We’ve all heard them. Terms like ‘misinformation’, ‘the science’, ‘anti-vax’, and ‘discredited’ are virtually impossible to avoid these days. Most of these terms have literal, dictionary definitions (quoted from Oxford Languages, unless otherwise indicated), but the context in which many people use them says a lot more about their pop-culture meanings than the dictionary definitions themselves.
To be honest, it didn’t take long before the use of these words in general conversation caused me to reflexively cringe with discomfort. They are employed so frequently, and usually designed to bring any genuine conversation to a screeching halt. If someone dismisses your position on a given issue with calls of ‘misinformation’, ‘that’s been debunked’, or ‘they’ve been discredited’, none of which ever seem to include an explanation of how or why other than some tabloid media outlet, it’s fairly safe to assume they have not looked into the topic of debate in any meaningful way and they know that by invoking one of these buzzwords (potentially multiple times) they will ‘win’ the argument.
Let’s take a look at how our language is being manipulated in the name of ‘saving lives’.
Misinformation: “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.” Others suggest that misinformation can be information which is deceptive, but that does not have to be the intention of the person providing the information.
Disinformation: “false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.”
Both these terms provide virtually anyone with the ‘get out of debate free card’. Don’t like what someone else has to say, or their supporting evidence? No problem, just say ‘misinformation’! These terms are essentially meaningless now, as the person using them is not compelled to provide any further details on why they think misinformation is at play (although it’s not uncommon to hear references to various outlets in the liberal legacy media). Even the term ‘disinformation’, which sounds as though it could be applied to some of our governments and public health bureaucrats, is levelled at dissenters who are purportedly trying to further their false, and therefore dangerous agendas. The next couple of terms are also deployed as conversational grenades, designed to shut down pesky dissenters or even just people who have had genuine and valid concerns at various times during the pandemic.
Discredited means “brought into disrepute; having lost respect or credibility” and debunked means “exposed the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)”. According to whom? Drs Collins and Facui, who dismissed the pre-eminently esteemed founders of the Great Barrington Declaration, doctors and scientists from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford Universities? (It’s worth noting that they have since been vindicated with regard to many of their early policy recommendations.) Or perhaps the fact-checkers at Facebook? We all know how knowledgeable they are on issues of medicine, science and epidemiology. They’re also the authority on psychology and philosophy too, in case you didn’t know; and they’re poised to save us all from the evil (but inarguably well-placed) ‘wrongthink-ers’ who wish to do us harm with their factual and entirely reasonable and scientific assessments. Or maybe one of the newly christened ‘disinformation reporters’ writing in certain elite liberal media outlets? Seriously, it’s now a thing. Sigh.
Have no fear though, the new ‘information’ on the block is ‘mal-information’ and it takes care of any ‘dangerous’ people who are obviously out to hurt others by sharing information which cannot be labelled as inaccurate. While a literal definition seems elusive, the term ‘mal-information’ seems to be the use of factually correct information to cause harm. Thank goodness the US CDC has been protecting us all by failing to disclose all that factually correct data which could be used against us, and let’s not forget those very nice government public health people over in Scotland who stopped publishing some of their (presumably factually correct) COVID-19 statistics because they didn’t want to cause ‘vaccine hesitancy’.
Which brings us to another cringe-worthy pandemic term: vaccine hesitancy. I have come to loathe this term. Perhaps it was appropriate early in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, but after about six months or so (in Australia, at least) it was pretty clear that most people who intended to get vaccinated (by choice), had done so. The majority of the remainder likely didn’t want to take up the offer of COVID-19 vaccination. Cue COVID-19 vaccine mandates! This shamefully unethical and ultimately unjustifiable public health policy saw many more people seek COVID-19 vaccination, but only to ensure they would not be expelled from their jobs and/or various social settings (I will elaborate on COVID-19 vaccine mandates in another post). The idea that the term ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is still around regarding COVID-19 vaccination (as opposed to the possible increase in the phenomena related to other, more routine vaccinations as a direct result of the botched COVID-19 vaccine rollout and the pandemic management more broadly), strikes me as odd. If a person has spent many months, in the context of their own personal health circumstances, considering whether or not to take up COVID-19 vaccination and if they have then lost their job as a result of their decision, do you really think ‘vaccine hesitant’ is the right way to describe such a person? They are not hesitant, they are resolved. They aren’t passively floating through life unsure about what to do, they have made an active decision and they are prepared to stand by it in the face of horrendous and unacceptable discrimination.
