> Social media upturns traditional government controlled information transmission. E.g. the US government built its case for the Iraq War partly on fake information run by the NYT (by the currently media-respected journalist Judith Miller).
I agree with much of this: the PR foundation for the war in Iraq was based on cherry-picked information and a large degree of media manipulation. However, the media outlets also were not blameless; there is considerable fault to go around. Many journalists were too trusting. Knight-Ridder may have been the only major journalism team to get it right. (Fair?)
> Control of information transmission by attempting to FUD alternative means is a way to consolidate opinions - a way to manufacture consent.
As a method, yes. The logic is sound. But to prove it happens, we must investigate. When it is a large explanatory factor? In what specific situations?
I agree it applied to the Bush administration’s handling of claims of WMD in Iraq.
But I’m not clear on how it applies to the social media guidance for children.
I think it would be ‘reasonable’ for social media companies to lobby public health officials to water down the government criticism of them. (But I’m not clear if this is along the lines you are thinking.)
To put a fine point on it: Are you claiming that U.S. public health authorities are seeking (or under pressure) to “manufacture consent” broadly, in this sense; namely, to counter social media only because it challenge and undermines government information?
Are you saying U.S. government attempts to “manufacture consent” only for selfish purposes (to control the dissemination of information), without caring about the veracity of such social media claims?
Another motivation is more plausible: public health officials intend to protect public health, (as constrained by the powers their agencies have)?
A lot of social media information suffers from being false and misleading. It is a proper role of government to have official channels to put out vetted information. Ideally, these channels would be true and well supported by evidence.
We can and should be skeptical of such official advice, but it should be treated seriously and be given some weight.
We also must be skeptical of claims of a broad motivation to “control information” overrides a public health agency’s primary professional responsibility.
Even if there is significant motivation, where is the ability? The federal bureaucracy is quite sprawling and hard to control. Such attempts to do often lead to resignations, legal battles, and/or leaks.
…
I might even agree with the ethics that suggest getting masks to key personnel is worth some degree of public deception. I’m not sure. A lot of disaster and emergency triage involves tough choices. When we’re acting ideally, public officials don’t have to lie or mislead.
In any case, the effect of deception is a loss of trust.
I agree with much of this: the PR foundation for the war in Iraq was based on cherry-picked information and a large degree of media manipulation. However, the media outlets also were not blameless; there is considerable fault to go around. Many journalists were too trusting. Knight-Ridder may have been the only major journalism team to get it right. (Fair?)
> Control of information transmission by attempting to FUD alternative means is a way to consolidate opinions - a way to manufacture consent.
As a method, yes. The logic is sound. But to prove it happens, we must investigate. When it is a large explanatory factor? In what specific situations?
I agree it applied to the Bush administration’s handling of claims of WMD in Iraq.
But I’m not clear on how it applies to the social media guidance for children.
I think it would be ‘reasonable’ for social media companies to lobby public health officials to water down the government criticism of them. (But I’m not clear if this is along the lines you are thinking.)
To put a fine point on it: Are you claiming that U.S. public health authorities are seeking (or under pressure) to “manufacture consent” broadly, in this sense; namely, to counter social media only because it challenge and undermines government information?
Are you saying U.S. government attempts to “manufacture consent” only for selfish purposes (to control the dissemination of information), without caring about the veracity of such social media claims?
Another motivation is more plausible: public health officials intend to protect public health, (as constrained by the powers their agencies have)?
A lot of social media information suffers from being false and misleading. It is a proper role of government to have official channels to put out vetted information. Ideally, these channels would be true and well supported by evidence.
We can and should be skeptical of such official advice, but it should be treated seriously and be given some weight.
We also must be skeptical of claims of a broad motivation to “control information” overrides a public health agency’s primary professional responsibility.
Even if there is significant motivation, where is the ability? The federal bureaucracy is quite sprawling and hard to control. Such attempts to do often lead to resignations, legal battles, and/or leaks.
…
I might even agree with the ethics that suggest getting masks to key personnel is worth some degree of public deception. I’m not sure. A lot of disaster and emergency triage involves tough choices. When we’re acting ideally, public officials don’t have to lie or mislead.
In any case, the effect of deception is a loss of trust.