This is pretty funny. The following essay expounds on the fact that there is a lack of trust in the country and somehow manages to avoid mentioning the lies of government agencies and the lies of the media for the last seven or eight years.
It's akin to, and as crazy as, Barbara Fried saying the prosecutors have ruined her family's reputation. Sam and Gabe and herself and Mr. Bankman. Reputations ruined.
From The Rand Review, June 28:
America's troubled relationship with facts is putting national security at risk. A recent RAND paper warned that “Truth Decay”—the diminishing role of facts and analysis in public life—could weaken our military, costs us credibility with our allies, and calls into question our ability to respond to the next big crisis.
Experts from across RAND described Truth Decay as a “huge vulnerability,” an “obvious one,” “a strong weapon” in the hands of our adversaries. Yet the full extent of the damage we are doing to ourselves is only just beginning to come into focus.
“We're stuck in a cycle,” said Caitlin McCulloch, an associate political scientist at RAND who coauthored the paper. “Polarization is feeding into Truth Decay, Truth Decay is feeding into polarization, and round and round we go. The harm that cycle is doing to our national security has not been fully explored.”
Truth Decay is more than just a fact-free rant on cable television or a conspiracy theory bouncing around social media. RAND uses the term to describe a society pulling apart over basic facts, with opinion too often standing in for analysis and debates hardening into distrust. It helps explain why nearly two-thirds of Americans in a recent NPR/Ipsos poll said U.S. democracy is in crisis and at risk of failing.
Not so long ago, political experts assumed foreign policy and national security were above the public fray. They were the domain of diplomats, intelligence agents, and other career specialists. The average person on the street couldn't find most countries on a map, the thinking went—much less have a meaningful impact on the affairs of state. One pundit in the 1950s described the public as a “prehistoric monster” when it comes to foreign affairs—”with a body as long as this room and a brain the size of a pin.”
Public opinion—often shaped by politicians and other leaders—can exert a powerful force on questions of war, peace, and national security. That gives Truth Decay a way in.
That's not the going theory anymore. Research has shown that public opinion—often shaped by politicians and other leaders—can exert a powerful force on questions of war, peace, and national security. A 2019 study, for example, found that members of the Israeli parliament were 16 percentage points more likely to authorize a military strike when they thought that's what the public wanted. That gives Truth Decay a way in.
RAND has worked for years now to better understand and combat Truth Decay. It has shown how America's media echo chambers feed into Truth Decay; how online trolls from Russia and China exploit it; how it fires up controversies over everything from racial justice to mask mandates. But researchers had not fully assessed the many ways that Truth Decay could harm national security.
McCulloch and coauthor Heather Williams, a former intelligence officer, decided that needed to change. They convened focus groups and interviews with nearly three dozen experts at RAND, specialists in military strategy, terrorism, foreign policy, history, and political science. They asked the experts to identify vulnerabilities—some obvious, some not—where Truth Decay could undercut national security. They defined “national security” broadly, as the safeguarding of people, places, and the American way of life.
The experts generally agreed that Truth Decay is getting worse. Several said they think political leaders now lie more shamelessly and more constantly about issues of national security. Some had worked in the Intelligence Community and described trying to brief “very ideological” policymakers who would sometimes reject assessments that didn't fit their views....
....MUCH MORE
A quick search of the PDF shows that the vast majority of the occurrences of the word "media" are preceded by the word "social". They don't seem to be interested in the fact the old media was the greatest distributor, and often the greatest creator of the lies the public has been subjected to over the last decade.
It is hard to find a more egregious example of those so-called experts engaging in their deceptions than this piece by Natasha Bertrand, now lying at CNN but then doing her lying at Politico:
National Security
Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say
More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president’s son....
....MUCH MORE
The letter, dated October 19th 2020 shows the frame of mind of the signatories and is very careful to plant the seed while attempting to cover the bullshit with a fig leaf of deniability.
"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not, and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement—just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case."
It continues:
If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this electon, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.
There are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement.....
Emphasis in original.
That's Truth Decay in action.
They knew all they had to do was maintain the story until the November 3 Presidential election. and then they could come out with stuff like this, last May:
Ex-CIA chief admitted that the 'Dirty 51' letter 'WAS political'
That's John Brennan. If you ever have him over for dinner, count the silverware before he leaves.
Thieves lie and liars steal, it's what they do.
