Against fake news

A very intelligent and well read friend of mine argued over dinner that it is a good thing that anyone can publish now anything online. He thought this is great because public opinion can be shaped freely, and the big tv channels and newspapers don't have too much influence on the view of people.

I heartily disagree with this. I have seen so far very few good and interesting free sources online which really pointed out anything substantial and interesting that one could not find in professional publications.
At the same time there are tens of thousands of blogs, pages, youtube channels, etc. which push conteo, horrible fake news, racism, white supremacy, scapegoating of different public figures, and so on, and so on. A lot of these people take the very simplicistic view that the government always lies and is against them, and that scientist are hacks. This is disastrous.
Most fake news propagators tread on the lack of knowledge of the average person about credible sources. Most people don't read a wide range of newspapers. They just parrot a few idiots who talk about 'the media'. As if all opinions would be the same. Anyone who reads the financial times, the nyt, the washington post, the japan times, al jazira, the russian times, RT, the times, the guardian, the süddeutche, xinghua agency releases, etc. will see very quickly that there are many-many different views and positions on almost any issue. Professional newspapers even publish confronting opinions of experts, exactly for the purposes to be fair. There is no media conspiracy, and there is no single message 'the media' is trying to get across.

Furthermore, average people imagine that what a scientist or a journalist does is just to think about something for a few minutes and then write it down. This is not how things work. Scientists do experiments, measurements, make observations, consult the work of others, double check everything. They don't question 'everything'. That's something that silly people do. Philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, political analysts, physicists, biologists, etc. don't question everything: they have cooperative, big projects to which many-many well trained and honest people who make a genuine effort contribute to. Anything that gets pubished is scrutinized by a lot of other people.

There are also many confusions about professional newspapers. Proper journalists don't just write down their opinions, and they don't simply consult other newspapers. They go and talk with experts, listen to politians, read documents published by the government, institutions, judges, the army, independent researchers, universities, and so on. They interview several people who know what they are talking about. Non of the internet pundits do anything like this. Most of them don't even have an idea about what they are writing on. This is causing horrible damage. People who are spreading fake news about rising radiation levels in Fukushima, the peacefulness of Russia, the brilliance of Erdogan, the harm of vaccines, the evil nature of feminism, and so on are doing great harm to our communities. They are not spreading opinions, they are spreading base and vile falsehoods.

Worrying amount of Russian political misinformation on the internet

Recently I have noticed that several posts in major newspapers (Chinese, German, Japanese, UK, US) have comments written by people with VERY-American or British or German etc. names. At least their accounts look as if they were natives of these countries. Usually these comment-writers pose as man around 40 or 50, who are confident, obviously well informed and in-the-know. They bash what reliable news agencies and independent writers say, and push very forcefully a narrative heavily leaning towards Russia and/or China. In these narratives the US and the EU are always the bad guys, who treat poor Russia and China badly, and are unfair, and start wars everywhere (or finance the wars and make a good buck on them). According to these narratives all these wars started were totally unnecessary and self-serving, and Russia and China are peaceful giants, who would never do the same.

Of course this is total rubbish. It is total rubbish not because the US and the EU are not involved in arms trading or they don't start/finance/participate in wars. But it is total rubbish because the motivations for going to wars are usually a lot more complicated than simply aiming at monetary and territorial gains. And it is also total rubbish because many of these wars are about countering aggressive push by Chinese and Russian armed forces, secret services, or military units.
It is enough to think of the Ukraine: the EU did offer the Ukraine the chance to start the process to become a member state. But it did not attack Russia nor did it threaten it with that. Nor did it occupy the Ukraine. The then-Prime Minister of Ukraine was not forced to agree to this; it was Russia who twisted his arm to back out of the deal. It is easy to see who was the aggressor here, and then Russia aggravated things by pushing into the Ukraine by military force.

Consider also North-Korea, who have pushed the speed of their military missiles development programmes up to maximum. This has taken both South-Korea and Japan by surprise, and both states need to quickly up their defenses. They are at the same time constrained from doing so by contracts enforced on them by the US, and by the aggressive diplomacy of China. China thinks all military development is justified for them, while their neighbours should just sit with their hands crossed in their laps. Whereas any sane country that is the neighbour of a superpower needs a normal, up-to date military. This need is now made even more stringent and urgent by North-Korea's recently upgraded striking capabilities. Now, North-Korea has surely not achieved these striking technological breakthroughs suddenly on its own merit. Either China and/or Russia had to finance and probably support their projects with money, technology and expertise.

Add to this Russia's role in Syria, where it first vetoed all attempts at intervention, letting several millions civilians become displaced, and tens of thousands get killed, only so that its strongman ally leader can stay in power. Then when interventions begone Russia entered into contracts with the US and allies, but refused to stick to those contracts and bombed civilians and those it was supposed to support.

At the same time China is trying to gobble down the whole South-China sea, unilaterally. This incorporates waters well in the economic interests zones and reasonably assigned self-defense zones of several other countries. China is also building up artificial military islands in the region. Surely not the most peaceful move.


In light of all this, it is easy to see that the narratives of the apologists don't add up. It is also well known that there are plenty of government sponsored trolls spreading such news. The funny bit is when one gets into a debate with them and assumes a reasonable, true-to-the-facts-but-open-to-new-evidence approach they take off. They don't stay and engage in substantial debates and conversations. They are only interested in swaying the opinions of people who are dumb enough to think of politics in terms of Good and Bad, and who are willing to force this two dimensional straight-jacket view on current affairs and cast the US or Europe in the role of evil perpetrator.