The article is saying that the left has drummed up big claims about disinformation, and that the claims are not justified, and that the claims are mostly made by elitist leftist institutions which are in trouble.
It seems a lot more nuanced than the “left v right” framing, which I appreciated.
The quote doesn’t; the article does. Three paragraphs earlier than the quote:
> This will ring true to anyone who follows the current media discussion around online propaganda. “Misinformation” and “disinformation” are used casually and interchangeably to refer to an enormous range of content, ranging from well-worn scams to viral news aggregation; from foreign-intelligence operations to trolling; from opposition research to harassment. In their crudest use, the terms are simply jargon for “things I disagree with.” Attempts to define “disinformation” broadly enough as to rinse it of political perspective or ideology leave us in territory so abstract as to be absurd.
There are also long sections - too long to quote - arguing that “fake news” appears to have basically negligible impact.
I don’t mean to drag into a long back-and-forth; I am just perplexed because we both seem well-intentioned but come away with nearly opposite impressions of the article.
Yeah, because the article is about "Selling the story of disinformation" - that's the subtitle. It's about lefty groups crying foul.
I think I understand where we read things differently, if you viewed it as being about disinformation. I viewed it as about the stories around disinformation that the NYT and co. like to publish.
The article is saying that the left has drummed up big claims about disinformation, and that the claims are not justified, and that the claims are mostly made by elitist leftist institutions which are in trouble.
It seems a lot more nuanced than the “left v right” framing, which I appreciated.