Discardable Line
Often a news story includes a throwaway line that has the power to knock me out of my chair. Well, figuratively. One such example leapt off the screen—well, figuratively—from a Washington Post article on government efforts to combat online misinformation.
Everyone can agree, of course, that fighting misinformation is a worthy action. But who determines what sorts of “information” is “mis-”? The article talked mainly about Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) [Bad Guy: Boo, hiss!] and his House committee warning federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health [Good Guys: Yay, please clap!] not to instruct internet media companies about what the agencies consider to be misinformation—or else. Most of the article concerns federal agencies monitoring online information meant to identify “harmful” and incorrect information, for instance about vaccinations [good-guy object], but also about conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 presidential election.
The story included these lines:
The National Institutes of Health froze a $150 million program intended to advance the communication of medical information, citing regulatory and legal threats. Physicians told The Post that they had planned to use the grants to fund projects on noncontroversial topics such as nutritional guidelines and not just politically charged issues such as vaccinations that have been the focus of conservative allegations.
And these:
“We know there’s a lot of inaccurate health information out there,” said Bill Klein, the associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program at a meeting approving the program. He showed a slide of headlines about how online misinformation hampered the response to the covid-19 pandemic, as well as other public health issues, including gun violence and HIV treatment.
The program was intended to address topics vulnerable to online rumors, including nutrition, tobacco, mental health and cancer screenings such as mammograms, according to three people who attended a planning workshop.
Emphasis mine—all mine!
The italicized items are not necessarily as cut and dried as implied. The article assumes that the federal agencies in question are disinterested parties with a monopoly on truth. When the “nutritional guidelines” are mentioned carelessly in passing, I have to wonder where the misinformation comes in.
The U.S. federal nutrition guidelines have been controversial throughout their history, for example. They were established by a senatorial committee in the 1970s—a committee chaired by Senator George McGovern (D-S. Dakota), who represented the agricultural interests prominent among his constituents. The guidelines endorsed a diet high in corn and other grain products. If people more closely adhered to the nutrition guidelines, the low-fat diet would be the only diet ever promoted anywhere—a diet high in foods used to fatten hogs (skim milk and corn), but recommended for breakfast in human children. Presumably, government workers would combat any criticism of the low-fat diet, such as the low-carb diet that many have found very beneficial.
This blog has had plenty to say about alternative viewpoints when it comes to diet and health. It has pointed to the flimsy state of the research behind the government-promoted nutrition guidelines, as described in great detail by numerous medical researchers, physicians, and science journalists.
The next throwaway example is the passing reference to “gun violence.” The very term is already loaded (as it were) and leans heavily to one side of the issue. Anyone who follows the issue as a second-amendment fan knows this, since it is often invoked by gun-control advocates. The idea that the government has an important message to impart about “gun violence” under the banner of fighting public health misinformation is a predictable political train derailment from the outset.
Next, cancer screenings may be important, but what is the difference between legitimate information and misinformation about them? The fashionable belief these days is that all cancer screenings are good and important and none of them come with any risks attached. Why should government agencies be involved in endorsing one scientific view over another in an area where the evidence is contradictory, ambivalent, and incomplete?
Don’t get me wrong: I’ve got no problem with gratuitously bashing Jim Jordan. I’m also not someone who believes the 2020 presidential election outcomes were ever in any dispute. We might call arguments to the contrary to be real misinformation, as opposed to competing viewpoints on a broad spectrum. Maybe there is some role for the government in calling (pro-Trump) election conspiracy theories into question. Nevertheless: because it deals with the outcomes of actual elections, government endorsement of one interpretation will automatically raise suspicions among those sore that they lost.
But what business is it of federal bureaucracies to weigh in on complex issues of scientific inquiry by favoring one viewpoint? When should government collude with media organizations to endorse one interpretation of scientific research while trying to eradicate discussion about the interpretation’s weaknesses? Sometimes the throwaway lines themselves lead to more questioning.
Reuters Headline: "McCarthy says Biden must tighten border to avert US government shutdown" Is this not blackmail? I'm no Biden fan, but I'd really like to see McCarthy gone, too. Unless he can make the argument that tightening the border will save or raise money, this is irrelevant and blatant blackmail.
Advocate for epistemology.
Language gets in the way of fighting misinformation because full explanations generate lots of "TL;DR" responses.
Avoiding TL;DR requires making assumptions about people's knowledge. Too often, this comes across as making assumptions about people's intelligence, education and class, which rarely come off without being insulting.
Teaching epistemology points to the fact that information is multivalent: fire is bad unless you want to cook something (or forge metal!). Except fire in this case really refers to heat as being necessary for preparing food. Heat is much more civilized, implying kitchen stoves, whereas fire carries connotes lack of control or even violence.
Last, there is misinformation and incomplete information. "Ukrainians are Nazis" is misinformation because it is an intentional lie. But "The Russian government claims to be fighting Nazis in Ukraine" points to the existence of additional information, "Repeated efforts to confirm this and similar claims made by Russia have found no supporting evidence and much evidence to the contrary."
Of course, the last statement is effective only if made by a demonstrably reputable source.
There are no easy answers, but I'd rather die due to an error or outlier in an admittedly complex system than to the stupidity inherent in assuming we are all alike.