
In U.K. Vote, Online Disinformation Is the New Normal - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/world/europe/elections-disinformation-social-media.html
======
k1m
In the U.K. outright TV and print media bias is the new normal. The UK already
has one of the least trusted media in Europe, and I think it's safe to say the
hostile and one-sided coverage (relentlessly attacking Jeremy Corbyn and the
Labour party) is unlikely to change that impression.

If anything social media should be praised for offering an alternative that
actually connects with so many people.

~~~
Angostura
This is certainly the view in the bubble, that the BBC is relentlessly anti-
Corby. Yet when you look at the details, the evidence is hard to find. The
BBC's Laura Kuenssberg, is frequently the target of attacks as being biased
against Labour, but those critics always seem to ignore stories like this
which is currently the featured bit of analysis on the BBC Website elections
page:
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50722167](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50722167)

~~~
iso1631
I find a lot of the problems with the media, and Laura being an example, is
the need to put the journalist at the forefront. It isn't "the BBC say", it's
"Laura Kuensburg says"

This inflates journalist egos, and leaves them more open to manipulation. They
want to think they are important, not the publication. They have a personal
"brand". There's always been some of this, but that "brand" was usually well
earned, after decades of coverage, and used in a very humble way. When word
came of how John Simpson "liberated Kabul", he was rightly denigrated. Now in
John's defense it was a warzone, and people can speak too quickly.

"Celebrity" journalists, with personal following thanks to things like
twitter, get "scoops" from "unnamed sources" which turn out to be lies, and
spread them far faster than the truth can emerge.

This is the second part of the problem - speed. 20 years ago, news was
gathered by journalists, and packaged into a well researched piece for the
news bulletin at 6pm or 9pm or whenever. 24 hour news started to erode this,
where speed was more important than accuracy, but things like Twitter
completely destroyed it. It's no longer important to be right, it's important
to be first.

News organisation, and the BBC specifically, had a duty to resist the noise of
"social" media, and instead concentrate on being accurate. Channel 4 news
still does this, but the BBC doesn't. Laura can do immense damage by errantly
tweeting that a labour activist had got into a fight with the health
secretary. Doesn't matter if they retract it later.

The final problem is the lack of challenging from presenters. Politicians can
lie to millions of people and are completely unchallenged. There's a time for
that - it's a "party political broadcast". In the news, if someone comes out
with a lie, they need to be immediately told that's a lie, and not allowed to
continue. If they keep lying, they should not be given any airtime at all.

~~~
Angostura
So you think that Laura is higher profile than say John Cole was 30 years ago
- the man was an absolute institution as BBC chief political correspondent. I
don’t think she’s any higher profile than Nick Robinson either.

And this stuff about lack of pushback is just in people’s heads - there’s
massive pushback all the time. From this morning, for example.

[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/conservative-
robert-b...](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/conservative-robert-
buckland-skewered-over-21062419)

------
AndrewOMartin
Don't forget the disinformation which is the result of the echo chamber. If my
Facebook feed is to be believed, not only will everyone be voting for the same
party as myself, but they all hate the other party, who are indeed all devils.

~~~
g4d
I think the idea of echo chambers and the link to disinformation is
interesting. I found myself thinking that a certain viewpoint is the norm in
many areas of life, whether it be work, reddit or hobbies.

------
sleavey
It depresses me that the World Wide Web, given to everyone for free by Tim
Berners-Lee (himself a Brit), is so heavily misused, abused and controlled by
corporate and political interests in places like the UK. It was supposed to
democratise information for everyone, and for a while - let's say arguably
between the foundation of Wikipedia and the early days of Google, until circa
2010 when Facebook surpassed a billion users and Google got rid of its "don't
be evil" policy - it seemed like it was doing so.

~~~
m4r35n357
FFS get his name right

~~~
sleavey
Fixed.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
On Twitter I've seen screenshots on my timeline more than once now of
instances where a network of accounts have tweeted the same verbatim response
to some current scandal involving the Conservatives.
[https://twitter.com/demarionunn/status/1204190151041269765](https://twitter.com/demarionunn/status/1204190151041269765)
is the most recent example.

I don't know who's behind it, but it's concerning.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Hot off the press: [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/10/woman-says-
acc...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/10/woman-says-account-
hacked-to-post-fake-story-about-hospital-boy)

------
UglyToad
This article was probably slightly too early to catch the latest development
in an extremely concerning election so far.

The latest coordinated disinformation was around a photo from a hospital in
Leeds where a 4 year old child had to lie on the floor of the accident and
emergency department because no beds were available (primarily due to cuts to
services from the incumbent government plus winter demand and general wider
demand).

The health secretary yesterday visited a hospital to respond to the incident
and the political editor of the BBC (the state broadcaster) tweeted a story
provided to her by government sources that a Labour (main opposition party)
activist had punched a Conservative (government) staff member at the protest.
The story was picked up by the political editor of ITV and all the right-wing
papers (Sun, Mail, Express) picked up and amplified the story including via
push notifications within the space of a couple of hours.

