To think that wacko conspiracy theories are ampilified to discredit "real" ones?

[BlueJuniper94]

AIBU to think that extreme tinfoil conspiracy theories are amped up to malign those who are skeptical of official narratives. And to think this only compounds the collapsing trust in mainstream media?

Sounds like a conspiracy theory... I know....

Which mainstream media outlet "very aggressively" attempted to shut down the lab leak theory? Or is it that you see mainstream media stories saying that there's no strong evidence to support that theory as some kind of aggressive act?

The reason I'm banging on about this is that this is a prime example of how the flames of conspiracy theories are fanned. Someone makes a claim, it gains support, and at some point there also arises claims about how the original claim is being suppressed because "They don't want you to know the truth!" But the claims of suppression usually boil down to little more than either it being ignored in the mainstream media or, occasionally, someone pointing out that the original claim has little or no evidence to support it and that it's just conjecture. But those fake claims about suppression feed into the conspiracy theorist's paranoia and/or helps them to think that they have secret knowledge and so are smarter than the normies. It's a feedback loop of claims with little to no facts.

The lab leak theory is conjecture. It's not been proven. There's some evidence to suggest it's true, but there's also evidence that suggests the virus was a natural mutation. The conspiracy theorist sees that as vindication of the original, wild-assed claim. The more measured response is to see that and keep an open mind.

Do you really think the civil service see Trump as their president?

What was the original wild assed claim? That it had leaked from the nearby institute of virology where they were studying coronaviruses? Why was this dismissed as a credible theory so quickly? Why was it labelled "dangerous misinformation" without evidence that it was false?

I remember Mumsnet deleting a thread for misinformation because someone said COVID was an airborne disease. It is, for all intents and purposes an airborne disease!

I get where you're coming from OP, and new advances in technology, particularly AI will make it nigh on impossible to parse the real from the fabricated.

The lab leak theory is eminently plausible, but impossible to prove. Zoonotic theories - also plausible, also difficult to prove at this point. Does it hurt to wonder and speculate? Some would say yes, some would say no.

Sometimes it feels like we're all lab rats in a giant psychological experiment on so many fronts.

I am interested in conspiracy theories, both from an overall psychological perspective, and because as other have said, often there's a grain of truth.

Trouble is, there's always the risk of someone acting in a harmful way because their belief in false information is so fixed, and it's natural to want to mitigate that risk.

There will always be those with "vested interests" determined to skew or direct narrative.

Funnily enough I binge watched "Suspicion" last night, and it's somewhat adjacent to this thread.

Very interesting topic to be sure, and worth examining.

Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony is not applicable to the case you're making - in fact the whole point is that it needs no active conscious authoritarian conspiracy to function. Putting it forward does not in any way contribute to your claim or answer my questions. If you're really interested in neo-Marxist critical theory, I suggest you read Habermas, Adorno, Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School. (See I can be patronising too).

I have actually! But I'm quite thick and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - can you direct me to where I claimed this required overt authoritarianism, I'm quite sure the whole point of cultural hegemony is that it doesn't. Can you explain to me like I'm 5 why it isn't applicable? Because it appears to be Chomsky's thesis in Manufacturing Consent

A truth claim made with no evidence other than supposition qualifies as "wild-assed".

I'm still waiting for you to point to the mainstream media that was "aggressively" quashing such claims.

A good opportunity to tell my favourite joke

What’s the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth?

About six months

Sure, like the way that the COVID lockdowns never ended, just as the conspiracy theorists said they wouldn't. And that everyone who had a COVID vaccine died within 6 months. Make that 12 months. Ok, 24 months. Or five years. Maybe ten?

It wasn't a truth claim, it was a theory, alongside other theories. Here's an article from The Hill about it https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/555394-the-memo-media-face-hard-questions-on-trump-wuhan-lab/?rl=1 - would you like me to pull out some quotes?

"The media face hard questions amid a growing acceptance that it is possible COVID-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory.
The idea was disparaged as a conspiracy theory by multiple outlets last year — almost surely because its loudest promoter was then-President Trump.
Now, as uncertainty grows, there are burgeoning suspicions that the media overstepped their mark."

"Liberal writer Jonathan Chait catalogued a number of media reports that had dismissed the lab leak theory in a column for New York Magazine earlier this week. Those claims now seem, at best, overstretched.

