Like most of y'all I repeatedly run into a term when researching my favorite topics, 911, JFK, UFOlogy, the "Drug War," and such. The term is "disinfo."
Now, on more than a couple of occasions discussion or thought has surfaced on disinfo itself, what it is, where it comes from and how it should be approached. I want to post a couple of thoughts on it here.
Disinfo is sometimes as much as 90 percent true. Now your nightly news doesn't qualify as being 90 percent true, nor do your wire stories or your NPR broadcasts. This has led some researchers to conclude that disinfo is valuable insofar as it can be picked apart for the information it contains that is, in fact, true.
As Dylan would say, moving on.
Disinfo is usually part of a much bigger campaign of what we should call "active denial," meaning that some institution, be it the gubbermint or a large corporation, is now actively working to cover something up. Just that it exists indicates the veracity of the assertion that a conspiracy existed and is now being hidden. In other words, the foisting of disinformation is a guilty behavior.
Also, the foisting of disinfo amounts to a perception management campaign. In other words it is put out there to inspire people to think a certain way about a certain topic. Ergo, questions immediately arrise. Why do they want you to think this or that way about this or that? If they are steering you in one direction, what would have happened if they hadn't done such and you had steered your own research in the direction they didn't want you to go into? This gets complicated because it brings in motive and then psychology.
This researcher has concluded that even if something is deemed to be disinformation, it is worth looking at because, as the saying goes, Truth can be found in a lie.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Kibitzing, rabble rousing, all-round generic conversation. Any and everything. You get it.