Detecting
Disinformation, Without Radar
By Gregory Sinaisky
3 April 2003
How to tell genuine reporting
from an article manufactured to produce the desired propaganda effect?
The war in Iraq provides us plenty of interesting samples for a study
of disinformation techniques. Take the article "Basra Shi'ites
stage revolt, attack government troops", published on March 26
in The Wall Street Journal Europe. Using its example, we will try to
arm readers with basic principles of disinformation analysis that hopefully
will allow them in the future to detect deception.
The title of the article sounds quite definitive. The article starts,
however, with the mush less certain "Military officials said the
Shi'ite population of Basra ... appeared to be rising". "Military
officials" and "appeared to be" should immediately raise
a red flag for a reader, especially given a mismatch with such a definitive
title. Why "officials"? Were they speaking in a chorus? Or
was each one providing a complementary piece of information? A genuine
report certainly would tell us this and also name the officials or at
least say why they cannot be identified.
Why "appears to be"?
There are always specific reasons why something "appears to be".
For example, information about the uprising may be uncertain because
it was supplied by an Iraqi defector who was not considered trustworthy
and has not been confirmed from other sources. Again, every professional
reporter understands that his job is to provide such details and it
is exactly such details that make his reporting valuable, interesting,
and memorable. If such all-important details are missing, this is a
sure sign to suspect intentional disinformation.
Going further down the article,
we see even more astonishing example of the same vagueness. "Reporters
on the scene said that Iraqi troops were firing on the protesting citizens...
" For an astute reader, this short sentence should raise a whole
host of questions. Were the above-mentioned reporters Western media
reporters embedded with the troops? What was their location and the
distance from which they observed the event?
Obviously, being inside a
besieged city with riots going on is an exceedingly dangerous business.
Why were the names of the reporters distinguished by such shining bravery
concealed from us, instead of being proclaimed with pride? Why do they
not want to tell us where they were observing from and how they managed
to get there? In any case, under the circumstances, being closer to
the scene than the distance of a rifle shot, say one kilometer, merits
a special explanation. Now, an interesting question is, what are the
visual clues allowing a reporter to distinguish, at such distance, between
an uprising and, let's say, troops firing on looters or many other possible
explanations for the same observation?
The only cue I can think
of is not visual, but an aural cue from an editor requesting the reporter
to report what we cannot explain as anything but an attempt of intentional
disinformation. Given a very specific nature of the disinformation produced
in this particular case, its obvious potential effect on both resisting
Iraqis and anti-war public opinion, we cannot see any other explanation
for it, except that The Wall Street Journal directly collaborates with
the psychological warfare department in the Pentagon.
Some unexpected light on
the story is shed in "UK: Iraq to feel backlash in Basra"
posted on CNN.com also on March 26. In this article, the original report
on a civilian revolt is attributed to "the British military authorities
and journalists", again unnamed. Here, the chorus of "the
officials" singing in unison with "journalists" makes
the somewhat more specific and exceedingly bizarre statement: "We
have radars, that, by tracing the trajectory of mortar rounds, are able
to work out the source, as well as the target location, which in this
case were civilians in Basra." So, now we know that the uprising
in Basra was detected by British officials and journalists watching
a radar screen! This amazing British radar can even tell an Iraqi official
from a simple citizen and a civilian from a soldier! Moreover, it apparently
can read minds and determine the reasons people fire on each other!
Truly, there is a big lie
in the information attributed to British officials. Or maybe I am wrong
and this is an example of the famous British sense of humor deployed
to get rid of pestering American correspondents? Chorus of American
correspondents: "Is there an uprising going on in Basra? There
must be. My editor told me to report it. You say, how would you know?
That's impossible, my editor told me ..." British official: "All
right, chaps. I see it on the radar." Sounds of cellphone dialling
and keyboards rattling...
To conclude: Remember the
following first rule of disinformation analysis: truth is specific,
lie is vague. Always look for palpable details in reporting and if the
picture is not in focus, there must be reasons for it.
Want to know the names of
rising stars of disinformation to watch? The Wall Street Journal article
was "compiled" by Matt Murray in New York from reports by
Christopher Cooper in Doha, Qatar, Carla Anne Robbins and Greg Jaffe
in Washington, and Helene Cooper with the US Army's Third Infantry Division
in Iraq.
This article originally appeared
in the Asia
Times Online