What is “Disinformation” According to The Experts in Disinforming

Part 3 in the series “Karina Shyrokykh & Martin Kragh Disinforming About Disinformation” (Part 1 here) (Part 2 here)

By Marcello Ferrada de Noli. Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology, esp. injury epidemiology, MED.DR. (Karolinska Institute, Sweden). Founder, Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights –SWEDHR

---

What is disinformation and what is information? How to know who is disinforming and, conversely, informing ethically and adequately? What information and disinformation do? The present section deals with flawed theoretical issues as appeared in “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation”[1]

Illogical premises

Recapping, leading premises in the article by associate professors Karina Shyrokykh and Martin Kragh in the journal European Security [1] about Swedish Doctors and Professors for Human Rights, [46] were:

a)  SWEDHR is a kind of “Black Knight NGO” that had a “significant role…in the international disinformation campaign surrounding key events in the Syrian Civil War” [3]. In the voice of the authors, our organization is “one of the most durable examples of online disinformation involving a black knight NGO”. [4]

b) “Black knight NGOs systematically promote views similar to those of the Kremlin and other authoritarian governments, and therefore, they are often described as pro-Kremlin by the media.” [47][48]

ERGO:

“Black Knight NGO” SWEDHR, “a case noteworthy in itself”, [4] promote disinformation at the service of the Kremlin, suggest the authors.

Before a corresponding rebuttal to such illogical syllogism, and to the repeated “pro-Kremlin” propaganda mantra [48] (which I will rebuke in later sections), I will examine their notion of “Disinformation”, their master-concept and leitmotiv used by the authors in their work.

“Disinformation” according to the experts in disinforming

Kragh has made himself a name as “expert” in disinformation. Yet, he and his colleague shown in their article to be incapable of themselves formulating an unequivocal definition of “disinformation”.

Notwithstanding the quoting of this and other scholar, what any reader can constate in the article by Shyrokykh and Kragh is that they basically offer a miscellaneous (and contradicting) definition or approaches to the concept of disinformation:

A. One of those it would refer to disinformation as intentional, destructive behaviour:

“Disinformation campaigns typically intend to obfuscate and sow doubt about the integrity and intentions of mainstream Western journalists, state agencies, and multilateral organizations.” [49]

“In the field of security studies, disinformation is typically defined as the systematic and deliberate dissemination of false or misleading information designed to deceive or confuse an adversary to promote one’s own agenda or secure one’s own interests”, quote the authors. [50]

The above represents a subjective assumption of bad faith towards SWDHR as organization, and to me as author of the articles in The Indicter which Shyrokykh and Kragh have commented. Such allegation, not being factual proven, has no place in a serious academic work. And I regard those malicious assumption as belonging to the same defamation style used by the authors when suggest that our academic competence on medical issues (such as injury epidemiology in the context of war casualties) might be a case of misrepresentation (see chapter 2, on “legitimacy”. Such as in:

“We show that [SWEDHR] by employing legitimation strategies through an appeal to legitimacy attributes and claimed competence, such actors can diffuse disinformation more broadly than individual social media users with a similar illiberal outlook.” (cursives are mine) [51]

“Although SWEDHR also engaged in promoting disinformation on other issues, the Syrian case has occupied a distinct place in their communications and was one of the most effective.” [52]

(Section 4 in this series will set the record strait about the SWEDHR comments regarding allegations of Syria gas attacks 2015–2019).

B. Disinformation as influencing tool

Shyrokykh and Kragh also write:

“Disinformation is essentially an attempt to influence a target group’s opinions or preferences and thereby affect its behaviour.” [53]

My comment: So, in which would, essentially, differ the role of disinformation with that of information?  Does not “information” –and information actors– pursue the same?

For example, the information given in the numerous appeals by health authorities in the US (e.g., Dr. Anthony Fauci, or even President Biden) or in the EU (Von der Leyen) to promote mass vaccination against the Covid infection –were not “essentially an attempt to influence a target group’s opinions or preferences and thereby affect its behaviour”?

