A few weeks ago we pointed out for the umpteenth time that RealClearEnergy original “pieces” are basically just industry ads masquerading as op-eds. While that remains the case, they're hardly alone.
Here's three other disinfo outlets running extended ads as op-eds:
First, the Daily Caller on Monday published a piece criticizing the Federal Reserve's climate-related risk guidance for banks. The crucial information is actually the author's bio: "David Waugh is a business development and communications specialist at Coinbits. He previously served as the managing editor at the American Institute For Economic Research."
Why would anyone care about someone who still pushes the bitcoin scam, because he's got an obvious financial stake in it? And then, of course, who also worked at a Koch-ed up Covid-conspiracy-peddling group?
Waugh's two claims to fame are both big red flags that scream "financially invested in stopping regulations," but for a disinfo outlet like the Daily Caller, that's all the qualification that's needed.
It's not much better at the Washington Examiner, which also on Monday republished an anti-Electric Vehicle post from the billionaire-backed Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal blog by the Heritage Foundation's Diana Furchtgott-Roth. That’s the functional equivalent of letting a barrel of oil sign an op-ed.
And then there's NewsMax, which also ran a finance-themed anti-climate-policy op-ed on Monday afternoon, criticizing the SEC's forthcoming proposal to require companies to disclose the risks they face from climate change. Companies addressing risk is a bad thing, basically, says Todd Johnston; Johnston’s bio says that he is the "vice president of policy at ConservAmerica" who "has also represented various industries on policy and regulatory compliance matters."
In other words, a guy who businesses paid to help them figure out a way around policies to protect the public from their profit-driven harms thinks a regulation is bad. What a shocker!
All of this is painfully par for the course. But what is shocking, if only a little, is the breadth of industrial information operations. These three posts didn't take all week to find- they were all published within a two-hour window on Monday.
The Daily Caller's op-ed arguing against government regulations, by someone who financially benefits from a lack of government regulations, was published at 12:52 PM on Oct 30. The Washington Examiner's op-ed arguing against climate policy, by someone who is financially dependent on billionaires whose profits are threatened by climate policy, ran just over a half hour later, at 1:28 PM on Oct 30. And the Newsmax op-ed opposing government regulations, by someone who has financially benefited from helping businesses oppose government regulations, was published a little over an hour later at 2:39PM on Oct 30.
It’s likely that no one is taking this stuff particularly seriously. But the constant stream of disinfo, the steady pulse hammering away at the digital information ecosystem, creates a surround sound effect that validates the politicians who take up these false narratives, creating the appearance of broad support out of industry's constant propping up of propaganda.
So when reading an op-ed anywhere dicey, or really anywhere, it may help to take a look at the byline first, and make sure you're reading an actual opinion, and not an advertisement!