đ What's Mindful Black Journalism?
by Sandra Hannebohm
/
This Halloween we share a warning against the casual use of quotation marks to scare people into a paranoid state.
Youâve probably seen a cheesy headline like this before, but did you know this alt-right newspaper circulates unsolicited copies to neighbourhoods via anonymous donors across the country?
The headline "Governments Tighten the Noose on 'Disinformation'" landed in my mailbox without warning or invitation one day, from the alt-right newspaper called Druthers.
In the article, Gerald Heinrichs suggests that the attempt to fight disinformation and hate speech is simply a way of silencing messages that arenât backed by evidence, even though the people supposedly being silenced continue to maintain their place on platforms that run freely.
As well as the newspaperâs tasteless and insensitive use of a stock image noose as the feature photo, the headline uses quotation marks around âdisinformationâ not because itâs a direct quote from the government but because itâs, well, kinda scary. Itâs scary because the way itâs presented, all we know is that we canât trust it.
Quotation marks are usually used to indicate a direct quoteâsomething someone actually said. But in some cases we use them to show that itâs not a regular part of the sentence, like in the paragraph above. I put quotation marks around âdisinformationâ because otherwise, it would be a little harder to read as part of a written sentence. Another way to do it is just to say âthe word disinformation.â
This is not how Druthers uses quotation marks in headlines.
Weâre left to assume that any and all information classified as disinformation may actually be true, and whatâs worse, we have no way of knowing what is true, except maybe by exercising extreme paranoia whenever we see the word.
It might seem harmless at first, but Druthers relies so heavily on scare quotes that itâs hard not to feel paranoid after reading. Scare quotes cast doubt on the definition of the word, and never offer an alternative definition. In this case, the word is placed in quotation marks solely to raise doubt about what disinformation really means.
So what does it mean?
Disinformation is the intentional spreading of false information (you know, lying). (BTW another word for mass disinformation is propaganda).
How do we know itâs intentional? Because we can find evidence related to the claim and prove that the author willfully ignored it in order to spread a lie. Misinformation on the other hand, is unintentionally spreading false information one believes to be true, but isnât.
But the spirit of genuine inquiry is not what Druthers is engaging in. There is no honest attempt to define the word disinformation, only to cast doubt any time we see it. Weâre left to assume that any and all information classified as disinformation may actually be true, and whatâs worse, we have no way of knowing what is true, except maybe by exercising extreme paranoia whenever we see the word.
The website encourages readers to have copies sent anonymously to the postal code of their choice for just $196. At 10 cents per copy, thatâs nearly 2,000 mailboxes filled with newspapers full of misinformation that residents never asked for.
Using quotation marks this way is just a way of being sarcastic. But you wonât find a style guide that recommends heavy use of quotation marks to indicate sarcasm. This misuse of punctuation is just one of those things that has evolved over time to mean something other than was originally intended.
Even dictionaries acknowledge that the original definition holds less weight than the most popular use of a word. So regardless of the fact that âcoolâ originally meant low temperature, we ended up using it to refer to popular or fashionable people. Since this is how itâs often used, âfashionableâ becomes one of the definitions for âcool.â
So itâs understandable to casually use quotation marks to show that weâre being sarcastic about something, even if thatâs not what quotation marks were invented for. It shows that when we typed our message, we didnât mean for it to be read in a somber and serious tone but in a silly voiceâa caricature of someone weâre teasing.
Thatâs fine for casual conversation, but for a publication that claims to inform people yet canât accept or offer a clear definition of disinformation, thatâs pretty egregious. Opinion pieces published in a newspaper that appears to offer reporting? Thatâs about as strange as doctors selling cigarettes.
Druthers says it offers âimportant, honest, news & information that Canadians are not being given through the traditional corporate media conglomerates.â But there are very few facts, and a ton of anti-vaccination and anti-trans speculation on current affairs.
Through modern history, journalism has been treated as an elite profession, which is one of the reasons why it has been dominated almost exclusively by white men. It should be more accessible, especially since the means of mass media production have already landed in our pockets. But I donât think that means broadcasting opinions as news without giving genuine and transparent attention to facts, is a good thing. This volunteer-powered newspaper is not run by journalists, but would definitely benefit from some trained fact-checkers. Citizen-led journalism is greatly inspiring, but not without (at least) training on journalistic standards and fact-checking.
For example, the disinformation article says proposed legislation in Canada would mean âout of line Canadians can face life imprisonment,â for sharing an unpopular opinion. Nowhere in Bill C63 does it say unpopular opinions would be met with life sentences. In the bill, hatred is defined as involving âdetestation or vilification⊠not⊠disdain or dislike⊠[and] the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.â
The bill does propose giving the Supreme Court the power to issue life sentences for hate crimesânot mere opinionsâand severe cases of hate speech, like public advocacy for genocide.
The proposed bill goes on to explain, âa maximum penalty of any kind will, by its very nature, be imposed only rarely and in light of the general principles of the Criminal Code, applied in an individualized context.â
To say this equates to everyday citizens facing life sentences for unpopular opinions is dishonest at worst, and ignorant at best. I found nothing in the bill to suggest that you could end up landing in jail for innocently sharing a personal opinion.
The Druthers website encourages readers to have copies sent anonymously to the postal code of their choice for just $196. At 10 cents per copy, thatâs nearly 2,000 mailboxes filled with newspapers full of misinformation that residents never asked for.
I wonât go so far as to say Druthers is alt-right disinformation campaign, but I find it strange that a newspaper so staunchly against propaganda - which they seem to define as whatever authorities say about COVID vaccines, gender affirming health care, and attempts to curb online hate speech - is encouraging people to pay for unsolicited alt-right opinion pieces sent to neighbourhoods across the country.