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post, for example, accused Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) of spreading a “conspiracy theory” when he called for more investigation of the lab leak theory. An NPR report said there was “virtually no chance” the thesis was correct. The fact-checking website PolitiFact called the idea that the virus was man-made a “debunked conspiracy theory” — a finding that it has recently retracted."

"In later exchanges on social media, Chait also took issue with those who would exculpate the media by suggesting they were simply reporting the scientific consensus of the time.
“This is wrong,” Chait tweeted in response to one such comment. “Reporters often imposed overly certain conclusions (‘conspiracy theory’) on much more hedged evidence from their own sources.”

"
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told Fox News on Tuesday that the lab leak had been “hidden in plain sight for literally months but the mainstream media just won’t pick it up.” The previous day, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the same network he was “convinced” evidence would ultimately prove the lab leak theory true.
Again, most scientists still believe the virus occurred naturally.
The question is whether the media played down the element of doubt.
For now, the answer seems to be yes.
Even if they did so in part to overcorrect for an unusually mendacious president, they did themselves and the public no favors."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/05/lab-leak-liberal-media-theory-china-wuhan-lab-cotton-trump.html here's another article, in fact, there are of course dozens. And you know this because you were there and saying the same thing as you are right now on this thread. So I don't know why the faux naivety. Litteral censorship from Facebook also, but I'm sure you'll have conveniently forgotten

In you're opening posts you suggested that wacko conspiracy theories are being amplified in order to divert attention from ones that may be true. This is not something that would occur by happenstance.

So I'm asking, if that is the case, who is doing the amplifying? How are they (it's always a nebulous 'they') organising it? Where is the amplification primarily happening? Do you think tabloid editors are part of an international plot to keep people in the dark or are they just making as much money as they can?

Personally I think it's all a bit of a mess with the disparate 'powers that be' mainly fighting amongst themselves for bigger slices of the pie. They generally don't give enough of a HOOTSIE what us plebs think to collude on and finance marginal misinformation campaigns.

I can see that it can be comforting in an old-fashioned Freudian way to think the big mysterious distant daddies do care about us though. Of course billionaires do finance think tanks (about fossil fuels for instance) - but they do have to at least sound credible in order to successfully lobby politicians.

No, at no point did I suggest this is the result of explicit internal policies or deliberate organisation - that was never how neo Marxists said this worked. And nor did I say there weren't competing elites. But it is precisely how they want people to think and respond when this is pointed out, the propaganda is working as intended. There doesn't need to be meetings behind closed doors. Perhaps a clearer way to see this in action is the trans PR machine. Nobody at the BBC or the Guardian wanted to set a foot wrong on this issue for years, because the consequences would be swift and severe (and occasionally witnessed examples of this). But not only that, these people had internalised these norms and patterns of thought, they didn't need explicit instruction. That is cultural hegemony, (see also Foucault) so when anyone raised the matter of women's rights in the whole self ID matter it was "hate! Hateful Austrian painter lover! Racist! Homophobe!" Whenever someone wanted to discuss emerging side effects associated with the vaccine, no matter their broad approval of those vaccines it gets shut down with "5G nanobot nutbar! Andrew Wakefield child killer!" This is absolutely sorted by media framing of "conspiracy theories" and you hear the whole "I guess it's comforting but nobody cares enough about you to coordinate this" ad nauseum, because as intended, "conspiracy theory" labels are designed to invoke a very narrow and implausible view of what one thinks the other perceives might going on. It's frustrating you have come across Gramsci - but doesn't believe this applies to the media!! It couldn't apply more. Follow the money, you're right, they don't care about us, but the financial and establishment elites do still need our cooperation. This isn't imposed overtly its done to us to condition us to police one another and quell any dissent through social coercion.

From wiki:

"Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication.[1] The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922).[2] Manufacturing Consent was honored with the Orwell Award for "outstanding contributions to the critical analysis of public discourse" in 1989."

There have been so many theories over the years.Diana was killed by the press,Paul McCartney was killed in a crash in the 60s and replaced by someone with an amazing talent? Yeah sure.Recently on Panarama a 24 Yr d girl died,due to her parents negative views on chemo. Her brothers are sure this is the case. Most conspiracies can be explained.Lots of people are scared of the truth

"In you're opening posts you suggested that wacko conspiracy theories are being amplified in order to divert attention from ones that may be true. This is not something that would occur by happenstance."

