English philosopher Henry Sidgwick believed that truth is controversial, given the lack of agreement on a uniform ethical formula on what constitutes a truth, especially when lies and disinformation have objective justification. This issue is evident in the practical and academic aspects of politics.
There are hypotheses about political disinformation and lies from a purely pragmatic perspective, utilized by politicians to achieve specific goals. However, using such approach within the academic circles undermines the ethics of analyses and political studies that are primarily baed upon on investigating to seek honesty and truth as much as possible.
The debate has been ongoing in academic circles for decades for two reason. The first reason is correlated to the very nature of political studies and analyses, and academics’ attempts to invoke arguments and theses that undermine the ethical foundation of analyses. Thus, the goal of these studies and analyses is not to provide a realistic vision based on information and facts as much as possible, but rather to serve specific goals and biases.
The second reason is concerning the transformations within the global scene over the past years resulting from crises and extended conflicts, which are often of a sectarian and doctrinal nature. Each of the parties in these conflicts tires to utilize all available tools, including academic tools, to support their position and self-interests.
Interpretive discourses
In its simplest definition, disinformation refers to deliberate distortion of perceived reality with the aim of propagating ideas contrary to reality and the truth. Thus, the aim is to instill illusions and mistaken beliefs in the target audience. This definition excludes opinion pieces that reflect the author’s viewpoint, as long as they do not include false information under the charade of the truth.
Misleading analyses rely on several mechanisms, most notably either concealment and secrecy or negative models based on lies and disinformation, with the aim of attempting to misrepresent something, someone or some event. In addition, there is falsifying and forging of information, or repackaging as described by Barton Whaley, which entails diverting it from its essence and giving it new attributes to serve specific biases and goals.
There are basic interpretations (related to the research and academic field) that explain the current trend of misleading analyses:
Overlap with political practice: The blurring boundaries between political practices and academia allow several academics to replicate the ideas and practices of politicians and apply them within the academic field. This allows academic to use disinformation, which is a tool used by politicians, through the possibility of incorporating lies, misleading analyses and political studies. This is based on various arguments, such as Plato’s noble lies and Winston Churchill’s quote “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies”. The role of some research centers and think tanks has also changed to become in line with the goals of interest groups and political action committees that lobby for specific policies.
Prevalent pragmatism: Disinformation attains legitimacy from pragmatic thinking that is free of ethical principles. It rather judges actions based upon their implications. Ludwig von Mises states that labeling an action as good or evil primarily depends on the repercussions of this action, judging it is dependent on cause and effect. Thus, actions become means to assess based on their outcomes. Misleading analyses do not view themselves as unethical because they presume that they serve noble, patriotic, public goals. Tom Luljak further confirms this in his study “the Routine Nature of Journalistic Deception”, revealing that journalists rely on deception and disinformation constantly, to the extent that they no longer perceive it as an ethical problem.
Prior biases: Many misleading analyses mainly rely on prior biases and assumptions of researchers and analysts. When a researcher begins his work, he is guided by prior biases and assumptions. The data gathering process enables the researcher to confirm or deny these biases and assumptions. Disinformation occurs when a researcher uses the information -whether by deliberate omission, concealment, reproduction, forgery or lying- in an unethical manner to serve his bias and prove his prior hypothesis.
Prior biases reveal systematic distortion of results through either ignoring or neglecting a key factor affecting a certain phenomenon. This distortion is reflected in the tools used in gathering and analyzing data, where a researcher can create selective models that fundamentally rely on data and information that align with the researcher’s preferences. Due to these considerations, literature suggests creating a mechanism for systematic review to reduce the impact of prior biases through ensuring that researchers merge and address all governing and influential factors of the phenomenon under study and analysis.
The dilemma of distorting reality: Hannah Arendt addressed this problem with the theory that part of disinformation is attributed to the over-simplification of a topic in a manner that distorts the multi-dimensional variables of reality. This could be bolstered by the modern composition of political theory and the emergence of some theories, such as the game theory in which there are scenarios that condense political reality into limited choices, and make it apparent as a zero-sum game. Arendt adds that this type of thinking and theorizing only serves to confuse the mind and diminish the significance of the notion that there are abundant real options and possibilities.
Administrative and funding restrictions: Researchers are confined by the preferences of funding institutions, which makes them prone to produce misleading analyses and studies. This is a problem in many societies, including the West. For example, Leslie Gelb when wrote about the war on Iraq in collaboration with Jeanne-Paloma Zelmati in an article titled “Mission Not Accomplished”, said: “My initial support for the war was symptomatic of unfortunate tendencies within the foreign policy community, namely the disposition and incentives to support wars to retain political and professional credibility.”
Contexts of crises
Literature reviews on the topic assume that the success of disinformation and deception largely depends on the context and social interactions surrounding the topic under analysis. Thus, the more critical the crises and conflicts, the more misleading political analysis will be. This correlation occurs as politicians use wartime analysis as a tool of the conflict – especially in the absence of accurate scientific research criteria that prevent the ethical distortion of academia.
The aforementioned theory is a key factor in understanding the trend of misleading analyses, depicting the intricate relationship between reality and all its crises along with political analyses and studies. In this context, four fundamental variables in this reality have the greatest impact on misleading analyses, according to the following:
Racial and sectarian tendencies: Recently, there has been a surge in racial and sectarian conflicts within countries, leading to a retreat in the notion of the state in the minds of many. Thus,associations with original identities preceding one’s state or national identity. This is a common phenomenon in societies albeit to varying degrees.
