So here we are.  Donald Trump being inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States and Prime Minister, Teresa May, and a number of her cabinet colleagues, noising up the Europeans ahead of triggering article 50 and the start of the procedure to exit England out of the European Union.  (I think the Scots will rebel and will pitch to leave the United Kingdom.  Derek Batemans recent blog on this is worth a read).

In the space of eight months a shift has happened.  There appears to  be a move away from the status quo, a desire for change, a harking back to the past not the future.

Image courtesy of we-heart.com 

Few saw this coming;  the experts and the pollsters predicted incorrectly.  When the results of June 24 and November 9 poured in, many sat in disbelief and shock.  Discrediting experts started in the Brexit campaign and Trump has extended this to calling all media who criticise or challenge his thoughts or position as being ‘Fake News’.

It would seem in today’s world that being an independent voice, an expert, is not a positive attribute.  When most of the Western world has access to the vastness of the internet, many are not afraid to share their thoughts, views and opinions using social media.     Who needs experts when it’s possible to do a Google search on almost every topic imaginable?  And there is little repercussion if we communicate inaccurate information or portray opinion as fact. And adding to this dangerous powder keg  of division and bile are those who seem to think they are wearing an invisibility cloak as they post their views – much of which they would never say in person.  With today’s need for 24/7 news, we have created a golden gift for the uninformed, or unscrupulous politicians and leaders.

Not for a while has Europe and  America been this divided, so riven with fear and confusion. The rise of the far right again in countries such as France, Austria, The Netherlands, Belgium and Italy is deeply concerning.  And in the USA, not since its inception has a completely unproven and more divisive candidate ever risen to the office of President of the United States.    And tried to use 140 characters to bend the truth, openly lay bare his character and demonstrate that his focus is not on leading the free world but on narcissistic and trivial issues such as just how many people turn up to watch his inauguration.

With experts disavowed and a temperamental impetuous President able to reach for his phone to communicate directly his uninformed opinions and thoughts, the world becomes a more dangerous place.  The apparent triumph of opinion over fact, of popularism over expertise, of lies over truth, of doubt over certainty, has grave potential to misinform and even worse encourage misogynistic, xenophobic and racist behaviour and action. Combined with the high profile of the new President of the United States, bawling “Fake News!” every time news reports prove and discredit his rhetoric  (which is likely to turn into a daily farce) it begins to generate a climate of fear and distrust, of questioning and mis-belief and confuses the real fake news which Putin has been playing with over the past decade.

Of course, there has been much scepticism about the Russian’s use of Kompromat, particularly when much has been lauded about a new era of Russian/American relations and their supposed support for Trump.  Make no mistake – they are masters of this new cold cyber war, planting fake information to encourage free world voters to vote in a particular way and to feed the myriad of ever hungry news media.  I’m not the only one who looked at the Facebook post which stated that Donald Trump had previously said;

“if I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”

I didn’t re-post it; but I didn’t challenge it either.  Everything I’ve seen or heard about Trump made me think, he could have said this.  And this is one of the more tame examples.  An Ipsos poll recently conducted in the US found that 75% of American adults who were familiar with a fake news headline viewed the story as accurate.

The recent Buzzfeed leaked story about Russian “ladies” and Mr Trump was an interesting case in point.  Look at how the axis of the story turned, more column inches trying to discredit an ex MI6 officer known for his Russian intelligence expertise, rather than what this was saying about character and judgement of the then President elect; a very clever and effective piece of PR.  And for all of the denials coming out of the Kremlin, you only need to study Putin’s body language at the press conference held to deny the Kompromat allegations, to see a Master at play.

For valid and proven examples of just how much the Russians are investing in misinformation and propaganda, follow StopFake.org on Twitter and perhaps even donate.  Paying for well researched, corroborated and factual news reports may be one of the ways we can ensure we have a better version of truth in the years ahead. Let’s not be lulled into cosy comradeship ‘BS’ – the Russians are well schooled in this cyber-war.  And don’t get confused between this and Trump’s versions of ‘Fake News!’.  I believe they both want the same outcomes – to destabilise and discredit news reporting which challenges their actions and ideology.  To create fear and mistrust in established  organisations, in experts, so that when Putin or Trump are called to account over actions in places like Syria or the Middle East, they can manipulate or shout Fake News!  And the electorate, with doubt in their hearts, turn on each other.  But there the similarities end.  Trump is the amalgam of Billy Graham and Ian Paisley when they were spitting and spewing hell, fire and damnation from the pulpit.  Putin is the New Seekers crooning Kumbaya, lulling us into singing and swaying along.

But even valid news sources can be undermined by opinions of individual members of the general public.  Only last week the BBC trust upheld a complaint against Laura Kuenssberg, BBC’s  Political Editor,  for an interview she did with Jeremy Corben in which she had been accused  of inaccuracy.  And if you watch and read the reporting, this is a very tenuous complaint. I happen to really like her, she appears to operate from a place of great insight and integrity and is not afraid to call a spade a spade when necessary.  She’s been reporting on politics for many years and is widely regarded by her bosses as being “tough, influential, exceptional and hugely knowledgeable about Westminster politics”.  James Harding, BBC head of news,  made clear they support her completely and while respecting the Trust, they disagreed with this finding. However, it was disappointing that they did not report on this story more widely.  Democracy is not a linear process but it flourishes in climates of openness and trust.

It is easy to discredit experts and the media when we hear stories or reports that we don’t agree with, or dislike.  And while a cornerstone of democracy is that we each have the right to have our own beliefs,   to say and write what we think , and have the right to seek different sources of information and ideas,  we also all have a responsibility to share our expertise, knowledge and information appropriately, depending on our audience and their current knowledge and expectations.  And to use social media tools wisely.  Any fool can spout their thoughts, but a well-known, visible, powerful fool has a different level of accountability for the words they use.  Crafting a compelling but accurate narrative, appropriate to our audience, is the responsibility of any communicator.  For if we deliberately set out to mislead our audience, to create an environment where only our voice speaks the truth with no room for dissent or dialogue,  we are no better than the men of old; creating stories, and fear, by the casting of  stones.