You Are Not Immune to Right-Wing Disinformation

Propaganda is more than bad memes and conspiracy theories

The past few months has seen arguably the most pervasive and effective right-wing disinformation campaign ever seen. It wasn’t for a political campaign. It wasn’t for a support or opposition of a bill. It was in favour of misogyny and pushing stereotypes of women being manipulative liars and white men being oppressed victims. It was about the Depp/Heard defamation trial.

The allegations of domestic abuse in the relationship originally spread in circles condemning the abuse and supporting Heard. An example of the web culture of the time, you may have seen the trending hashtag #johnnydeppisoverparty way back in 2016.

☽☾ @eddy_321

#JohnnyDeppisoverparty and everyone is invited

In 2019, Depp filed the defamation lawsuit against Heard for her referring to herself as becoming a “public figure representing domestic abuse”. It wasn’t until 2020, when The Daily Mail, noted right-wing rag, released an audio recording of an argument between Depp and Heard, that the male underpinnings of much of the web starting turning its attention to the story.

You can see Twitter users digging up old posts about the subject to claim they “aged very poorly”, and other comments.

While most are probably more familiar with the onslaught of coverage of the defamation trial, the backlash started with the singular audio recording, and a group reminiscent of the demographics behind the gamergate harassment campaign took it and ran with it.¹

It wasn’t simply that young men online were quick to jump on an opportunity to blame a woman, but grew into a broader project for the right-wing propaganda ecosystem. An example of this is The Daily Wire, outlet run by noted far-right troll Ben Shapiro, spent tens of thousands of dollars promoting articles hostile to Heard.²

The consequence to all the coverage being slanted articles portraying Heard as a abuser and liar, led to a broad public opinion to adopt that perspective. It wasn’t until there was a progressive feminist backlash at the end of the trial that we saw a different perspective in media.

There is little difference between thinking Depp was innocent and many other conspiracies from the far-right (If you’d like further details on the claims vs reality of the trail, Michael Hobbes has a good write-up). It’s about taking disparate facts and weaving a loose narrative while omitting pertinent details. When someone views the ideas that the Earth is flat, or that the moon landing never happened, or that there’s a secret shadow government controlling everything, it’s viewed as outlandish because the overall claim falls outside the bounds of what is intuitively considered reasonable, but when the information consumed is curated, the claims start to feel real.

Curated being the key word. It used to be more fringe to find these types of conspiracies, because the information didn’t come easily, and would be in bits and pieces. Now, online sites and communities will place the information in front of you. YouTube will recommend videos based on what you’ve watched, and after you watch one, it will recommend more, which can lead down a rabbit-hole of extremist content.³ Twitter will do the same for tweets and who to follow, and starts with recommendations right at sign-up. This can create a bubble of self-reinforcement. It is especially problematic in far-right spaces as conservatives, particularly those with a bent for chaos, are more likely to share disinformation.⁴⁵

It’s natural to take the fact that this is a very conservative phenomenon that if they aren’t in that bubble, that they are safe. But the information that comes out of that bubble often then filters through and is sanitized through a mainstream media with a need to highlight controversy and present a both-sides narrative.

Just today, an article from the New York Times presented this headline and subheading

This is trivially false. The medical community is not divided. Every accredited medical body recognizes the need for affirmative transgender care, including notably in terms of children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, which sets out clear guidelines.⁶ Despite this, serving the controversy and both-sides narratives, the author cites, uncritically, an anti-trans, pro-conversion therapy lobbying group and takes their claims at face value. The provided Twitter thread goes into more detail.

“Bespoke” Lee @thatweirdolee

Emily, I am gravely disappointed. You also spoke to us. We were pretty clear in our warnings, and I explained how youth are capable of making complex medical decisions as someone who grew up disabled. We also spoke about detransition as a conversion practice. That didn’t stick.

Emily Bazelon @emilybazelon

I also talked to many young people and parents for this story. Their voices stayed with me. Thank you all for talking to me. I learned a ton from you. I’ve tried to represent many points of view in my piece.

The only reason this comes up in the New York Times as a story about division is that there is a far-right hate campaign towards LGBTQ+ people generally, and trans people specifically.⁷ This campaign includes far more explicit and inciteful rhetoric when read directly; a recent example being pastor Mark Burns who is running for congress for South Carolina’s 4th district, during an appearance on a far-right web series The Stew Peters Show, calls for the execution of LGBTQ+ people while the host smiles and responds with, “You know what South Carolina, this is our guy”

Erin Reed @ErinInTheMorn

This is one of the scariest videos I’ve seen. I don’t know what more to say. Candidate Mark Burns (a Trump ally), running for SC-04, calls for the execution of lgbtq/trans people. He uses “grooming” to justify. He lays out exactly how it should be “legally” done. Genocide.

If you merely ask, “Is the New York Times a credible source?” reasonable people, including myself, will say, “Yes!”. But there is no perfect source. Any information, particular the more spectacular or the more targeted toward a vulnerable minority, the more likely more sources need to be required to accept it. Additionally, we are all going to be wrong sometimes. We all currently carry partially or wholly incorrect beliefs. As such, it is important to maintain the ability to consider new information, and accept mistakes, learn new facts, and change our opinions when justified. Never assume you’re above it all. We’re all in the same muck, so we’re all going to get dirty.

1. From Gamergate to AmberTurd: The alt-right is hijacking the Depp v Heard trial. (2022, May 27). The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/depp-heard-trial-gamergate-amberturd-altright-b2088919.html

2. The Daily Wire Spent Thousands of Dollars Promoting Anti-Amber Heard Propaganda. (2022, May 19). Vice.com. https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ab3yk/daily-wire-amber-heard-johnny-depp

3. The Making of a YouTube Radical (Published 2019). (2022). The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html

4. Conservatives Are More Likely To Share Fake News — But Only If They Are Low In Conscientiousness. (2021, December 8). Research Digest. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2021/12/08/conservatives-are-more-likely-to-share-fake-news-but-only-if-they-are-low-in-conscientiousness/

5. Dolan, E. W. (2021, November 23). Study finds conservatives with a need for chaos are more likely to share fake news. PsyPost; PsyPost. https://www.psypost.org/2021/11/study-finds-conservatives-with-a-need-for-chaos-are-more-likely-to-share-fake-news-62160

6. Sulaski, A. (2022, January 6). AAP continues to support care of transgender youths as more states push restrictions. American Academy of Pediatrics. https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/19021/AAP-continues-to-support-care-of-transgender

7. Elle. (2022, April 25). “I’m Not Political.” Substack.com; Welcome to Elle. https://welcometoelle.substack.com/p/im-not-political?s=r#%C2%A7cisgender-and-straight‌