JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MINISTER SPEAKS OF "MEDDLING AND MISINFORMATION" ON THE INTERNET DURING THE ELECTION - WHY I FIND SUCH TALK UNWELCOME - SOME HISTORY - IF YOU CRITICIZE ANYTHING OF THIS NATURE YOU NEED TO BE SPECIFIC AND NOT VAGUE - AND A RECORD OF MISINFORMATION FROM THE TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT ITSELF

John Chuckman


EXPANSION OF COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS



“'More needs to be done,' [Minister for Democratic Institutions] Karina Gould says after some online election meddling detected

“There were attempts to spread misinformation or disinformation, officials confirm”



As far as online misinformation is concerned, the situation seems to me little different than a century ago when rumors, graffiti, and malign pamphlets were everywhere. Malign pamphlets were an industry for a couple of centuries.

You cannot force people to be true and accurate. Print newspapers, too, have a long history of misinformation and maligning politicians. In his day, Lincoln, that most beloved of American Presidents, was described as “an obscene ape” by a newspaper.

I do get serious concerns when a national minister emphasizes the Internet, given the growing levels of control and snooping and censorship we see today in the Western world. I fear her kind of speech can serve as preparation for control and censorship. I do not welcome her words.

I am sorry, Karina Gould, but I do see one of the most serious misinformation sources to which Canadians have been exposed as being your boss, the Prime Minister himself.

There are a number of very important matters where he just has not been honest with us. The people sense it, and that is why your government is in office with fewer votes than its main opposition party, a situation which could not have occurred had the Prime Minister kept his promise for ballot reform.

Voters know of his numerous omissions and shortcomings largely through the Internet.

Trudeau's entire handling of the SNC Affair and two critical, honest ministers was an extended, complicated, and eventually embarrassingly public, effort at misinformation.

The grotesquely mishandled business with China, perhaps his gravest set of errors because of its serious long-term consequences, also was dealt with by a lot of what I regard as misinformation from the Prime Minister and, very much so, from his unpleasant Foreign Minister.

And what is it but serious misinformation to be calling the twice-elected government of Venezuela “illegitimate” and actively supporting its overthrow by the good old boys running the White House?

We have still other examples, too, as in numerous echoes of Washington’s dishonest and hateful attitudes towards Russia or Iran.

On a personal level, we have such matters as his initial disingenuous response when the "blackface" business first showed up. Two more incidents were then documented, showing the practice was a years-long source of amusement for him.

When a leader performs consistently as a sound and honest statesman, there really is very little room for misinformation to take hold and damage him.

But is that what we've seen from Justin Trudeau?

________________________________

There is a reference here to The Buffalo Chronicle, but absolutely no information about its "misinformation."

I do know the story, but I've seen no evidence that it was incorrect. That publication claimed a documentary basis for the story.

If it was incorrect, correct it. Easily enough done, and the most effective method. But don't just label something as misinformation with no explanation. An old bit of advice to writers has some application here: you should show readers with your words, not just tell them.

Labelling things or people is the kind of activity an outfit like Facebook does, and I can’t imagine a worse possible example to follow.

Isn't it actually a form of misinformation to accuse someone of being wrong on an important matter while supplying absolutely no explanation or evidence for the charge?

You can’t respond to every rumor, nor is there any need to do so, but when a story carries some weight, it deserves something more than just a dismissal and being called “misinformation.”

At least, I tend to think so.