This is a story of defamation as applied by those who seek to promote the concept of “fake news”. Of course it’s just one of the many possible examples all over the world.
An article of Tiziana de Giorgio for the italian newspaper La Repubblica is denounceable, while at the same time it serves as an excelent example of the workings of those who claim (even without any solid justification except their own) to ‘uncover’ what they call “fake news” and “conspiracy theorists”. “They” in general are the national or corporate news outlets, be it TV, newspaper or on the internet, in this case the Italian newspaper “La Repubblica”. Once this newspaper was considered to be objective and honest enough to be chosen by Julian Assange and Wikileaks to publish whistleblowers leaks. These leaks generally confirmed that what was considered to be “Fake News” or “Conspiracy Theory” actually turned out to be True News or Conspiracy Facts.
In just the title, subtitle and first paragraph of the article Tiziana de Giorgio has managed to achieve a considerable high density of non-seriousness and professionality as supposed journalist.
- The title itself,
expressed in a forceful and harsh manner, calls for several questions about the assumptions it embodies:- Who decides who is a conspiracy theorist or not? Tiziana de Giorgio herself? The newspaper La Repubblica?
- Why should critical thinking be confused with conspiracy theory?
- Tiziana did not ask for any permission to use the photo, nor contacted or informed the source.
Even if not legally or journalistically required, it shows Tiziana’s and therfore La Repubblica’s (hierna: Tiziana) total absence of both personal and professionial respect towards the source of the article, more so, using the photo for criticism and even judgement thereof. - Photo is chopped off:
- The logo of CLN is not shown, while it was put on the leaflet precisely with the intention to be identified and diferentiated from other groups that could be expected to be present at the exposition due to it’s provocative character.
- Part of the title of the leaflet is chopped of, leaving it mutilated. “Who decides who is a conspiracy theorist?” is a very different question than just “who is a conspiracy-theorist?”
– If this was deliberate then it could be understood as malicious intentions.
– If, on the contrary, this happend by accident it can be seen as incompetent fotography or lay-out.
- Additionally the photo is taken totally out of context:
- The subtitle that serves at the same time as the caption of the photo states: “…’they’ left writings […] and fake excrements…” leading to believe that the organization associated with the leaflet would be the same as the people that supposedly (because not proved in the article) left the writings and the excrements as well as to be No-Vax (again, all without any proof).
- In the first paragraph, to begin with Tiziana de Giorgio happily allows herself to judge the critics of the use of the experimental serum (officially declared as such by the EU itself due to lack of compliance with official standards and definitions for real vaccines) using the term “no-vax” with the clear and only intention to denigrate.
- Additionally, Tiziana de Giorgio also takes the liberty to arbitrarily sum up a number of references that are exlusively NON demonstrated and not verifiable, as in the subtitle.
- Tiziana talks about “they”, throwing together several possible groups as if they were one and the same while the organization of the leaflets had nothing to do with the writings or the false excrements.
She also associates the leafletting directly with critics of the experimental serum, which are different groups and obvious to differentiate when being present, but not when merely being red. Again:
– If this was deliberate then it could be understood as malicious intentions.
– If, on the contrary, it was by accident then it can be seen as incompetent journalism.
Basically the whole article is based on Tiziana de Giorgio’s personal judgement about what should be considered “fake news” or “conspiracy theory” and its supporters. However, she provides no tangible proof, as a good journalist with respect for the subject, its readers and transparency would have, except for what she would have seen or heard herself and using one common denominator for the various groups that are critical of the “Fake News Exhibition”.
It is certainly curious and ironic, and even funny, that Tiziana is using precisely those mechanism of which she claims are the tools of this so-called “fake news”.
It’s useful to bear in mind that the whole concept of “Fake News” has been created and promoted by those who
References