Video then emerged showing that the activist in question had his back turned
to the individual he was reported to have "punched" and the staffer had walked
into the man's arm.

However there has been no exposure as to who these government sources were who
spread a lie in order to distract from the original story about the 4 year
old. The disinformation isn't online, or isn't solely online, it's coming from
government departments and it is being spread by theoretically impartial media
sources such as ITV and BBC. This is an election which has seen at least 4
violent assaults on opposition party members - we're through the looking glass
now.

~~~
trampypizza
Peter Oborne wrote a good article [1] discussing the issues of relying on
unnamed government sources to print stories. I think it has been a continuous
source of highly questionable information and we really have no way of holding
anyone to account.

Also, appears there's lots of dead cats being thrown around. I often find
myself wondering how we have got to a place that feels so nuts. Nobody is
talking to other people with whom they disagree, they are just screaming at
them.

[https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-
jou...](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-
have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/)

~~~
iso1631
For those who don't know, Peter Oborne is a life long right wing commentator,
working on a couple ofright wing newspaper (The Daily Telegraph and the Daily
Mail)

For him to raise the concerns he has shows that there is something seriously
wrong.

------
tristanperry
The Conservatives have also been buying Google Ads at a higher CPC than
Labour, for Labour related terms.

In other words, a search for "Labour party" was showing
[https://www.costofcorbyn.com/](https://www.costofcorbyn.com/) (a Tory-funded
site) as the first result - i.e. the first ad.

They also registered
[https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/](https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/) and
spread it around the day before Labour's manifesto launch.

And let's not forget them also changing one of their Twitter accounts to look
like an independent 'fact checking' group during the first TV debate:
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/19/tories-
twee...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/19/tories-tweet-anti-
labour-posts-under-factcheckuk-brand)

It is a worrying trend, and it's not just the Conservatives doing this sort of
thing. It's odd to see just how many pro-Labour accounts reply to political
journalist's tweets within mere seconds. Almost like bots are being used...

~~~
sleavey
It seems like the Tories have already broken the system permanently. They have
far richer supporters than Labour, so more donations, and can therefore pay
more to get better prominence in online advertising and so can spread their
message further. They use this to win a majority in parliament. The majority
in parliament gets to set the rules for online advertising. Repeat ad (pun not
intended) nauseam.

~~~
tristanperry
I agree that the Tories tend to spend more, although the unions are a fairly
big funding source for the Labour party. And the Lib Dems and UKIP/Brexit
Party show that small parties can pull in large donations.

FWIW, spending isn't always massively different. In 2015 it was £15.6m for the
Tories vs £12.1m for Labour ([https://www.prweek.com/article/1380236/uk-
general-election-s...](https://www.prweek.com/article/1380236/uk-general-
election-spend-largest-parties-2015-less-money-allocated-ads)) - not a huge
difference.

~~~
iso1631
We have spending limits in the UK, so the amount that Labour and Tories can
spend is roughly the same.

I've had 6 weeks of adverts aimed at a target tory/labour seat I live very
close to in the North West, all from 3rd parties. The first 5 weeks it was
mainly unknown groups like "Working for UK" and "Campaign Against Corbyn", all
personal attack adverts on Corbyn (leader of the labour party), and when I dig
deep I find the people behind these new companies (often set up in the last
month or two) are people like a Conservative Councillor in London, or an Ex
Conservative MP from Surrey.

In the last week there have been some "tactical voting" adverts from more
establish groups (peoples vote etc)

I guess this is a way for the conservatives to get around spending limits, I
guess like U.S. "Super Pacs"

~~~
tristanperry
That's very concerning! I live in a Labour safe seat in Wales so there's
basically no campaigning here, but I was wondering what the situation is in
marginals.

The Super Pacs is a good example - it does sound like the Tories are
(worryingly) going down this route.

~~~
shrikant
My (relatively rich, heavily remain, and mostly Tory voting) constituency is
one of the rare cases that's currently polling a three-way tie between
LabLibCon.

Labour (incumbent) have mostly been quiet in this HEAVILY remain-voting area,
with a leaflet or two highlighting a "People's Vote". The LibDems have
parachuted in a Tory defector, and have been absolutely going all out with the
campaigning around "Revoke Brexit".

The Conservatives have been quietly content to stay out of the way and watch
the non-Leave vote split between the former two.

~~~
iso1631
Kensington?