Moving on, let’s look at the definition of the word ‘science’: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
‘The science’ on the other hand is a ridiculous notion invoking the definite article to suggest that there is only one ‘science’ and it is possessed by government bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci. Anyone who questions the public policy of health bureaucrats, and by extension government leaders, is simply denying ‘the science’ and should not be trusted.
From the outset, if someone demanded I ‘follow the science’, it was an immediate cue that I would never be able to meaningfully discuss the pandemic and its related management strategies with that person. This has endured for the last two years and continues to be a handy prompt to tune out as soon as this term is deployed.
Another favourite of the legacy media is the term ‘expert’. In a literal sense, an expert is “a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area”. But who decides what level of knowledge and/or skill is required to qualify as an ‘expert’? Is it the same across fields? Do people within a given field decide who is and ‘expert’, or is it independently governed? What happens when two ‘experts’ in the same given field disagree? Of course for the purposes of this post these questions are rhetorical, because our governments and mainstream media outlets have decided on all these things for us (thank goodness, us plebs couldn’t possibly be trusted to hear all kinds of information and discern for ourselves!).
When talking about pandemic-related matters, many media organisations preface often short quotes from various individuals and groups with phrases like ‘experts say’ or ‘experts recommend’ (although this writing style is not limited to COVID-19). It seemed at the beginning of the pandemic that this reporting at least referred to real people who fell on a spectrum of expertise ranging from media commentator to scientist or epidemiologist. Curiously, many mainstream media outlets managed to smear experts of equal or superior expertise if the person in question did not support their position on a given pandemic-related issue (as in the case of the GBD doctors mentioned earlier in the post, and other declaration signatories). As the COVID-19 pandemic has drawn on, some more recent media reports have dispensed with any obligation to consult experts altogether, instead simply relying on the ‘experts say’ opener without any reference to who these ‘experts’ are, or in which subject matter their expertise is found.
My dear grandfather used to explain ‘experts’ as follows: “an ex is an ex-, and a spurt is a drip under pressure.” I didn’t think much of it as a child, it was really just a funny sounding saying, but I have thought about it a lot over the last two years and I suspect it’s an apt description for many of the ‘experts’ we have relied on during the course of the pandemic, some of whom have collected huge pay cheques and been instrumental in the creation of devastating public health policy which has impacted millions of people.
Another favourite term used by governments and media alike to vilify public policy opponents is ‘conspiracy theorist’ which is described by Merriam-Webster as “a person who proposes or believes in conspiracy theories” Further, a ‘conspiracy theory’ is “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators”. Of course to be labelled in such a way has previously been something most people would have been at pains to avoid. We’ve all known people who have had seriously ‘out there’ ideas (some of whom have actually been vindicated during the pandemic; lab leak theory anyone?), but the pandemic and the subsequent public health policies have left many of us questioning whether things we have previously taken for granted might have now become exposed as requiring more vigorous questioning (recent events in Canada suggest the possibility of malevolent actors influencing western democracies). However you feel about this term, I think many people now see it as a badge of honour, rather than a personal slight.
Similarly, the term ‘anti-vax’ or anti- vaxxer’ (“a person who is opposed to vaccination, typically a parent who does not wish to vaccinate their child”), has historically been one the vast majority of people would wish to distance themselves from. Never could I have imagined that in my career as a nurse, I would be described as an ‘anti-vaxxer’ (by anti-mandate association) by various government members and media outlets. And not just me, but many other doctors and nurses who have been vaccinated for many other infectious diseases and have themselves administered vaccines.
Merriam-Webster defines an ‘anti-vaxxer’ as “a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination.” The Northern Territory Chief Minister had a meltdown, which went viral online, during which he insisted that even those who were ‘fully vaccinated’ (which at the time was two doses) opposed to his COVID-19 vaccine mandate were ‘absolutely anti-vax’. Yikes! This is a completely false characterisation, regardless of what certain dictionary definitions suggest, and is designed purely to exclude people who have completely reasonable reasons to either decline COVID-19 vaccination and/or oppose COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
There will no-doubt be further manipulations of language, both subtle and overt, which further divide people and unfairly marginalise those who point out the failings of our government and public health officials. I can only hope that collectively we realise what is happening and refuse to be pitted against one another any longer; otherwise the outcome could be truly terrifying.
If you’d like to listen to people far more intelligent and eloquent than I discuss similar subject matter, you can check out Dr Vinay Prasad’s discussion with Professor Jacob Hale Russell about dissenting in the current medico-political climate, and my vote for the currently most under-rated podcast on YouTube, ‘The Manipulation Check’ where Doctors of psychology Daniel Smilek and Jeffrey Spence speak with Professor David Haskell about media bias.