We hear a lot from the lanyard class about the harm that mis- and disinformation causes, from anti-migration protests to climate denialism. But they take it for granted that it is always right-wing grievances that are fuelled by fake news, never left-wing ones. Now that the unrest in France has spread to the rest of the Continent, fuelled by misleading claims about school cuts and Israeli genocide, I think we can confidently say that left-wing mis- and disinformation is more dangerous.
Take the alleged cuts to the French education budget, the focal point of the student protests. In fact, the French government’s spending on schools is set to rise next year by €1.1 billion. That’s a 1.7 per cent increase, which admittedly is below the projected rate of inflation, although not by much. Yes, the number of teachers is due to be cut, but by fewer than declining student numbers would warrant, which means class sizes will actually shrink. According to the OECD, France spends more per lycée pupil than the OECD average. So, French students are comparatively well looked after. Not much to complain about, then.
Credulous teenagers were addressed by rabble-rousers like Bally Bagayoko, the mayor of Saint-Denis
Yet credulous teenagers were addressed by left-wing rabble-rousers like Bally Bagayoko, the mayor of Saint–Denis, who stood outside the gates of a blockaded school and said, ‘Violence can become legitimate at a certain point’ (i.e. when students are fired upon by riot police). ‘Whenever it can be avoided, it is better,’ he added – but the students kept rioting.
The education cuts weren’t the only grievance. As the unrest has spread, the anti-austerity campaigners have been joined by pro-Palestinian protestors. Their anger is undoubtedly fuelled by claims that Israel has committed ‘genocide’ in Gaza, even though that charge has yet to be upheld by the International Court of Justice and is unlikely to be, given that Israel has issued evacuation warnings before bombing runs, set up humanitarian zones and allowed 100,000 aid trucks to enter Gaza since the war began. That last fact also casts doubt on the claim that Israel is deliberately starving the Palestinian people, although that could plausibly be said of Hamas, which routinely steals from the food trucks (according to the Israel Defence Forces).
No doubt the Nouveau Front Populaire would dispute that any of these dubious arguments are mendacious and are simply robust expressions of opinion. Not ‘lies’, but assertions which are, at most, disputable. I agree, but that isn’t a benefit of the doubt extended to equally contestable claims made on the right, which are routinely labelled as mis- or disinformation. Take the review of the academic literature on the subject commissioned by the Government Office for Science published in May, which labelled ‘false and misleading’ information a ‘systemic national risk’ and called for ‘statutory frameworks’ to be set up to tackle it. The report never treats as misinformation anything said by the UK government, public health bodies, progressive campaigners or, heaven forfend, the BBC. Instead, it picks out alarmist claims about the promotion of ‘gender ideology’ in schools, ‘transgender athlete controversies’, ‘misrepresentation of the demographic composition of migrant arrivals’ and ‘the misattribution of criminal acts to migrant communities’.
When it comes to ‘false and misleading’ information about climate change, again, the examples are all drawn from one side of the debate. It cites campaigns against EVs and heat pumps, net zero being ‘decoupled’ from the science and renewable projects being ‘cancelled due to misinformation’. Nothing about climate-related disasters becoming more deadly (they aren’t), Antarctica melting (it gained ice in recent years) or Pacific islands disappearing into the sea (most atoll islands studied have been stable or grown). According to the authors of the report, much science misinformation originates with fossil fuel, tobacco and tech companies, plus unnamed ‘political actors’ running ‘organised denial campaigns’. (Do they mean me?)
When it looks for evidence of harm caused by fake news, three studies it cites are about right-wing media: AfD Facebook posts, Fox News’s Covid coverage and Tucker Carlson. Not a squeak about left-wing violence inflicted on the police, immigration enforcement officers, employees of Elbit Systems, or opponents of ‘gender ideology’, e.g. Charlie Kirk.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting mis- or disinformation should be suppressed because it may cause harm. But if you do believe that, you’d better be prepared for any new censorship framework to be used against the left, not just the right.
Comments