We'd be lying to ourselves if we actually thought that everyone, especially those in positions of power and influence, told us, the populace, the truth every time they open their mouths in front of a camera.
The following list is a part of the "25 Rules for Disinformation" page, but I feel it's worthy of it's own article. The stuff in bolded italics are my own "observations" and snarktastic commentary.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
(1) Avoidance
They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
-As famously seen with the Russia Did It Narrative, where anonymous sources revealed Russia to be the source of the supposed Podesta email hack, which cost Hillary the election. But know what? NYTimes ended up walking back their assertion of Russia Did It, although with a fraction of the fanfare that accompanied the original narrative.
(2) Selectivity
They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
-Anyone who participates in forums like Reddit or Voat, especially in the politics, conspiracy, or Pizzagate subs, have seen this at work.
(3) Coincidental
They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
(4) Teamwork
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
-As famously seen in the 2016 with Correct the Record and their paid trolls going after Sanders supporters, going to the point of posting child porn in Facebook groups to get said groups shut down.
(5) Anti-conspiratorial
They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a News Group (NG) focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
- As pointed out by ReallyGraceful in her JFK video, why would it be a matter of national security to release ALL the JFK documents if the single person responsible, Lee Harvey Oswald is long since dead?
(6) Artificial Emotions
An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal.
But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation.
You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
(7) Inconsistent
There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
-Nancy Pelosi once famously claimed to be heartbroken over the death of a shooting victim, who coincidently, was recovering in the hosptial. Wonder why she practiced her speech on what she thought would be Scalise's death?
(8) Time Constant
There are a few ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
-ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
-OMG Trump won the election, it's RUSSIA'S FAULT for HACKING the PODESTA EMAILS!!... remember?
That's how it all began. The story has evolved to the point that it's unrecognizable from it's original claims of Russia hacking + Podesta emails = Another Lost Election for Clinton.
When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.
In the NG example above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
-Oh noes, a bunch of intelligence vets explained how the mainstream media narrative of "Russia did it!" was faulty, citing their own experience in the NSA, DOD, and other such agencies. Other Intelligence vets demanded Obama show proof of Russia's actions. Suffice it to say, it was never forthcoming.
Remarkably, even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
-I argue that those in media HAVE been trained to deal with these issues, always going with those who write the script. The video below will give you an idea of what exactly I mean. Within 15 seconds, it's crystal clear that those people aren't giving us news, but a scripted reality, nation-wide.
Original author of the list, Marco Torres, is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.