Labour had no chance this year due to a shift in demographics, not to mention
the fall in Labour vote share

~~~
shrikant
Given that the Labour MP lost the seat by a mere 150 votes, I think it's a bit
harsh to say she "had no chance".

------
AsyncAwait
This article is again trying to make it look like the Conseratives are not in
talks with the U.S. about selling off parts of the NHS, which has been
suggested even by Trump himself.

Even if the source of the most recent dump has ulterior motives, there's no
reason to doubt the NHS implications in particular.

I understand the article is mostly focused on Johnson, so I guess in order to
appear balanced they had to throw the line about Corbyn in there, but it's
interesting they don't have such need for a counter narrative when writing
article 1459 smearing Corbyn.

------
makomk
The UK online political discourse leading up to the election is so fucked, we
might as well give up and declare truth dead.

For instance, take the knife attack mentioned in the article, which was
carried out by a convicted terrorist who'd been released from prison.
Prominent Labour MP* Yvette Cooper blamed the Tories for his release in a
popular viral Twitter thread:
[https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/120076129489225728...](https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1200761294892257285)
Her claims are lies. She claims that the new arrangements which replaced
Labour's IPPs failed, but they didn't apply here - he was sentenced under the
old rules which still had IPPs rather than their replacements. She claimed
that the Appeal Court said that his release should be left to the Parole Board
and blamed the Tories for the fact that it wasn't. They didn't say that, and
it was a law passed by her party in 2008 which meant the Parole Board had no
say. She implied the Tory replacement for IPPs allowed serious criminals to be
released early without parole board assessment, when in reality it reinstated
the parole board involvment Labour had removed. There's a good summary here
which backs up all of these facts:
[https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/11/30/10-thing-you-
shoul...](https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/11/30/10-thing-you-should-know-
about-the-london-bridge-attacker-and-early-release/)

So naturally, some Tories went after those claims - and the legal blogger who
wrote the summary I've linked above promptly attacked their debunkings _and
not the original Labour claims_ , and that went viral too:
[https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/12008087678200463...](https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1200808767820046337)
In fact, that blog post above was written to specifically back up his claim
that the Tories were liars. (He's technically right - that tweet is a little
misleading, since the courts could avoid automatic release by imposing the IPP
sentence that Yvette Cooper had falsely claimed the Tories had stopped them
imposing - but it's pedantry. The claim being debunked was about what the
Parole Board could have done after that sentence was handed down. That
omission mostly just means the Labour claims were even more false than
suggested.)

It gets better. Tory PM Boris Johnson wrote a 16-tweet thread so pedantically
accurate and in line with his own claims that he couldn't discredit it as
inaccurate anymore - so instead he accused Boris of stealing that blogpost
which he'd written to debunk the Tory lies, implying this made the Tories the
dishonest ones falsely claiming those facts supported their side:
[https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/12010764392500879...](https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1201076439250087936)
(Note he never technically said Boris was lying, just that it was "weapons
grade shithousery"). He even used the fact that they both debunked that false
claim about the Appeal Court - one which Yvette Cooper had made but the Tory
debunkings had not - to back up this argument. Along with the fact they both
linked to literally first answer you find when searching for information on
parole for extended sentences. It turns out that thanks to inattentiveness and
partisanship, you can not only convince people of the exact opposite of what
your own evidence shows without technically lying, you can make them believe
that the people who don't believe that are the ones who've been suckered.

Meanwhile, the BBC's coverage was vague he-said she-said stuff which didn't
check anything, and the Guardian was (and still is) repeating the debunked
claims. (I think they did eventually write an explainer which debunked most of
the claims whilst carefully avoiding tying them to any party, but I can't find
it lately.) Also, the more recent BBC headlines all insist that Boris Johnson
is the one who politicised this act of terrorism.

* Technically there are no MPs since Parliament is dissolved for the election, but that's pedantry.

~~~
iudqnolq
I'm an American, and haven't followed this closely. I have read the articles
you mention.

His main point was that if the Tories have been in power for 11 years and
haven't even brought up changing the law on early release it's disengenuous
for them to argue that it's Labor's fault. If they had cared about the issue,
they would have done something about it, goes his argument. You don't seem to
address this.

He further argues that Johnson's comments plagiarized his. If he wrote
comments that the Tories wanted to publicize, wouldn't that contradict your
assertion he never criticizes labor? Furthermore, you don't seem to address
the plagiarism issue; if Johnson plagiarized the tweets it doesn't matter how
well written they were.

~~~
makomk
The Tories did change the law on early release, in 2012. They just didn't
retroactively extend the sentences of prisoners who'd already been convicted
and sentenced. Also, hiw whole complaint was that the Tories didn't publicize
his comments and their correct, anti-Tory spin. Finally, the only evidence
given of plagarism aside from the fact that both debunked the same claim is
that they both linked to the same explanation of how parole worked for
extended sentences - which is literally the first result when Googling for the
topic. They weren't worded the same, weren't making the same argument
otherwise, and the original blog post certainly didn't mention anywhere that
Labour had made any of the claims it was debunking.

~~~
iudqnolq
Thanks for your response. I don't know enough right now to know if you're
right, and I'm not interested in doing the research necessary to find out
today. I may well have been wrong. Have a nice day.

------
deogeo
> Last week, Reddit said the document had links to a Russian disinformation
> campaign, raising fresh questions about foreign interference in the
> campaign, though the document itself seemed to be accurate.

Informing people about what their government is planning in trade talks is
"foreign interference", but pressuring that government to compromise
healthcare so they can profit from it is... what?

