Misinformation about disinformation in the trophy hunting debate
Sustainable use activists told a UK hunting and gun website that anti-trophy hunting groups are spreading disinformation.
There is a lot of misinformation about disinformation in the trophy hunting debate. I understand this can sound confusing so let me try to break this down.
Misinformation is false information. Someone spreading misinformation is wrong.
Disinformation is false information that is intended to deceive people. Someone spreading disinformation is lying.
Misinformation about disinformation is when someone is wrong about someone else lying.
To see this in action, we only have to look at an article from the UK hunting and gun website Shooting UK that featured sustainable use activists discussing the “avalanche” of misinformation against trophy hunting.
Adam Hart stated, “The misinformation (some might term it disinformation) being put forward in the trophy hunting debate is exceptional.”
Oh, Adam, don’t be such a tease! Please tell us who these folks are that “might term it disinformation.”
Since he won’t spill the beans, I’ll do a quick Google search to see who’s talking about disinformation and trophy hunting…
I know Google builds search results based on personal interests but it seems my story about the trophy hunting industry spreading disinformation sure comes up a lot. I wonder why Hart never mentions that I discovered that the trophy hunting industry was conducting a multimillion-dollar disinformation campaign?
Other than the Shooting UK article, the only references to disinformation against trophy hunting appear to be in a blog post by Amy Dickman, a sustainable use activist known for potential conflicts of interest with the trophy hunting industry, and an advocacy campaign by Safari Club International, an American trophy hunting group that funded a disinformation campaign promoting trophy hunting. Neither Dickman nor Safari Club International provide actual evidence of disinformation though.
[Dickman was also one of the most featured people in the trophy hunting industry’s disinformation campaign. She knows this because I personally discussed it with her.
For all of Dickman’s op-eds criticizing anti-trophy hunting groups, I have yet to read an op-ed of hers where she criticizes the disinformation or use of her image by the trophy hunting industry.]
The Google results should clue you in to the legitimacy of the claim that there is disinformation against trophy hunting. Not to mention that Hart said this in an article for a hunting and gun website that was then shared by other trophy hunting groups, like CIC, on social media.
Nikolaj Bichel noted, “While you can find misinformation on both sides of the trophy hunting debate when you really get into it, the misinformation that the general public encounters is largely one-sided.”
He then added that the UK’s Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting is “so riddled with disinformation that the public has no chance of making an informed decision if this is their only source of information.”
Ah, so Bichel must be one of those folks “terming it disinformation” that Hart was referring to! But where is the evidence of disinformation, Nikolaj?
This is a problem. You can’t just say that an organization is guilty of spreading disinformation without providing evidence. While proving someone is wrong can be relatively easy with publicly available facts, proving someone is lying is much more difficult and practically needs an admission of guilt from the accused.
For instance, I was able to determine that the trophy hunting industry was spreading disinformation because they admitted to it.
Inclusive Conservation Group told Safari Club International that they take “the exact words and facts from the SCI web pages and simply present it through an African’s voice” and that they have “been conducting information operations” as part of “irregular warfare.”
The group’s tagline was ““shape, inform, manipulate, mislead, expose, diminish, promote, deceive, coerce, deter, mobilize, convince.”
Even if you think that Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting’s is spreading misinformation, there is no evidence that suggests that they are doing so with the intention of deceiving people. To say the campaign is spreading disinformation is false.
This is how we get a situation where sustainable use activists appear to be spreading misinformation about disinformation in the trophy hunting debate.
Safari Club International was the first organization to launch a public campaign to fight ‘disinformation’ coming from anti-trophy hunting groups. Yet, they funded a disinformation campaign that targeted Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting.
Now we have sustainable use activists claiming that anti-trophy hunting groups are spreading disinformation, and specifically accusing Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, in an article for a hunting and gun website.
How interesting…