disinformation

fake news

Internet

misinformation

vaccination

Corona Virus

 often operates by omission of known knowledge for the express purpose of misleading the public.

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it - especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues. Example: Media was present in the courtroom when in Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby when CIA agent Marita Lorenz confession testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported is that E. Howard Hunt lost his liable case against Liberty Lobby (Spotlight had reported he was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's Plausible Denial for the full confessional transcript. Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up.

 operates by avoiding discussion of key issues via a 'how dare you!' gambit that makes a disingenuous attempt to show how the topic is unfairly critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.

Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the How dare you! gambit.

is carried out not by addressing the issue at hand, but pointing to all related charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations.

Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such arguable rumors. P: If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a wild rumor which can have no basis in fact.

 works by avoiding discussion of the issue at hand by creating straw men, a weak element of an opponent's argument whose importance you amplify and then easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.

Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

 works by 'attacking the messenger', and to make others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as kooks, right-wing, liberal, left- wing, terrorists, conspiracy buffs, radicals, militia, racists, religious fanatics, sexual deviates, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

 works by offering brief attacks and then scampering off so as not to have to support them as an effort to pander to emotionalism.

Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning - simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

 works by avoiding discussion by twisting or amplifying any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias.

Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

 works by implying one's own authority and expertise but failing to address issues and cite source.

Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough jargon and minutia to illustrate you are one who knows, and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

disinformation, n.Definitions

disinformation