Paul Richards in Conspiracy Theories – Just Say No for ProgressOnline recently discussed the calls for a new enquiry into the death of David Kelly. He correctly notes such an enquiry ‘would not assuage the doubters; it would merely change the terms of their doubt’, but concludes ‘That should be reason enough for us to oppose a new inquiry, and disappoint the people who think you can fake a moon landing, kill a president or a princess, or bring down two skyscrapers without anyone finding out”. Both openness and education are important to confront conspiracy theories. Neither will work alone.
On Sunday, Demos released The Power of Unreason. It examines the role of conspiracy theories within extremist ideologies and radical dogma. In it, we analysed over 50 groups from across the extremist spectrum – far right and left, eco, anarchic and cultist. We found conspiracy theories to have a highly visible presence in the way that extremist groups recruit, explain the world and its events to themselves and their followers, and also justify acts of violence. Conspiracy theories help to create stark divisions between ‘us’ – a minority of clear-sighted fellow travellers – and ‘them’ – evil conspirators and the credulous masses.
Given these dangers, the real question is how conspiracy theories can be confronted. Our report emphasises two key ways this can be done. The first is openness. Conspiracy theories live in the dark. Where there is opacity and secrecy, of anonymous briefings by ‘intelligence sources’ and where the mechanisms of decision-making and government are not clear, conspiracy theories flourish. For people deeply unfamiliar with the nuances and myriad complexities of policymaking, the whole of government can appear to be a cabal of conspirators. In many cases, the favourite question of the conspiricist, cui bono?, acts as a intuitively appealing substitute for knowledge of the mechanism of government. Government can do more to open up. The transcripts of terrorism trials could be made widely available. There could be regular, official, apolitical announcements by the intelligence agencies. There could be more information sharing with communities. Overall, we think the secret services should, within limits of what is safe and possible, step a little further toward the light of public scrutiny. This is why public enquiries into controversies such as David Kelly are to be welcomed. Silence is not a good response to conspiracy theories and given their social impact, they are not something we can ignore.
Public enquiries, and openness more generally, cannot work alone, however. Without changing the milieu in which such information is received, they will only add fuel to the flames of conspiracy theorising. The reception of our report by online conspiricist communities is already an interesting micro-study of this process at work. Featuring prominently on websites such as 911truth.org, http://theintelhub.com, and conspiricist youtube channels, the report has been mangled, cherry-picked and generally misrepresented out of all recognition. Of course, all writers complain that their work is misunderstood, but the crucial point here is that such acute distortion is the modus operandum of conspiracy theorists. Public enquiries, information sharing, and greater openness alone will receive similar treatment and will be forced to fit, rather than contest, the pre-existing beliefs of conspiracy theorists. Until norms are established that at least partially guard against the distortion of information, the release of information alone will fail.
This is why with greater openness must come an emphasis on digital literacy: journalistic standards; source attribution; the evaluation of evidence; rigorous research methods and generally the baseline standards that we use to discriminate between credible truth claims, and the many pieces of misinformation packaged to look like fact. This is especially a problem on the internet, and even more on social media and user-generated content. These are where conspiracy theories are most prevalent, and where integrity of content of content is most absent. At the risk of echoing conspiracy theorists themselves, this correlation is no coincidence.
Together, these reforms have a chance of increasing our society’s resilience to conspiracy theories. Given the impact that conspiracy theories can have, this would not be a moment too soon.
Of course the conspiracy theory that 19 Muslims, mostly from Saudi Arabia, lead by Osama Bin Laden managed to defeat the entire US air defense apparatus for over two hours using … box-cutters is perfectly acceptable (I can just imagine a bunch of those former Russian air-force generals choking on their vodka; “Blast!! Why didn’t we think of that!!!!!”). It seems that theory is acceptable because the government told us it was true. The same government(s) that assured us that we had to go over to Iraq because of all the WMD’s Saddam was building to attack us. If Dr. Kellys death is such a clear case clear evidence should be available and not locked up for 70 years. If 9/11 if such a clear case then clear evidence for it should be available. Have you ever seen evidence? Where? And why do the chair and vice-chair of the official 9/11 commission feel they were “set up to fail?” (and being supported in that view by the families of the victims). Read up on Tonkin gulf, Nurse Nayirah and the Downingstreet memo if you need some perspective of the lengths governments will go to to start wars their populations don’t want.
Abe has shrewd examples to destroy Paul Richards’ unjustified prejudice against ‘conspiracy theories/theorists’. One might add the Freemasonry explanation of the French Revolution (just look at the membership of the major revolutionary factions) and the War for American Independence – just look at a US banknote and the But the key point must be: WHY do statists like Richards fear the search for conspiracies? Ill leave that to you guys….
Forgot to mention the prevalence of British government murder squads: not just in the war in East Tyrone in the mid80s, but also as reported – nay vaunted – in Afghanistan (Telegraph, Wed 1 Sept p 14). Surely these indiscriminate murders, now the policy of the Obama government against US citizens as well as the lower races, are GOOD conspiracies….? Are conspiracies bad only when the conspiracies they have identified are in harmony with New Labour goals? Does Miller contend that there are NO conspiracies at all? in which case, why is he not campaigning against the English law of joint enterprise?
