Major Victory: Media Giants Admit Errors in 'Disinformation Dozen' Coverage

Posted on: Tuesday, September 10th 2024 at 7:30 pm

Written By: 

GreenMedInfo Research Group

In a turn of events, major media outlets are correcting their coverage of the "Disinformation Dozen," exposing the flaws in a widely circulated censorship campaign.

Quick Summary

• Major media outlets including The Independent, Forbes, and McGill University correct "Disinformation Dozen" coverage
• Meta's data shows named individuals responsible for 0.05% of vaccine content views, not 65% as claimed
• Legal implications emerge as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gains standing in Biden v. Missouri case
• CCDH and its CEO continue to spread debunked claims despite corrections

In a significant turn of events, major media outlets have begun to correct their previous reporting on the so-called "Disinformation Dozen," a group of 12 individuals accused by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) of being responsible for the majority of anti-vaccine content on social media platforms. This development marks a crucial step towards rectifying the record and vindicating free speech advocates in the realm of medical choices and informed consent.

The Far-Reaching Impact of the "Disinformation Dozen" Campaign

The "Disinformation Dozen" campaign, launched by the CCDH, had an unprecedented reach across various media platforms and search engines. At its peak, a search for "Disinformation Dozen" yielded approximately 500,000 results on Bing and 84,000 results on Google.1 This staggering number of search results underscores the campaign's extensive influence and the potential for widespread reputational damage to the individuals named.

Media Corrections

Three prominent media organizations have taken steps to address their earlier coverage:

1. The Independent: In response to a request for correction to the factual inaccuracy in their article titled "Study names 12 most dangerous anti-vaxxers in America" published on May 17th, 2021, the Managing Editor of The Independent added an update to their article, broadly stating Meta's objections to the CCDH study and providing a link for readers to view Meta's full statement.2
2. Forbes: After being contacted about the inaccuracies in their reporting in the article titled "De-Platform The Disinformation Dozen" published on Dec. 10th, 2021, Forbes added an update to the article referencing Meta's statement and the report's response.3
3. McGill University: The Office for Science & Society at McGill University has added a pinned comment to their YouTube video "A Dose of Science" from March 10, 2022, mentioning that Meta disputes the validity of the CCDH report and linking to Meta's blog post.4

These corrections come in the wake of Meta's August 2021 statement, which thoroughly debunked the CCDH's central claim. Meta revealed that the individuals named in the CCDH report were actually responsible for only about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook, not the 65% claimed by the CCDH.5

Long Overdue Corrections and Legal Implications

These corrections, while welcome, are long overdue. They may indicate a growing awareness among media outlets of their potential culpability and liability in wrongfully attacking the civil liberties of US citizens. The timing of these corrections coincides with positive momentum in the Biden v. Missouri case, which has recently seen a significant development: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the "Disinformation Dozen" members, has been found to have legal standing in the case.6

This ruling means that the Biden v. Missouri case could move forward to be ruled on its merits next year. If successful, it would demonstrate that those targeted in these media campaigns were indeed injured in fact. This could have profound ripple effects in terms of potential litigation against the thousands of media reports that amplified the CCDH's claims.

Ongoing Challenges and CCDH's Continued Misinformation

Despite these positive developments, significant challenges remain. The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and its CEO, Imran Ahmed, continue to perpetuate claims that have been thoroughly discredited, raising serious concerns about the ongoing reputational harm to the individuals named in their report.

A glaring example of this persistent misinformation is a recent article in Men's Health magazine titled "How to Keep Your Mind When You Fight Digital Hate All Day," which profiles Imran Ahmed.7 The article uncritically repeats the debunked claim that the "Disinformation Dozen" were responsible for 65 percent of online vaccine misinformation. This demonstrates a concerning lack of due diligence on the part of both the CCDH and the media outlets that continue to amplify these discredited claims.

The fact that such misinformation continues to be spread, even after Meta's clear refutation and the corrections made by other reputable media outlets, underscores the urgent need for accountability. It also highlights the responsibility of media organizations to fact-check claims, especially those that have been publicly disputed by authoritative sources.

Given the extensive damage already done to the reputations and livelihoods of the individuals named in the "Disinformation Dozen" report, there are growing calls for the CCDH to issue a comprehensive correction and retraction. The organization's reluctance to acknowledge the inaccuracies in its report, even in the face of contradictory evidence from platform owners like Meta, raises questions about its credibility and motives.

Academic Implications

The controversy surrounding the "Disinformation Dozen" report highlights a concerning trend in academic publishing. Despite Meta's refutation, some academic journals have published studies based on the CCDH's claims without acknowledging the dispute. This raises questions about the rigor of peer review processes and the potential for misinformation to be institutionalized within academic literature.8

A Step Towards Vindication

While the harm caused by the widespread dissemination of the CCDH's claims may never be fully undone (and still being actively perpetuated by platforms like Men's Health and CCDH's CEO Imran Ahmed), these media corrections represent a significant step towards vindication for free speech advocates, particularly those focused on medical choice and informed consent. The willingness of major outlets to revise their reporting demonstrates a commitment to accuracy and fairness in journalism. We are still waiting for responses from the following non-exhaustive media outlet list who uncritically and irresponsibly participated in the defamation of the 12 targeted US citizens: 

• Huffington Post 
• Newsweek
• Mashable
• BBC
• Self
• NPR
• Times of Israel
• The Guardian
• Business Insider
• AMA
• ProPublica
• Booz Allen Hamilton
• CNBC
• NBC
• ABC
• McGill University
• ScienceAlert
• DailyMailUK

Looking Forward

As this story continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder of the importance of critical thinking, fact-checking, and the need for media outlets to be willing to correct the record when presented with new information. It also underscores the potential consequences of rushing to judgment based on sensational claims without thorough verification.

The corrections made by these media outlets may pave the way for a more nuanced and accurate discussion of complex issues surrounding public health, free speech, and the role of social media in shaping public discourse. As we move forward, it is crucial that all parties involved - media outlets, researchers, and advocacy groups alike - commit to the highest standards of accuracy and transparency in their work.

Call to Action

In a coordinated effort, the individuals named in the "Disinformation Dozen" report and their supporters have reached out to several dozen other media outlets requesting similar corrections. This united front aims to ensure that the public record is set straight and that the reputational damage caused by the CCDH's claims is addressed. To support this campaign for accuracy and accountability in media reporting, please share this article widely. Your participation can help ensure that the record is corrected and that the public receives accurate information on these important issues.

---

References

1: Internal research conducted by GreenMedInfo, August 2024.

2: Richard Best, email message to Sayer Ji, August 7, 2024.

3: Melissa Delaney, email message to Sayer Ji, August 28, 2024.

4: Jonathan Jarry, email message to Sayer Ji, August 6, 2024.

5: Monika Bickert, "How We're Taking Action Against Vaccine Misinformation Superspreaders," Meta (blog), August 18, 2021, https://about.fb.com/news/2021/08/taking-action-against-vaccine-misinformation-superspreaders/.

6: Didi Rankovic, "RFK Jr. and CHD Cleared to Take Biden Administration to Court Over Censorship," Reclaim The Net, August 22, 2024, https://reclaimthenet.org/rfk-jr-and-chd-cleared-to-take-biden-administration-to-court-over-censorship/.

7: Marty Munson, "How to Keep Your Mind When You Fight Digital Hate All Day," Men's Health, August 2024.

8: GreenMedInfo Research Group, "'Disinformation Dozen' Study Relies on Disputed Data, Raising Questions of Bias," GreenMedInfo, June 30, 2024, https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/disinformation-dozen-study-relies-disputed-data-raising-questions-bias.