In the West, racism rejuvenated its discourse with the emergence of the radical right and the rise of extremist thinkers and leaders who adopt racist rhetoric. This rise reflects in one way or another a growing feeling in many Western societies that they are under threat, whether from refugees arriving in their countries, or from some elements in society, or from economic recession, or from a lack of confidence in the stature of the state and the existence of foreign competitors to it.
In developing countries, sectarian tendencies are more prevalent beyond logical boundaries that guarantee the continuity of the state in its traditional form. In recent decades, there have been many examples of the disintegration of the state due to sectarian and ethnic conflicts, accompanied by attempts to invoke new roles of political analyses as tools biased to the interests of each party in the conflict. Here, political analysis, with an emphasis that this model cannot be generalized, goes beyond its ethical framework and becomes a tool to legitimize tales of sectarian hatred, and give an imagined misleading theoretical and ethical nuance through tools of deception, selective information and concealing facts to change these narratives from condemnable to acceptable.
Intense conflicts: A key feature of the world order in recent years has been an escalation in the intensity of conflicts and their various manifestations, as many actors resort to violence in managing relations and interactions with others. The West is no exception. The US entrenched the notion of violent conflicts in the world order, when it decided to militarize its foreign policy after the 9/11 attacks, and rushed to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Iraq War in 2003 was the clearest manifestation of how to formulate misleading analyses in modern times. Prior to the war, a form of accord was forged between the authorities and several think tanks, using deception as a key catalyst on both sides. The US administration at the time propagated a misleading narrative that the Iraqi regime possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion. In parallel, many think tanks and political analyses agreed with the administration’s ideas beforehand, and were biased against the Iraqi regime while ignoring much of the information guiding the proposals of George W. Bush’s administration.
Another model is the Arab-Israeli conflict and the artificial creation of the state of Israel in the Middle East. This creation required a search for grounds to justify the occupation of Palestinian land. The majority of these justifications were generated by research and academic centers with the aim of manufacturing nationalist legends to provide Israel with envisioned political and moral legitimacy, as described by John Mearsheimer in his book Why Leaders Lie. This was not limited to founding legends but also bolstered with misleading analyses and studies supporting continued hostile policies in dealing with the other, namely that the Palestinians adopt extremist “terrorist” actions that require Israel to defend itself.
Re-forming authoritarianism: The rapid developments caused by globalization in the recent years put pressure on many authoritarian regimes, some calls emanating from upcoming generations demanding genuine political reforms within a nation, while others came from abroad. In the beginning, this pressure was problematic for these regimes, but eventually they found a formula to handle it, essentially based on controlled political openness while maintaining the authoritarian system in a process closer to reproduction of authoritarianism.
In the process of re-forming authoritarianism, think tanks and political analyses gained significant importance since they can assist the regime through promoting false discourse about superficial democracy in societies ruled by neo-authoritarians. This process give legitimacy for the regime at home and abroad. Thus, political analyses can become a tool of control for the regime through their knowledge, opinions, attitudes and ideologies, as well as personal and social representation, as stated by Tuen Van Dijk in his book Discourse and Power.
Growing populism: Here, thought is subject to the collective unorganized activism of the people, which is largely reckless and random. Amid the contemporary rise of populism in many societies, there is an opportunity to remanufacture thought processes and political research. Many works and analyses have emerged searching for hypotheses and grounds to appease ordinary and simple citizens, to obtain their approval and support irrespective of the viability of these hypotheses and their scientific validity and consistency.
The parity between political analyses and the contemporary wave of populism across the globe undermines the requisites of political analysis, which is the need for objectivity and neutrality regarding reality, and independence from populist preferences and sentiments. Populism also causes political analysis to be over-simplistic and superficial in addressing political phenomena such as social trends, which are naturally very complicated and multi-dimensional phenomena.
Possible repercussions
Relying on misleading analyses results in several negative repercussions. While it is true that sometimes disinformation serves specific goals and interests of one party, it also undermines the ethical legitimacy of the academic system, undermines confidence in political analyses, and develops close-minded thinking. Philosopher Harry Frankfurt stated that exposure to lies and disinformation prevents the individual from experiencing the reality surrounding them, and isolates them in a world of illusions.
Misleading analyses could lead to forming a climate of fictitious legitimacy of certain policies or what is known as manufacturing consent and approval, according to the views of Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. Thus, such analyses push towards manufacturing narratives and terms that delude some into thinking that they have non-existent acceptance or legitimacy. This will lead to catastrophic outcomes in the long run, especially since it distracts people from more critical issues.
Another aspect of misleading analyses often leads to making enemies and raising fear and anxiety among ordinary people. In order to achieve this, several common fallacies can be used such as criticizing one’s character (ad hominem), focusing on the emotional side, using a biased sample, false resemblance and false dilemma. Thus, misleading analyses can incite societal extremism, intolerance and mutual hatred among elements of society.
Emma Grey Ellis was aware of this problem when she concluded that there is a growing trend of fake think tanks in the US that adopt a discourse of hatred and racism against various categories in society. Think tanks supporting white supremacy succeeded in producing plenty of research material based on racial distinctions within society.
In conclusion, addressing the issue of misleading analyses requires a review of interactions between political practice and the academic and research fields, and boundaries of the overlap between the two tracks. It further requires researchers and academics to interact positively with political phenomena without abandoning ethical prerequisites that are of dire importance in contemporary reality. As Massimo Pigliucci put it: “We don’t live in the age of post-truth. We live in the age of Internet-enabled [nonsense].”
