Maybe a couple of quick definitions are in order first. A lot of people confuse "misinformation" and "disinformation", but there's a critical difference. "Misinformation" has been in the language for centuries and was formed from the verb "misinform". "Misinformation" is, quite simply, "incorrect information" and that's it. "Disinformation", on the other hand, entered the language in 1939 and Merriam Webster's 10th Edition defines it this way: "False information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth."
The difference is that disinformation (from the soviet term "disinformatsiya") is "covertly spread" and often started by planting rumors and the goal is to influence public opinion. The soviets became masters of this technique, using small newspapers or radio stations in third-world countries to start a rumor, which might then be picked up (with quite a bit of help from the soviet "news" bureau TASS) by larger news operations.
TASS would carry the initial reports but would fail to issue corrections when the originating newspaper or radio station later issued a correction. The rumors continue to spread to larger and more respected news organizations. Sometimes they managed to hit a home run and their disinformation would show up in major Western media.
Karl Rove and company watched and learned. (Is there an irony here? The "defenders of freedom and democracy", as they like to style themselves, taking to disinformation as a pig takes to mud.) They saw how easy it would be to start a whispering campaign. For example, the one in South Carolina, where the rumor mill spread an unfounded and false story about Senator John McCain so that George W. Bush could win the Republican nomination in 2000. These techniques were repeated four years later by the "Swift Boaters" and Jerome R. Corsi, a hack writer and conspiracy theory nut.
Today, we're seeing yet another tired replay of this hoary old script, this time against Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Will the public fall for this canard yet again?
A Disinformatsiya Case StudyThe United States Information Agency (USIA) issued a lengthy report in 1996 describing how a disinformation campaign is waged. The full account is
here: (The "Baby Parts" Myth: The Anatomy of a Rumor).The account summarizes an unfounded, but horrifying, rumor that Americans (or, depending on the source, Europeans, Canadians, or Israelis) adopt infants or kidnap children, murder them, and use their body parts for organ transplants. You know it's false. I know it's false. But this story has been seen by millions of people and many of those who are already predisposed to dislike Americans (or, depending on the source, Europeans, Canadians, or Israelis) undoubtedly believed it.
These
baby stealing rumors can be traced back at least as far as ancient Rome and were often used to pit one group against another, just as similar techniques are being used today by the GOP to demonize Democrats.
In January 1987, Leonardo Villeda Bermudez, a former Honduran government official mentioned the rumor in passing during an interview. The reporter felt that Villeda was saying the rumors were true. The official immediately issued a clarification and that clarification was repeated by all top Honduran officials, but the rumor had already been reported by one of the news wire services.
A few months later, in April, the
disinformatsiya crew in the USSR began spreading and embellishing the rumor. The story appeared in
Pravda (which means "Truth"), citing the Honduran account but ignoring all subsequent clarifications and retractions. The story continued to appear in TASS accounts until late 1988.
This event occurred near the end of the Soviet Union and lasted for less than two years, while some stories from the 1950s and 1960s were repeated for more than a decade. Joe McCarthy disgraced the Republican party in the 1950s and some of his lies continue to be handed down from one generation to the next, as if gospel, in the GOP.
The problem is that people believe what they want to believe. It's easy to vilify "the enemy" as Sarah Palin did at the recent Republican convention, and as she continues to do in her role of attack dog. Those Republicans who believe that only they are patriotic (and this appears not to be a small number) will easily believe that Democrats are
enemies of the state.
Perhaps someday Republicans will understand that Democrats share with true Republicans a desire for peace, justice, and prosperity. Perhaps the majority of Republicans may even come to understand that their own party has lied to them about nearly everything it has done for the past eight years.
One can only hope.
