a certain extent I would agree. Yet it is probably typical of much of the intellectual laziness that characterises discourse in these times.
I go back to the suggestion in the first paragraph – that ‘misinformation’ is used as a veto word. A veto word effectively shuts down the debate. In a sense it prohibits the continued exchange of ideas.
To say that one is ‘offended’ is a form of veto word because it fails to address the argument and often does not explain why an argument suggests offence. Accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘racist’ are veto words in that they do not progress the argument and are often tantamount to in personam attacks.
So it is with ‘misinformation’. The way it is used, without proper definition or understanding, is vague and imprecise. To characterise a position as ‘misinformation’ generally means there is disagreement with the position or that the position is contrary to a view held by a majority or that the evidence begs a different conclusion.
Yet it is considered that to characterise a position as misinformation is an answer to the argument whereas in proper discourse there should be some explanation of why it is that a position may be characterised as misinformation.
Personal interpretation
Frequently, what is considered ‘misinformation’ is an opinion or one person’s interpretation of the facts. It may be that the facts selected are selective and do not tell the whole story. Or the interpretation of the facts selected lacks context and nuance. Or that there is a line of authority that refutes the basis for the opinion held.
But to dispose of a position as ‘misinformation’ without more is intellectually lazy and seems to suggest disagreement rather than a reasoned and logical answer to a position.
The problem is that ‘misinformation’ has become so misused that there seems to be a move afoot to either stamp it out, eliminate it or stem its spread.
Many of the internet-based platforms are accused of spreading misinformation. And this should be stopped. But how? How do you separate honest opinion from a wilful attempt to mislead? And is such a move rather insulting to listeners, viewers or consumers? Should they not be able to make up their own minds and exercise their own judgement?
Neil Young has decided to remove his music from Spotify because that platform hosts John Rogan whose podcasts contain ‘misinformation’. In a general sense, the criticism of Rogan is that he has spread vaccine misinformation but sadly the detail of the misinformation is missing.
I suppose I could listen to Rogan’s podcasts to work out where the misinformation lies – if any – or if what is characterised as misinformation is in fact a statement of opinion but frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
It would have been helpful for the argument to have been clearly stated but those who throw the word ‘misinformation’ about are more concerned with expressing their disagreement than engaging with an issue in a meaningful way.
The current drive against ‘misinformation’ seems to me to be another attack on the freedom of expression and upon the ability to express views that may be contrary to those of the majority.
A justification for this is often cited as the need for ‘social cohesion’ – another term for blind conformity – but in reality it is yet another manifestation of well-meaning but misguided ‘liberals’ who know better than everyone else what is good for them.
David Harvey is a retired District Court Judge.
0 Comments