I have written a couple of books on 9/11, one a best seller but because I don’t adopt any alternative conspiracy theories to the officially approved conspiracy theory I have been ignored. It seems that examining the facts about 9/11 (for instance the Pentagon’s “anti-hijack exercise” running at the time the apparent hijacks took place) is of no interest to the this crowd. After all they know what happened becasue CNN and the CIA told them. Actually there is a massive paper trail suggetsing that 9/11 was some sort of inside job, not least from Inspector General reports, FBI and CIA whistleblowers and the mall print of the the 9/11 Commission. Instead, the defenders of the official story (not a conspiracy theory of course) come up with tedious pseudo-sociology which amounts to empty smears. The leading neo-cons in the US are now pushing for alleged conspiracy theorists to be treated as terrorist sympathisers. Progressive? Orwellian I’d say.
Apologies for the typos
Miller paints all anti-government conspiracy theories with the same brush and declines to acknowledge that some may indeed be true. He calls for openness and journalistic integrity: “with greater openness must come an emphasis on digital literacy: journalistic standards; source attribution; the evaluation of evidence; rigorous research methods and generally the baseline standards that we use to discriminate between credible truth claims, and the many pieces of misinformation packaged to look like fact.” But does not acknowledge the clear fact that none of these principles apply to the “investigations” into the events of 9/11/2001. The closed circuit video evidence of the pentagon attack has never been released. The 9/11 comission report failed to even mention the collapse of World Trade Center 7, a 47 story building not hit by an airplane, that disintegrated into its own footprint at 5:20PM on 9/11/2001. Interestingly, the BBC reported on the Collapse of WTC 7 26 minutes before it occurred with the video showing the actual building standing behind Jane Standley as she was reporting that it had come down. The list of investigatory anomalies goes on and on. Surely Miller cannot be so naive as to believe the government never misleads us, so why does he seek to discredit conspiracy theories in general? There are not only 9/11 conspiracies on the internet, there is also evidence. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth don’t propound theories; they have assembled considerable scientific evidence of the controlled demolition of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7. They demand an investigation. Check it out: http://www.ae911truth.org Cheers! Mike
This stuff amazes me, I agree with this writers two minutes of hate, conspiracy theories are right to be considered thought crime. Down with the traitors, stop anti-government sentiment! At least our governments own conspiracy theories haven’t resulted in organised violence on a global scale, only Victory? unlike bloggers with independent capacity to think – they’re the problem of society today. Demos – how predictably objective and impartial of you, refreshing to witness such beautiful double think – on the internet.
Doubleplus good article Carl. You showed ’em.
Google “wearechangenorwich conspiracy realists”
Miller paints all anti-government conspiracy theories with the same brush and declines to acknowledge that some may indeed be true. He calls for openness and journalistic integrity: “with greater openness must come an emphasis on digital literacy: journalistic standards; source attribution; the evaluation of evidence; rigorous research methods and generally the baseline standards that we use to discriminate between credible truth claims, and the many pieces of misinformation packaged to look like fact.” But does not acknowledge the clear fact that none of these principles apply to the “investigations” into the events of 9/11/2001. The closed circuit video evidence of the pentagon attack has never been released. The 9/11 comission report failed to even mention the collapse of World Trade Center 7, a 47 story building not hit by an airplane, that disintegrated into its own footprint at 5:20PM on 9/11/2001. Interestingly the BBC reported on the Collapse of WTC 7 26 minutes before it occurred with the video showing the actual building standing behind Jane Standley as she was reporting that it had come down. The list of investigatory anomalies goes on and on. Surely Miller cannot be so naive as to believe the government never misleads us, so why does he seek to discredit conspiracy theories in general? There are not only 9/11 conspiracies on the internet, there is also evidence. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth don’t propound theories; they have assembled considerable scientific evidence of the controlled demolition of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7. They demand an investigation. Check it out: http://www.ae911truth.org Cheers! Mike
I agree openness is the way forward and there can still be more of that in the UK. Sometimes, though, as Paul Richards suggests, enquiry after enquiry, as with the Hutton Inquiry, can be dismissed as a ‘whitewash’. The use of the very word itself sends any matter in the realms of conspiracy theory.
Your efforts to label this a “conspiracy theory” akin to JFK or the moon landing is insulting to the 3,000 people who never had a legitimate investigation into the attacks which ended their lives. The 9/11 Commission Report was a failure. Perhaps you should do some more research on the subject before you write articles that are read by people who might take you seriously by mistake. http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Your efforts to label this a “conspiracy theory” akin to JFK or the moon landing is insulting to the 3,000 people who never had a legitimate investigation into the attacks which ended their lives. Perhaps you should do more research on the subject before you public articles which could be read by people who might take you seriously by mistake.
To the readers of this website, please google “911independentcommission questions” to access the numerous unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11. Additionally, the 2006 documentary “Press For Truth”, endorsed by the victims’ families, elaborates on the failed investigation which took place following the attacks. Highly recommended.