Thread by @dgurdasani1

.@TheTelegraphUK has played a key role in putting out misinformation, undermining trust in experts, at critical points during the pandemic when action could've saved lives. Casting doubt on experts meant that govt inaction was normalised. Sadly, the damage is already done.

https://twitter.com/imperialcollege/status/1503633117369843713

Worth remembering that MSM doesn't just report the news- it creates the narrative it wants. As the role of the media misinformation is discussed in the context of Russian oligarch ownership of newspapers, it's worth remembering the distortion of truth that pervades our news.

It's not just the distortion of truth in one respect- it's distortion in all respects. COVID-19 has been a clear area of propaganda and misinformation to justify govt policy. As a scientist I can say honestly that much of the media doesn't represent scientific consensus at all.

I hope that recent revelations push more critical scrutiny of how information is provided by the MSM to the public, and how distortion of reality harms public health in a pandemic. The MSM played a key role in supporting and pushing false dichotomies between health & economy.

It leaned into conflating any mitigation with lockdown, into mask scepticism, anti-vaxx narratives for children and minimisation of impacts of COVID-19 - including long COVID. GBD narratives were widely platformed. They'll say it's because of 'balance' but there's no balance here

Platforming pseudoscience isn't 'balance'. It's harmful. It's also clear that experts who push a certain view (hopium, 'mildness', 'endemicity') are repeatedly platformed despite a long history of being wrong again and again- a history that must surely be known to the media.

I have pointed this out whenever I've been asked to engage in a 'debate' with known COVID-19 minimisers. When I bring it up, it's clear they know. It's not an information problem. It's a narrative problem & narratives that don't fit in aren't presented or are falsely balanced.

I've to date had 7-8 pre-interviews with BBC Newsnight- Each time was told the programme took 'a different direction' & I wouldn't be needed anymore. During each pre-interview it was clear to me the interviewer didn't quite like the opinion provided.

My opinion didn't fit the narrative. And when I've watched the interviews (with other experts) later, the direction hadn't changed- but the narrative was different to the one I'd put forward. Now, I just don't do pre-interviews with them because I know it's a waste of my time.

This is just one example, but there are many many more. Also, I've refused to do a lot of media panels when they've included 'experts' with a long history of minimising people's suffering, and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

People can have different opinions on this- my reason for doing this initially was to avoid giving legitimacy to false arguments. Of course, much of the time, when I take this stand, I'm the one bowing out, so those opinions get heard anyway, so one could argue it's a bit useless

More lately, I do this because 'debating' people who minimise this suffering comes at a personal cost - because of everyone I know that's been impacted & also the impacts I've faced as a clinically vulnerable person. I can no longer bear to hear that my life isn't worth much.

I know there are many others like me - those who decided the personal cost of media & all the attacks from colleagues, the career losses weren't worth it. Most are women. Ultimately, the way MSM works means we almost never see the consensus without 'balance' with fringe views.

And fringe views become mainstream. And are widely platformed on social media, because again, social media spread of tweets doesn't reflect reality at all. Remember Brexit? Remember the UK election? The huge skewing of reality in MSM and social media. It's the same with COVID-19.

Ultimately, this leads to chaos, confusion, to the point it's impossible for even motivated public to get an idea of what the reality of global scientific consensus is. Because even fringe scientists views are so widely platformed, they seem mainstream.

Some of this is the way twitter works (fake news goes further), but some of this is coordinated misinformation and disinformation campaigning, and there are networks that have had huge influence, both through social media, and through back channels with MSM.

The connections between HART, an anti-vax, anti-mask lobby group, and the Telegraph, Talk radio, as revealed through the HART leaks is just one example of this. There are many more networks that likely exist, that we don't even see.

And there are networks with government ministers as well- the HART and the CRG. So these fringe networks, which are just a handful of scientists with fringe opinions have massive influence on policy through backdoors.

Global Collateral essentially paid to get an APPG panel their scientists could sit on, so it could give itself influence and legitimacy. These are scientists who are known to put out misinformation and have pushed for policies that have cost thousands of lives, but here we are.

We need to really understand why fringe narratives and fringe scientists have been afforded platforms over the global scientific consensus again and again. At the detriment of everything- society, public health and economy. There are many actors, and many who are responsible.

Will there every be accountability or change? Not unless there is more public awareness, and greater challenge to what we see and hear. We live in a reality shaped by the media, and it's worth understanding the lens we see reality through.

If you want to know more about misinformation/spin/framing of narratives during the pandemic the people to follow are @karamballes @_johnbye @Aw_what @LogicallyAI @carolecadwalla @mariannaspring @MoriartyLab @YouAreLobbyLud who have played an important role in highlighting this.