Or, conversely, considering the critical opinions about anti-Covid mass vaccination –for instance by Robert Kennedy Jr. (nominated to be the next US health secretary)– would not the public estimate that what Fauci, Biden and Von del Leyen were doing was “systematic and deliberate dissemination of false or misleading information”? (see item A, above)

In other words, would not the public think that Fauci and Biden or Von del Leyen were indulging themselves in disinformation on behalf of pharmaceutical corporates such as Pfizer?

C. In sum, the authors conflate all over their piece the noun “Disinformation”:

i) In one segment of their reasoning, they simply equate “disinformation” with the act of “disinforming” (which appears a tautology, or exclusionary definition at best).

ii) Or “disinformation” as the opposite of what “information is” (which is a negative definition, or a definitional negation, thus deprived of logical meaning),[62] and,

iii) “Disinformation” as referred to the content of a published material they would consider false:

“…the generation and dissemination of false narratives, the selective use of facts, and a distorted interpretation of reality” [54]

The above –i.e., the reference to content– will be central in my rebuttal to Shyrokykh and Kragh in what their allegations on SWEDHR published materials or interview-opinions are concerned. Because, if “disinformation” is finally conceived by “the selective use of facts, and a distorted interpretation of reality”, then the authors have the onus probandi to demonstrate that the SWEDHR (or mine) publications in The Indicter contains “false narratives”. [which is a subject in Part 4 in this series].

Of course, they do not engage on such fact-analyses about what we have written or said in Swedish or international interviews. They won’t do it, can´t do it, in a serious, ethical academic manner. They just disqualify, call names (“pro-Kremlin”), hide or distort the truth about who we are academically, etc.  And it is because we only publish analyses based in verifiable facts, which question the narrative of those in power in NATO or the EU and of their mainstream media.

And that is the reason why all over their piece, even if citing or referring to a variety of titles of my articles in The Indicter (only titles, not texts), in no place they offer an argument as to why–according to them– what it is written there would be false or mistaken.

Adding dishonesty to unprofessionalism, in one part of their piece they quote a biased source (CODA) critical to the SWEDHR findings regarding the White Helmets fabricated medical proceedings. But Shyrokykh and Kragh do not mention at all that such CODA piece has been ground and detailed debunked in The Indicter, by two different authors. [55 ] [56]

Neither Shyrokykh & Kragh mention that CODA is a publication also financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), [57] an organization which is described as follows:

“Upon its founding, the NED assumed several former activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. Political groups, activists, academics, and some governments have accused the NED of being an instrument of U.S. foreign policy helping to foster regime change”. [58]

Neither the authors mention that the author of that CODA piece –which we entirely debunked– is Katarina Patin, an ex-collaborator in Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, [59] a US government-funded media organization. [60] Or that she is or has been an active collaborator in Eurasianet, even at the times when it was part of the Open Society Foundations founded by business magnate George Soros.

I have already noted in previous sections of this series that for these authors (Ukrainian and pro-NATO activists, respectively), “disinformation” is all what opposes, criticizes, correct or debunk the official narratives of NATO-countries and their EU partners, as well the mainstream media aligned with such positions, and NGOs serving their interests.

Why Shyrokykh and Kragh failed in their “academic” attack on SWEDHR?

I have previously referred to the frame of references of their hypotheses, and regarding the general aims of their study. Let me here recapitulate regarding their specific aims:

This is what the authors intend to “discover”, according to their statement:

“Rather than exploring these actors’ motives, we ask: whether and, if so, how disinformation by black knight NGOs spreads and what factors may facilitate this process?” [61]

Doing a breakdown of such declaration, it results that:

Investigation aims 1] would consist in explore “whether” an NGO spreads misinformation.

Investigation aims 2] “if so…how do they do it”.

Investigation aims 3] “what factors may facilitate this process?”

However, those two specific aims announced by the authors either failed to be answered in a contributory research manner via their work or have been already (and profusely) addressed in the research literature. For instance:

Aim 1 fails because the “discovering” that disinformation (as well as information) done by NGO it has been already much published. On illustration: searching in Research gate using the key words NGO, spread, disinformation together, it gave hundreds of articles. In Google Books a search using the same key words gives nearly 100 hits.

Aim 2 fails as well due to the also widely described fact that disinformation (as well as information) is conducted via social media –where Twitter (X) is a prominent part of.  Ergo, hardly a research news.

