We live in a world where the distinctions between facts and opinions, or between knowledge and prognostication, have become so blurred that it is often hard to tell them apart. Sometimes, a solitary malign actor can deliberately do this, watching as the fake news is repeated in a digitally mounted attack by a cohort of activists on whatever stronghold one suddenly realises is under threat.
In a simple world, this attack might be on some bastion of democracy, a voting mechanism, a procedure, or even a political party. Sometimes, it might be on a state's economic or financial viability, an effort to weaken and undermine the very means by which that society is enabled daily.; or in some cases it might simply be on a way of life designed to destabilise and cause disquiet and loss of morale.
We are witnessing the growth of planned global propaganda and psychological warfare. All our nations are victims—and all are engaged in it. The biggest problem, however, is that thanks to social media platforms and the speed of the Internet, the standard tactics of propaganda warfare are readily available to anyone with half a brain. If you don’t think this is happening in the 21st century, please go and read a book, play some music, or come back in 20 minutes - because this next bit will upset you.
The Telegraph's article “Why it might be time to stop riding horses” by Boudicca Fox-Leonard presents its readership with either a naive and somewhat lazy feature or it is potentially an example of the above—a deliberate piece of media manipulation utilising modern propaganda techniques to achieve a radical group’s objective.
I use the term “media manipulation” to suggest an orchestrated campaign in which an organisation or groups have potentially exploited the Telegraph’s mass communications and digital media platforms to mislead, misinform, or create a narrative that advances their interests and agendas. Typical examples of that manipulation are clear throughout the piece: rhetorical questions providing supportive answers, fallacies derived from meaningless statistics, and disinformation from supportive sources. Similarly, in the enormous discussions that follow, one sees several names repeatedly ridiculing, mocking, and questioning opposing points of view. These few people are, in effect, acting as faux moderators. Then, further, supportive views are produced, suppressing opposition or crowding it out.
Let me give you an imaginary example of what I am talking about - the following facts, however, are entirely true.
In October 2022, crash statistics from the Department for Transport and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find which cars crashed the most during 2020. The answer in terms per 100,000 licences vehicles was the Toyota Prius with 1207 collisions
A Study from the University of Oxford found that using Uber is connected with a 9% decline in UK road accidents.
Young male drivers under 25 are four times more likely to be involved in a car accident than drivers aged 25 or over.
Worryingly, young car drivers account for a quarter of drivers killed in reported drink-driving accidents despite only representing 7% of drivers in the UK.
Now, if a respected feature writer asked an Environmental Activist from Just Stop Oil what she thought about cars in the streets - he or she might say Ban them all - we don’t need them. If they didn't - trust me, it wouldn't take a halfway intelligent journalist long to find one. However, for my example, I have found Professor Heinz Von Clutterbuck, who did research for A Healthier Britain, a little-known but well-funded campaigning body seeking… A Healthier Britain. So far so anodyne. You might not have been surprised to see the following quote from the Professor in my feature: Do we need cars?
“I think there is a statistically solid case for worrying about the use of electric cars when research has shown them to be amongst the most dangerous vehicles on the roads today. If we took the Toyota Prius as an example, and based on a mean average of 1.465 passengers in each car per trip, we could potentially save over 2000 lives per year - and that is just the Prius. By banning all such cars, we could probably save tens of thousands of lives. We would also potentially save almost 2% of all under-25s every year if we banned them from driving until they were slightly older. However, we also know that by taking that sensible action, we could also save huge numbers of pedestrians who are four times more likely to be killed by an under-25 male driver. Many people will say, “I prefer a car to public transport”. Luckily, we can reduce 9% of all those horrible deaths and injuries that cost the NHS so much. Still, we will also be saving many brilliant young scientists, doctors and nurses who we lose annually in the terrible death toll of car passengers every year. How? Allowing more Uber-style drivers on the road, whose skills have seen all transport accidents reduce by almost 10%. More doctors, more nurses, more young people, more taxis, safer pavements, safer roads, these small first steps will ensure that by 2030, we will have almost eliminated car finance debt by 90% so there is an enormous cost-benefit for the nation as well.”
Now tell me that you’re not interested - for the good of the nation this should be allowed to go ahead.
In the real world, I suspect Boudicca’s actual intention
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Boyd's Own Paper to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.