AN AGNOTOLICAL APPROACH TO GAZA: intentionally creating doubt and ignorance
On 7 October 2023, Hamas launched an incursion into Israel, resulting in widespread human rights abuses and a significant loss of life. Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit (I-Unit) analysed the events using footage from various sources and compiled a detailed list of casualties. While the investigation uncovered some atrocities, it also debunked certain claims made by Israeli officials, such as mass killings and systematic rape, the beheading and burning of 40 babies and widespread atrocities against children — claims that were mostly unverified, exaggerated or misinterpreted and later retracted by global media outlets.
The analysis also highlighted incidents where Israeli forces may have inadvertently caused civilian casualties. Ultimately, the investigation emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of narratives during such conflicts.
The aim of this article is neither to verify nor debunk these claims. Enough has been published over the past 18 months to satisfy the need for truth, even though truth is often only accepted as a confirmation of pre-existing beliefs and prejudices. Instead, the purpose of this essay is to delve into the conditions that enable misinformation to thrive and to examine the concept of “AGNOTOLOGY“—the study of intentionally creating doubt and ignorance: The age-old principle of not letting facts spoil a good story (or, in this case, a bad story)
BIG TOBACCO AGNOTOLOGY
Just before Christmas in 1953, the leaders of America’s major tobacco companies gathered at the Plaza Hotel in New York City—a location of grandeur overlooking Central Park. They had convened to meet John Hill, founder and chief executive of Hill & Knowlton, a top public relations firm, as the industry faced a mounting crisis.
Scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer was gaining traction, and in 1952, the popular magazine Reader’s Digest published an alarming article titled “Cancer by the Carton,” amplifying public concern. By 1954, journalist Alistair Cooke speculated that the next significant scientific study might spell the end of the tobacco industry.
But it didn’t. John Hill devised a PR strategy that, in retrospect, proved remarkably successful. Despite the addictive and lethal nature of its products, Big Tobacco managed to stave off regulation, lawsuits, and the perception among many smokers that its products were deadly—for decades.
The industry’s ability to question scientific studies and create reasonable doubt that tobacco is not life-threatening saved the industry. The tobacco industry’s case demonstrated how undeniable facts from credible sources can still be undermined. In this battle, facts alone were insufficient to triumph.
The natural response from those who value truth—journalists, academics, and concerned citizens—has been to double down on facts. While agreement on facts is essential, it raises a critical question: will this intensified focus on facts lead to a better-informed public, improved decision-making, or renewed respect for truth? History suggests otherwise. Despite overwhelming evidence linking cigarettes to cancer, endorsed by leading medical scientists and the US surgeon general in 1964, tobacco lobbyists managed to outmanoeuvre journalists committed to objectivity. Facts alone, it seems, are not enough.
Journalists in the 1950s and 1960s had one plausible defence for their missteps: the tobacco industry’s strategies were cunning, intricate, and unprecedented. The industry initially appeared cooperative, pledging to conduct high-quality research and assuring the public that top experts were addressing the issue. Next came efforts to muddy the waters and sow doubt—was lung cancer really caused by cigarettes, or could it have other origins? The focus, after all, should be on lung cancer itself, not on cigarettes. The third phase involved discrediting genuine research and expert findings: autopsy reports were dismissed as anecdotal, epidemiological studies as mere statistics, and animal research as irrelevant. Finally, the industry normalized the narrative, claiming that the tobacco-cancer link was old news—shouldn’t journalists move on to fresher stories?
These tactics are now well understood, and researchers have analysed the psychological vulnerabilities they exploited, allowing us to recognize similar manoeuvres on today’s political stage.
THE GAZAN AGNOTOLOGY
Reporting on the war in Gaza, it seems like Israel and its Western Media allies are adopting the tobacco industry’s playbook. One notorious internal memo from Brown & Williamson, dated summer 1969, makes this approach unmistakably clear, even today: “DOUBT IS OUR PRODUCT.” The memo explains that doubt is the most effective tool for countering established facts in the public’s mind and creating controversy, essential for keeping the debate alive.
- Consider the doubt that has been sown by Israel regarding the death toll in Gaza, even though the numbers are verified by various international organisations. By questioning the legitimacy of how many people have died, Israel can justify an unprecedented genocide.
- Consider the doubt that has been sown regarding tunnels under hospitals and churches, and therefore legitimising, even necessitating, the killing of innocent women and children.
- Consider the doubt that has been sown over Hamas using emergency supplies to strengthen their fighters and therefore thrusting the whole enclave into a deadly famine by withholding, even preventing, life-sustaining supplies from entering Gaza.
Agnotology in the finest form
Generating doubt is often easy, but dispelling it with facts alone is far more difficult—a lesson we should have learned from history but may need to relearn again.
Although combating falsehoods with facts is tempting, this approach faces three significant challenges.
First, simple falsehoods often overpower complex truths because they’re easier to understand and remember. It is a lot easier to believe the atrocities of Hamas and the brutal killings of innocent infants than it is to read through the factual findings of how Golan Vach, head of the Israeli military search and rescue service, made a false claim to have seen the bodies of burned babies. Even though the Israeli military confirmed that these allegations were false, it is easier and less complex to believe that Hamas is evil. No available evidence was produced except the words of Vach. But to justify the subsequent slaughter of now nearly 65,000 Palestinians, intentional doubt and ignorance have to be created, maintained, and promoted
For Israel to defend their relentless attacks on Gaza, they realised that by reiterating false claims, it would make them more memorable over time. Although myth-busting appears effective initially, as memories fade, only the myth endures because it’s repeated so often. Misleading claims, once entrenched, can prove surprisingly resistant to correction.
There’s a second reason why facts don’t seem to have the traction that one might hope. Facts can be boring. In 2016, three researchers — Seth Flaxman, Sharad Goel, and Justin Rao — published a study of how people read news online. The study was, on the face of it, an inquiry into the polarisation of news sources. The researchers began with data from 1.2 million internet users but ended up examining only 50,000. Why? Because only 4 per cent of the sample read enough serious news to be worth including in such a study. (The hurdle was 10 articles and two opinion pieces over three months.) Many commentators worry that we’re segregating ourselves in ideological bubbles, exposed only to the views of those who think the same way we do. There’s something in that concern. But for 96 per cent of these web surfers, the bubble that mattered wasn’t liberal or conservative, it was: “Don’t bother with the news.” In the war of ideas, boredom and distraction are powerful weapons.
The fact that a genocide is livestreamed on a daily basis has played into the hands of those committing the atrocities in Gaza. The facts have become boring.
There’s a final problem with trying to persuade people by giving them facts: the truth can feel threatening, and threatening people tends to backfire. “People respond in the opposite direction,” As soon as the word genocide is mentioned, accusations of antisemitism and pro-terrorist arise. For those who seek to stand with Israel with unconditional loyalty, facts are of no value.
The problem here is that while we like to think of ourselves as rational beings, our rationality didn’t just evolve to solve practical problems, such as building an elephant trap, but to navigate social situations. We need to keep others on our side.
Practical reasoning is often less about figuring out what’s true and more about staying in the right tribe.
More information is available on the following websites:
https://www.ft.com/content/eef2e2f8-0383-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-personnel-false-information-7-october-attack