Freedom of Speech: Disinformation versus Misinformation

The First Amendment to the US Constitution as found in the Bill of Rights

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment to the US Constitution provides several guarantees:

1. No governmental interference with the exercise of religion
2. No governmental interference with the freedom of speech
3. No governmental interference with the freedom of the press
4. No governmental interference with the ability of the people to assemble
5. No governmental interference with the ability of the people to petition the government

Free Speech

While discussion of free speech is nothing new to our national discourse it has become a very hot topic lately. A particular flashpoint has been debates over whether or not people should be able to freely disseminate disinformation and misinformation.

Rather than giving space here to discuss the merits of free speech (I am a fan), I want to make sure we are all aware of the meaning of the words we are using, so that when we talk about misinformation and disinformation, we start from a common understanding.

Lies

The words disinformation and misinformation both mean the same thing: lies. The only difference between the two is that disinformation carries the added weight that the purveyor knows the truth and is deliberately spreading lies. Misinformation, in contrast may be an honest mistake; telling a lie without knowing it is a lie.

Opinions

My problem with the current debate on free speech is that too many people conflate opposing opinions with deliberate lies. For anyone to lie requires that there are immutable facts at the core of the debate. Unfortunately, the current state of so-called journalism is very long on opinion and very short on facts.

Facts

It is the absence of facts that compels police to refer to a suspect as an "alleged" perpetrator until after the person is convicted in a court of law. That is because a big part of the function of a trial is to establish what are the facts in a situation, in contrast with the opinions, perspectives, and views of anyone.

Poor Journalism

All too often what a journalist calls disinformation is actually an opinion that differs from that of the journalist. It is hard to figure this out because the talking heads on TV and the poison pen opinion pieces that many journalist pass off as news contain relatively few actual facts compared to the abundance of opinion and hyperbole.

It seems to me that most so-called journalists today are afraid to just report the news. They seem to fear that their audience is too stupid (or too smart) to hear the facts and draw conclusions that align with those of the reporter.

Critical Thinking

The current pervasiveness of this sort of nineteenth century yellow-journalism (or journalistic advocacy, if you prefer a less harsh term for the corruption of our 'news' media) seems to be to be an indictment of both the profession of journalism and of the efficacy of our educational system to produce citizens who can look at facts and draw their own conclusions through critical thinking.

Just the Facts

For my part, I long for news sources that report the facts, all the facts that are available. I long for journalistic integrity that will report both the flattering facts and the unflattering facts, and let me decide my own opinion, rather than trying to force feed me theirs. I am equally put off by Sean Hannity tailoring a story to promote Donald Trump as I am by Jen Psaki tailoring a story to promote Kamala Harris. Neither are offering news. Both are offering opinion pieces. At least Fox positions Hannity is positioned as an opinion show. MSNBC's Jen Psaki overtly presents news and then seamlessly shifts to opinion. Of course, given than Jen Psaki was the spokesperson for a Democrat President of the United States, it shouldn't surprise anyone that she isn't taking a neutral stance and just reporting facts.

Looking for Good News

If you have found a news bureau that truly reports the facts, without pruning them to create a particular spin, please, let me know.

And, if you can disagree without being disagreeable, let's start our own club. I am always open to hearing other viewpoints. I just don't appreciate it when facts are either ignored or made up.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2024 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God