Read on Twitter
On UK academia and Russian disinformation. Over the last 24 hours, reactions to @RUSI_org's defence of @ReframingRussia have similarly been "mostly negative", not least in response to @JEyal_RUSI's signal boosting retweet. It's worth considering why.
/1 https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662249302044674
/1 https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662249302044674
This comment is condescending beyond words. Suggesting that those concerned over the report are incapable of evidence-based discussion and analysis is an entirely unwarranted insult to them.
/3 https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662251676094470
/3 https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662251676094470
(Connoisseurs will have noted that the sneering style - maligning motivations with "perhaps because..." followed by insulting insinuation - has much in common with how RT itself handles critics that have incurred Russia's displeasure.)
4/
4/
This point would be relevant if anybody were seriously suggesting the West should mirror Russia's approach. But on the rare occasions that suggestion comes up it is immediately slapped down. A straw man.
5/ https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662253097885696
5/ https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662253097885696
Another straw man. Nobody, least of all @EUvsDisinfo, is suggesting that "everything [is] under the direct control of the Kremlin and every story directed by a monolithic central command".
6/ https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662256377790465
6/ https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662256377790465
All of these are true. None of them would be news to East StratCom, and it is hardly honest to pretend that they believe in the "monolithic central command" idea.
7/
https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662258105880579 https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662259817222150
7/
https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662258105880579 https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662259817222150
It is absolutely correct that more needs to be invested in East StratCom. On the other hand it is untrue to say, as @ReframingRussia claims and @ISS_RUSI repeats, that they "rely on volunteers".
8/ https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662264942600193
8/ https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662264942600193
That may have been the case at an earlier stage when East StratCom was even more woefully underfunded than today, and was facing significant obstruction within the EU - but has not been so since Spring 2018.
9/
9/
Now, they use professional media monitoring services. In fairness to @RUSI and @ReframingRussia, that's not entirely clear from East StratCom's FAQ, which only mentions "EU contractors".
10/ https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/2116/-questions-and-answers-about-the-east-stratcom-task-force_en
10/ https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/2116/-questions-and-answers-about-the-east-stratcom-task-force_en
But if I could do the research and find that out, why is it that @ReframingRussia could not or would not, and @RUSI faithfully repeats the allegation, based on information that is two years out of date?
11/
11/
The report specifically points at @BBCMonitoring as a case study for professional foreign media monitoring services that, they say, East StratCom should use. It is very misleading not to mention in that context that they already have done -
12/
12/
- but that, as I hear from BBCM, Monitoring lost the contract. It's a reasonable hypothesis that was a result of BBCM's own evisceration by the BBC in its disapproval of "doing government work" - a whole other sorry story.
13/ https://medium.com/@jonathanmarks/open-source-stupidity-the-threat-to-the-bbc-monitoring-service-deaaa9a393b4
13/ https://medium.com/@jonathanmarks/open-source-stupidity-the-threat-to-the-bbc-monitoring-service-deaaa9a393b4
(Full disclosure: I spent years at Caversham, and contributed to the @CommonsDefence report that branded decisions on its future "Open Source Stupidity". Now the results of that predicted loss of capability are clear and undeniable.)
14/
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmdfence/748/748.pdf
14/
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmdfence/748/748.pdf
Now this part is important. Let's be clear: the examples cherry-picked by @ReframingRussia show a problem. Looking at the original broadcasts, it's hard to understand their characterisation by @EUvsDisinfo (or, just as likely, by their media monitors).
15/ https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662266276392968
15/ https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662266276392968
That means something in the system is not working as intended, and @EUvsDisinfo should be made aware of it. But - as per my original criticism of the @ReframingRussia report - constructively, rather than attacking East StratCom using wrong data and misrepresentation.
16/
16/
I'm looking forward to seeing a full response by @EUvsDisinfo, which I hope and trust will address and openly explain the differences between the nature of the original Russian media reports and how they appear in their reporting.
17/
17/
Because that kind of openness and willingness to admit errors is key to combating malign influence. It would support the "evidence driven research and systematic analysis" that sadly is so patchy with the @ReframingRussia report.
/18 https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662270202306566
/18 https://twitter.com/ISS_RUSI/status/1248662270202306566
I am more than willing to give @ReframingRussia the benefit of the doubt, where it exists (even though hurriedly deleting material from their website once it is brought to light is rarely an indicator of impeccable intellectual honesty).
/19
/19
(One item deleted - out of an unknown total - was a breathtaking puff piece for RT. Archived here courtesy of @gorsefires.)
/20 https://archive.li/NL5wh
/20 https://archive.li/NL5wh
Furthermore @ReframingRussia are under no obligation to answer the question already posed of exactly who "asked them to investigate" @EUvsDisinfo. But it would certainly help make things clearer if they did.
/21
/21
But I stand by the assessment of the report on @EUvsDisinfo: there are valid points in it, but utterly devalued by the misconceptions, misrepresentation and straw men framing them. There is a helpful way to do this, and this is not it.
/22 and end
/22 and end