Not to divert attention, but to smear anyone who did deviate from the 'official' narrative. To coerce anyone with doubts not to just keep it to themselves but to not bother thinking about it because they wouldn't want to be associated with the loons and freaks that don't go along with it. This deters even the most tentative questioning from people who naturally fear ostracisation. And furthermore encourages peers to police the boundaries of acceptable belief. As is handily demonstrated on this thread. I haven't even stated a single belief about any official narrative and yet the suggestion I might have doubts about the odd one has invoked real hostility. It wouldn't occur by happenstance no, it doesn't work like that, the idea is sown in us that dissent causes real harm - not through conspiracy but because its just a natural strategy to persuade or coerce someone, when it comes to freedom of belief, the only possible reason for interfering with that freedom is if you believe there is the risk of harm. So there is your cause and justification.

"So I'm asking, if that is the case, who is doing the amplifying? How are they (it's always a nebulous 'they') organising it? Where is the amplification primarily happening? Do you think tabloid editors are part of an international plot to keep people in the dark or are they just making as much money as they can?"

Again, I would suggest you examine neo Marxist media theories, but knowing the Dentons document exists and the effectiveness of Stonewall champions schemes it may be a little more overt at times! Individual editors and journalists are humans who want regard and status among their colleagues and to keep their jobs and even be promoted. They want to pay their mortgages and fund their lifestyle and they know exactly what they need to do to stay on the gravytrain. Social norms are very powerful. And if pharmaceutical companies want to make vast vast sums of money they will of course need people to acquiesce and if the civil service want to remain as powerful as they are they need to remain invisible and so on and so on.

"Personally I think it's all a bit of a mess with the disparate 'powers that be' mainly fighting amongst themselves for bigger slices of the pie. They generally don't give enough of a HOOTSIE what us plebs think to collude on and finance marginal misinformation campaigns."

You're right they don't give a flying fuck if you live or die. But they do need compliance and stability to make their money or maintain their power. Corporations and government entities that is. If you think there's no collusion or money spent on the formation of public opinion though I'd like to point to a vast NGO network very much invested in that and funded by some of the wealthiest people in the world.

"I can see that it can be comforting in an old-fashioned Freudian way to think the big mysterious distant daddies do care about us though. Of course billionaires do finance think tanks (about fossil fuels for instance) - but they do have to at least sound credible in order to successfully lobby politicians."

Like I said, they care about compliance and stability. Speaking of Freud - you really want to look into his nephew en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Appreciate you claim The Guardian is part of the problem but George Monbiot wrote this last year and it's a really good read on how conspiracy theorists are actually focusing on the wrong things that they can't control or fix instead of the genuine conspiracies which we should be challenging.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/may/04/youre-going-to-call-me-a-holocaust-denier-now-are-you-george-monbiot-comes-face-to-face-with-his-local-conspiracy-theorist

I was once admonished by a GP because during a consultation when I was going through a tough time and reached out for support, I explained the things that were bothering me, causing anxiety and starting to impact all aspects of my life, and was told rather disdainfully that "I think too much".

I was told last year, by a psychiatrist involved in the care of my batshit SM who had turned on my DF and myself for reasons partly mental health related, and likely partly organic, that "I wasn't a doctor, and therefore should wind my neck in" when questioning the proposed course of action. What I voiced, and feared, came to pass with tragic results for my DF. But I was apparently "paranoid" and voicing my concerns due to my own nefarious agenda.

Years ago, during a fraught situation, again while at odds with "authority" I was forced to submit to psychological examination for legal purposes. They couldn't find anything measurably wrong with me, but the third psychiatrist told me loftily that I should "humble myself" because who was I to question the consensus of experts - it was a groupthink situation, and while it felt very much like a conspiracy, it could be more described as a "preserving the status quo that has served us well till now" scenario.

Point is, the urge or need to control narrative and perception has many motivations, and is applied up and down the scale. Think of the scandals that have dominated the news in the last few years. Post Office. Definitely a conspiracy. Contaminated blood? My hobby horse - nuclear test veterans - my Dad was one.

The tactics of suppression are psychological. And I agree Edward Bernays is a good place to start to track how sophisticated, and yes, lucrative the field is.

