Let’s talk about disinformation. Often confused with its mischievous kin, misinformation - which is the reporting on or spreading of incorrect information without any ill-intent or knowledge one is doing so - disinformation requires the individual or organization to knowingly deceive the public with the intent to cause harm to others or discredit institutions while sowing confusion, apathy, or anger to achieve a political objective. The key to this is that the news has to be false in order for it to be disinformation. Telling inconvenient truths about those in power cannot, by definition, be disinformation even if it results in some or all of the above.

Our current information environment has seen an explosion of alternative forms of media beyond the “mainstream,” as information is so often disseminated through social media channels via paid partnerships and sponsored content. With this in mind, it is crucial to step back and examine our patterns of media consumption amid a seemingly never-ending barrage of independently created, often personally curated, content bordering on or actively spreading misinformation without any pretense of objectivity, accountability to the truth, or expectation of accuracy. This is such a pervasive reality that at times it can be unsettling to encounter an opinion we don’t agree with. In some instances, the impulse to deny and dismiss can be overwhelming. 

In the context of a news publication, it seems especially prescient to mention here that subjectivity and truth are not mutually exclusive. An editorial, for instance, is subjective by its very nature in that it is an opinion piece setting forth an argument on a topic that is either representative of the point of view of a paper’s editorial board, or an individual editor. This differs fundamentally from a news piece, a piece of satire, or a letter to the editor, for example.

All of these forms of expression take what is true and accurate and present it in a different way whether on behalf of an individual or a group. The main tenet which needs to be upheld is accountability to the truth. Developing the ability to discern between these different approaches while simultaneously understanding the meaning inherent in the form is a basic tenet of media literacy.

Things become especially messy when government officials use their position and office to discredit the work of a member of the press or a publication, whether publicly or privately. One need only think of the “fake news” and “alternative facts” of the Trump administration to readily gain an understanding of what this looks like. When this takes place, these political actors are engaging in disinformation and when done consistently, for self-interest, and with malice for truth - the intentional recitation of misinformation becomes a fundamental aspect of how disinformation operates. Intent makes all the difference in this case.

Conversely, journalists report on and disseminate information of concern to the public which otherwise may not have become public knowledge. Arthur's mandate is “to be a valuable, constructive, informative, and critical voice on developments in the Peterborough-Nogojiwanong and Trent community.” As such, like any legitimate source of news, Arthur does not exist to pacify or appease individuals who hold public office or occupy executive roles at any particular institution, association, or union - nor does it seek to present a single, unified opinion. 

At the end of the day, my job is to accurately report on what people do or do not say and present that to readers. As an editor of Arthur, my main role is to ensure that what we print is accurate, not that I wholly agree with what is being published on the level of personal taste, politics, or opinion. Some would do well not to mistake the opinions expressed in a newspaper for the personal opinions of the writers and editors.

As former Mayor of Peterborough, Diane Therrien recently wrote in an op-ed for The Monitor, “Misinformation through ignorance, and disinformation through malice, will continue to plague our communities and country until there are meaningful repercussions for the perpetrators. A lack of informed, educated, civil discourse in any society is a death knell to democracy and social cohesion.” The free and independent press is part of ensuring that informed civil discourse continues. Suggesting otherwise, in any form, anywhere, is dangerous and disingenuous. 

Pay attention to the way people in power respond to and talk about the press. Take a step back and consider who stands to benefit most from a story being discredited. Long has the relationship between the press and governments been characterized by some degree of friction, but for those with enough self-awareness and maturity to understand the role of the press in a democratic society, this is not controversial in the slightest.