Aim 3 failed also because the authors false (in the sense of ‘not proven’) assumption that it is the “claimed legitimacy” of an NGO what decisively makes possible that a given disinformation (and information, for that part) spreads.

And I as commented before, the neglect of examine factors such as verifiability of information/disinformation’s actual content, as well as other relevant variables, inhibits the assumption (or “result” as Shyrokykh & Kragh called) that it would be a “perceived legitimacy” of given NGOs the factor which increases the spreading range of the “disinformation”.

The authors fail to see that, if the above would be true, it would be equally tenable in the case of “information spread” actors.

In the context of my criticism of this work by Katarina Shyrokykh and Martin Kragh, may I recall that during several years (two consecutive periods) I have been scientific alternative member of the Swedish Ethical Committee for Research, Uppsala –a position appointed by the government of Sweden. I have been also deputy head for Research Education in a Swedish university college, in Gävle. Added my own scientific research, or supervising doctoral theses, and also as peer-reviewer in a variety of international scientific journals– I have thus been trained by those experiences in the evaluation of academic works, research plans or research outputs. If I would have had the task of evaluate this research project, I would rule Katarina Shyrokykh and Martin Kragh’s project on “Black Knigt NGOs disinformation” as not acceptable. For being:

a)    Flawed because of ideologic political bias,

b)    carrying non-scientifically proved assumptions in its general aims,

c)    and or its faulty specific aims.

d)   For the conflating of variables in the Methods section (it wrongly assumed that each of the variables studied, i.e., @Swedhr, @The_Indicter, and @Professorsblogg, are of different sources –whereas all three correspond to the same one).

e)    For the lack of statistical significance in their “empirical” results.

f)     For using a negative definition approach of disinformation, “definition” method that has been discarded in science and logics since the times of Emmanuel Kant [62].

g)    For their tested hypotheses and results not contributing in any identifiable innovative matter.  

Are positions attributed to SWEDHR by associate Karina Shyrokykh and Martin Kragh truthful?

The breakdown of this question gives two aspects: one is related to the content of the information SWEDHR provided in the period of their investigation (2015–2019), categorized by the authors (with no proof, no reference to facts whatsoever) as “disinformation” ; the other has to do with suggested allegations from the part of the pro-NATO authors on whether SWEDHR investigations’ results –and opinions of its chairman done in some interviews– served “pro-Kremlin” narratives.

That will be the subject in a coming section of this series.

*[Fourth Part of this rebuttal to “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation” available here January 12, 2025] [The present texts may be subject to updates; References to be added]

Part 1 in the series “Karina Shyrokykh & Martin Kragh Disinforming About Disinformation” is found here

Part 2 in the series “Karina Shyrokykh & Martin Kragh Disinforming About Disinformation” is found here

 

 

