Thread by @docrussjackson

#THREAD

A literature review compiled by @transparify shows news Editors & journalists fail to distinguish between genuine think tanks that conduct independent policy research, & fake tanks that abuse the label to surreptitiously promote vested interests of hidden paymasters.

Due to the financial opacity of fake tanks, it's impossible to tell whether those who pull the strings behind the scene are domestic or foreign players: Tufton St's Adam Smith Institute is so opaque it is not only unclear who gives the money, but also which entities spend it.

Such hidden influence is especially worrying when self-proclaimed ‘think tanks’ use the media to shape coverage of party politics in the run-up to an election.

The IEA released a statement in the run-up to #GE2017 denouncing @UKLabour's manifesto as “delusional & incoherent”.

The IEA took down the statement from its website, but an archived version is still available online.

The IEA did not back up its claims with a study, & it refuses to disclose who funds it, but at least two major UK news outlets covered its commentary.
web.archive.org/web/2017051709…

For now at least, there are rules to ensure there is transparency around spending on campaigning at elections, but this does not cover editorial content, & there are no mandatory requirements for charities or think tanks to disclose who funds them.

https://twitter.com/docrussjackson/status/1563124484281753601?s=20&t=5zlzzfNQ4T4BOXJnVP4oBQ

In short, there appear to be no effective legal or regulatory barriers preventing fake tanks backed by secretive players from setting up shop in London and using attention-grabbing press releases to generate fake news.

#EnoughIsEnough

transparency.org.uk/fake-news-fake…

Who runs Britain?

https://twitter.com/docrussjackson/status/1563856820967464960?s=20&t=2UsNRgvhliVbW0ue7cg3zg