The pandemic was fertile testing ground. The 77th brigade is a real thing. Everyone held in place, dependent on technology, being fed information from multiple sources, conflict over reliability, and as always I will hark back to the now demised "State of Fear" threads, which started as discussions of a book by the same name, and ended with fears of right wing extremism and civil unrest.

Currently the news is full of war rhetoric despite the ceasefire in the Middle East. Now we are encouraged to prepare for war on our own shores. This is scoffed at by some, embraced by others. If one dares suggest "they're up to something" well, that's conspiracy theory.

And the "nebulous they" - these days, anyone with a vested interest in steering public opinion and compliance, mostly driven by money, and access to digital tools. Which is why AI is such a threat.

It's not just a question of conspiracy theory versus actual conspiracy, it's reality versus complete fantasy, and eroding our ability to distinguish between the two. Our greatest weapon is our own mind, but it's also our greatest weakness.

By the way OP you might enjoy a YouTube channel called Truthstream media. They cover this sort of thing.

The real life conspiracy theorists I know ARE the ones amplifying the ‘wacko’ theories. Once people get into this world they start believing a huge amounts of conspiracy theories. Not just one.

So YAB massively U

No I don't think it's that strategic or well thought through. There have been some genuine conspiracies, yes, and will continue to be.

But I think the main reasons conspiracy theories are on the rise are:

• Rise of social media and the "crowding out" of mainstream media from public discourse and the polarisation this causes of political ideology
• The fact that many of our leaders actively riff on and amplify conspiracy theories to suit their narratives (Trump and the "birther" conspiracy about Obama, for example).
• Which leads to greater disillusionment with our political class (of all ideological stripes)
• Declining educational standards in the west and poorer critical thinking
• The rise in mental health issues, social isolation and atomisation which sharply accelerated after COVID
• A rising cadre of grifters who are using social media to take advantage of vulnerable and poorly-educated people to sell their highly dubious ideas and products (Russell Brand I'm looking at you)

Also to add, this seems so obvious that I haven't already said it - but it's also highly political/tribal. Journalists are rooting for their team, scoring points for their team, signalling to their own in-group and will always seek to make their opponents look weak and stupid. It's 101 rhetoric to point to extreme outliers and accuse slight dissenters from being no different. They don't need secret meetings, because they have an army of true believers.

• Declining educational standards in the west and poorer critical thinking""

No, the lower educated are actually the ones who appear to me to be impervious to nonsense pushed by the media like "pregnant men" - that only comes from graduates

Journalists have always done this though.

The difference today is that nowadays people live in an echo chamber and only see news which reinforces their own ideological viewpoint.

30-40 years ago most people would have read "their" paper, which aligned with their political stance, but they would also have come into contact with a more balanced set of narratives via the TV and radio news, through contact with other news sources which contradicted their perspective and conversations with people with different stances.

Most people today don't read papers at all and don't watch the mainstream TV bulletins. They get their news from Facebook or whatever and the algorithm serves up more and more of what you've already clicked on. They socialise with their own "tribe" and views which don't align get cancelled.

The concept of impartiality in public discourse has always been flawed but it was at least something which most people understood to be important in the way they consume news. That's gone totally out of the window.

@MistressoftheDarkSide while I do believe the virus was real, the absurd fear levels we endured have “let’s seize this opportunity to experiment with manipulating the public” written all over them, as far as I’m concerned.

With the well-known conspiracy theories, such as chemtrails, I take care to keep a sceptical view of both sides. In 2021, I joined an anti-lockdown group to try to find some allies; but I was so shocked by some of their language that I nearly left straight away. There was pure vitriol towards those who had taken the vaccine in good faith. It was also amusing that both sides used almost identical wording, slightly tweaked to suit each side. I saw both of these on the internet (and I’m not exaggerating):

”Look at all those lemmings queueing for the clot shot, they will all die, it’s very sad.”
”Look at all those refuseniks, they will all die, it’s very sad.”

@BlueJuniper94

No, the lower educated are actually the ones who appear to me to be impervious to nonsense pushed by the media like "pregnant men" - that only comes from graduates

Maybe, but there are equivalent fictions on the other side of the ideological spectrum too. For example a lot of less educated people are often very quick to believe myths about immigrants moving to the UK to seek benefits.