---

REFERENCES & NOTES

1. Shyrokykh, Karina & Kragh, Martin: “Black knight NGOs and international disinformation”. European Security, 17 Dec 2024.
2. Id, page 3.
3. Id., page 9.
4. Id., page 4.
5. Id., Introduction.
6. Locke, John (1689), “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (chapter ‘Of Wrong Assent, or Error’). Pauline Phemister ed., OUP Oxford, 2008. ISBN 9780199296620.
7. “SDHR” https://tinyurl.com/yex6z4p4  (Retrieved 30 Dec 2024)
8. “SWEDHR”  https://tinyurl.com/bdz6zx2b (Retrieved 30 Dec 2024)
9. Wikipedia, Swedish Professors & Doctors for Human Rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights (Retrieved 28 Dec 2024)
10. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.
11. Id., page 13.
12. See “The Indicter Geopolitical magazine”
13. Aikin, Scott & Casey, John (2023). “Straw Man Arguments. A Study in Fallacy Theory”, page 53. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781350284708.
14. Shyrokykh & Kragh, op.cit., page 9.
15. Id., page 8.
16. Ferrada de Noli, M. “White Helmets video: Swedish doctors for human rights denounce medical malpractice and macabre ‘misuse’ of children for propaganda aims”. The Indicter 6 March 2017. (Reference “2017b” in Karina & Kragh, op.cit.)
17. Walton, Douglas (1998). “Ad Hominem Arguments”. Page 2 in section “Abusive and Circumstantial”. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0-8173-0922-0.
18. The Local (Sweden), “Solidarity brings hope: why Swedish support matters for us Ukrainians”, 2 March 2022
19. Karina Shyrokykh’s Linkedin post: “Support the 47th Brigade – Join Our Effort!” (Retrieved 28 December 2028)
20. Ferrada de Noli, M. Propaganda for war by proxy: Rebuttal to Martin Kragh’s flawed analysis in Swedish J Social Sciences 2020. Part 1. In:
    “Poltava’s geopolitical aftermath and the warmongering of Swedish elites”. The Indicter, 24 March 2021.
21. Atlantic Council Portal
22. Ferrada de Noli, M., “Integrity Initiative scandal reaches Sweden amidst deceiving media debate on Martin Kragh”. The Indicter, 15 Mar 2019.
23. Ferrada de Noli, M., “Propaganda for war by proxy: Rebuttal to Martin Kragh’s flawed analysis in Swedish J Social Sciences 2020. Part 2: The falsehoods”. The Indicter, 12 October 2021.
24. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.
25. Id., page 7.
26. Id., page 8.
27. Id.
28. Ferrada de Noli M. “Sweden’s Extraordinary Renditions and Arbitrary Detentions”, The Indicter,   https://theindicter.com/extraordinary-renditions-and-arbitrary-detentions/
29. Ferrada de Noli M.  United Nations HR sanctioned Sweden for violating the UN’s Absolute Ban on Torture
30. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 8.
31. Chen, Jing (2016). “How petitions assist decentralized authoritarianism in China”. Lexington Books, New York. ISBN 9781498534529. Page 165.
32. Provisions on defamation – the crimes of defamation and insult – are found in chapter 5 in the Swedish criminal code.
33. “The Strawman fallacy is a logical fallacy that involves misrepresenting an opponent’s position in order to make it easier to attack.” In “Logical Fallacies –Strawman”.
34. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 10.
35. Id., page 12
36. Larson, Adam. Analysis of evidence contradicts allegations on Syrian gas attacks. The Indicter, 5 April 2017.
37. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 8.
38. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.
39. Id.
40. Id.
41. Ferrada de Noli M. “Fighting Pinochet”. Libertarian Books Europe, Stockholm, 2022.
42. Ferrada de Noli M.
43. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 9.
44. Ferrada de Noli M., “How Sweden bribed its way to a seat in the UN Security Council using millions taken from the public budget for aid to poor countries”, The Indicter, 28 Dec 2026.
45. Epoch Times, “Platsen i FN:s säkerhetsråd kostade 27 miljoner”, 16 Jul 2027.

46. Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights
47. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 3.
48. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., “Notes”, page 16. art name page “Notes”, page 16: “For reports on chemical attack denials by SWEDHR see …”
49. Martin Kragh has been repeating this unfounded allegation since many years, without proof, against Swedish scholars or journalists who would, for instance, question the benefit of the country’s membership in NATO. For this bizarre behaviour he has been reported several times. Including by me upon the Swedish Journal of Social Sciences. During proceedings of a report on Kragh labelled scientific misconduct presented at the University of Uppsala, he had to back on those accusations referred to victims of such libel. See my article “Propaganda for war by proxy: Rebuttal to Martin Kragh’s flawed analysis in Swedish J Social Sciences 2020. Part 2: The falsehoods”.
50. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 1.
51. Id., page 2.
52. Id., page 4.
53. Id.
54. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 2.
55. Id., page 2.
56. Larson, Adam. Refuting the Coda Story’s narrative on Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. The Indicter, 11 Februry 2020.
57. Ferrada de Noli, M. Interference by journalists on sovereign opinions of professors, academics, and independent researchers, comprise infringements to Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Chapter III: “The Coda Story narrative is conceptually identical to Huff Post’s. In which way are they connected?” The Indicter, 7 February 2020.
58. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coda_Media. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
59. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
60. From Katarina Patin’s home page. Retrieved 4 Februrary 2020.
61. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
62. Shyrokykh, K & Kragh, M., op.cit., page 3.
63. Bencivenga, Ermanno (2007): “Ethics Vindicated. Kant’s Transcendental Legitimation of Moral Discourse. Oxford University Press, pages 168-169.