Thank you for the valuable information and particularly apposite examples of where information has been deliberately distorted or even invented, for the purpose of influencing others towards certain attitudes and beliefs. As you so aptly show, such a process has been around for centuries and probably millennia.

The one problem / issue / weakness I have with the article is that from its introduction and onwards it refers to its examples as misinformation when actually the content is about disinformation.

Although they both refer to erroneous statements, allegations, reports or whatever, there is, of course, a distinct and important difference between these two types of misleading information.

Misinformation refers to erroneous information that occurs without an intention to misrepresent. Its publisher may, themselves have been misled by documents and/or accounts that have every appearance of originating from valid and reliable sources. Misinformation may also occur because the originator is unskilled in the field on which they report or using source material that is no longer current or research findings from principal and highly regarded publications in a field but which have, unwittingly or unknowingly, published an article or peer group reviewed research report that is subsequently found to be flawed.

Disiniformation, which is the substantive topic of your article, is deliberately intended to misrepresent or to lie in order to produce a false feeling, attitude or understanding. This is exactly what your article has explained very well. It is what, as is also clear from your account, what, well before the digital age, we experienced and knew as propaganda, though possibly even worse because no longer is it predominantly the province of only governments or the very influential.

I don't raise this to be 'nit-picking' or to demean the article because I think the topic is extremely pertinent given the outstanding and constantly increasing amount of information being 'published' and circulated as a result of digital technology and widespread access to the Internet via the World Wide Web.

This phenomenon has made publication readily accessible to almost anyone and perhaps more importantly still, extremely wide circulation just as easily achieved through common 'social media' and other formats. Inevitably, the majority of the public not being experts, objective, well-educated or particularly articulate in either verbal or written form, this wide access readily facilitates the unwitting spread of misinformation.

So, I feel that it is important to make clear that there is a significant difference between the mis and the dis information and to alert that 'average' person to it. I have several times heard people, including even highly experienced and knowledgeable broadcasters or experts on panels, make statements suggesting that the two terms have the same meaning and casually dismissing their random use as an irritation rather than questioning why it exists.

I understand that today there is a general loss of respect for and appreciation of language and even an antipathy to any suggestion that grammar is necessary and spelling important, if one is to be able to make rational sense of what is said or written. However, though not the 'purist' that I am often accused of being and certainly not dismissive of those who through no fault of their own have never had the opportunity to achieve better use and comprehension of language, I do feel that it is incumbent on those with the intellect and inclination to voice significant information, that they do so as clearly and accurately as possible.

Thank you for the article.

Take care. Stay safe. ☮️

#borc