The Government Responds to COVID Propaganda
The Department of Health’s response is far better late than never.
Last month, I wrote a story about how anti-vaccination campaigners were using government documents as propaganda.
You can read the article, here:
To summarise, in Western Australia (WA) all medicines are classified ‘poisons.’ As such, the COVID-19 vaccine, along with all vaccines, are classified as poisons by the WA Government. This caused a stir among anti-vaccine groups who were using this fact as propaganda.
As part of my research, I reached out to the Department of Health (DoH) and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC). I got no response from the DPC and received only a stock response from the DoH.
As I wrote at the time, I was disappointed but not surprised.
However, a month after I received the first email; I have received another reply from the Department of Health.
What does the Government (actually) Have to Say for Itself?
Unbeknownst to me my email was forwarded to the Office of the Chief Medical Officer. Their reply was insightful.
Without oversight, medicines are poisonous
Firstly, they reiterated the fact that vaccines are Schedule 4 poisons under WA law. More importantly, they confirmed that the term ‘poison’ is legalese.
Within this legislative definition, medicines are a subset of substances, that while also toxic if used incorrectly, are intended to be purposefully employed for therapeutic (medical) reasons.
They also pointed out that this terminology is not just some Westralian quirk; it is in use throughout Australia.
Overreacting would escalate the problem
Having cleared up the facts, they proceeded to explain their response to the controversy.
Perhaps the most fascinating insight from the email is that they did consider taking down the web pages in question. Ultimately (and wisely), they decided against either course of action.
… we considered the removal of the document from the website or amending the title, however the page has already been widely shared and saved. Changing the title may contribute to further discussion about why it has changed now…
This would also risk resurrecting the issue. Traffic to the DoH’s page has dropped, suggesting that the controversy has died down.
Traffic presumably fell for a number of reasons. Not least the appearance of counter information.
Over the last month, a number of fact-checking services have addressed the issue, including the Reuters and the Australian Associated Press.
Time is also a considerable element. Misinformation cannot withstand scrutiny, so it isn’t designed to. It is disposable. When your argument is debunked, start a new argument.
Social media is the solution
The DoH cites their social media team for the drop.
The Social Media team responded to people on Facebook to explain the use of the word ‘poison’ and this has contributed to a decrease in the amount of people accessing the page.
It is difficult to judge the effectiveness of the social media campaign. Nevertheless, it is reassuring that the DoH has a formal response to misinformation campaigns.
What Do I Have to Say for Myself?
Is counter information too slow?
I’ve had time over the past month to reflect on this story.
Mostly, I was downhearted. I can’t help but wonder if counter information campaigns are too slow.
Misinformation is generated quickly and easily, while fact-checking is slow and laborious. Social media has moved on long before any rebuttal is widespread. In this fashion, counter-information operations risk becoming endless game of whack-a-mole.
With this in mind, we need to embrace more diverse strategies for dealing with misinformation. We must prevent and pre-empt rather than just reacting.
The human response is incredibly powerful
Contrasting the two emails I received from the DoH highlights the power of a human response.
On the one hand, a stock response reads:
“…you should listen to the advice of health professionals and other trusted sources.”
On the other, a firm and polite response to the questions I put forward.
A personal reply is reassuring where an automated response is alienating. This is as true in an email as it is on social media.
I am grateful for the DoH’s reply because it reminded me of something that is often forgotten. Civil servants are citizens like you and me.
Misinformation poses a real and present threat to society and the official response is worthy of scrutiny. It is important that the public can trust governmental institutions and the information they provide.
It is easy to believe in conspiracy theories if you see your government as a monolith.
A little humanity can go a long way.
