Sometimes you read a paragraph so mind-blowingly nonsensical that you have to stop, and smile. In the spirit of sharing a humourous moment with my readers, consider the following, from the major investigation by our friends at the Journal into what they call a potential “influence operation” in Ireland:
An analysis by The Journal of over 150 anonymous accounts on X, formerly known as Twitter, examined how the accounts engaged in attempts to influence opinions on a range of divisive topics in Ireland.
People on social media posting their political views are “attempting to influence opinions”? Stop the presses, hold the front page.
The article itself is one of those pieces of journalism that wants the reader to arrive at a conclusion without ever having to go to the trouble of stating that conclusion explicitly: We get multiple references to claims that have been made about alleged Russian influence operations seeking to influence western elections, and then we get allegations that one or more of the accounts “sometimes posts in broken English that suggests the person is not a native speaker”. You don’t have to be a maths genius to notice the sum that the Journal is inviting you to calculate in your head, there.
Note, by the way, that of the 150 accounts in question, this accusation is levelled at precisely one account. I contacted the owner of that account – @fellawrites – yesterday, and his explanation, verbatim, was as follows: “I have adhd and often skip words like ‘is’ and ‘and’ when writing. That’s the basis for their ‘not a native English speaker’ argument. They must have ignored the fact that all other signs would suggest that I am a native English speaker.”
The Journal, he says, did not contact him before writing their story.
More bizarre again are the allegations made about another account, called @mobfecit. This section is worth quoting in detail:
The account positions itself as an Irish “TERF” (anti-trans campaigner), and its initial output focused on criticising the LGBTQ community in replies to posts by politicians and media outlets….
….Posts by the Mary O’Brian account in the week to last Friday show how the overwhelming majority of replies it made on X were to posts by politicians, news organisations and prominent figures in the media.
And similar to the posting style of other suspicious accounts, the account regularly repeats itself when replying to posts, in order to amplify certain messages.
This week, it responded to seven posts about Ireland recognising Palestinian statehood, including by Tánaiste Micheál Martin, RTÉ News and the Government news service Merrion Street, by sharing a critical post from Gilad Erdan, the Israeli ambassador to the UN.
It also posed 14 variations of the question “where is the Palestinian state?” beneath news articles, posts by journalists and political statements which mentioned that the Government had recognised Palestinian statehood.
One might note here that “Where is the Palestinian state” is a question that the Government has declined to answer, and one that has been posed by the Government’s critics both domestically, and internationally. It is also unclear how many times one is supposed to ask this question before the asking of it ceases to be an attempt to solicit information, and instead becomes an effort to influence public opinion – presumably by highlighting an unwillingness to answer questions on behalf of politicians and journalists.
The Journal’s evidence for an “influence campaign” is essentially summarised in its entirety by these two examples: There are 150 twitter accounts, it claims, constantly sharing similar material (though this similarity appears only to extend to immigration, since the Journal itself notes that there are differences between the accounts in their attitudes to things like the Hamas-Israel war).
Is this surprising? And does it amount to an influence campaign?
In answer to the first question, it seems a little odd to be shocked by the idea that in a country where, per opinion polls, 70% or so of the public have concerns around migration, that 150 or so people on social media would be very amped up about that issue. In fact, it’s mildly surprising that the number isn’t greater.
In answer to the second, an “influence campaign” limited to 150 social media accounts, most with low followings, seems something of a weak campaign. Indeed surely the Journal itself, with its 750,000 followers, has far more influence over public opinion than those 150 accounts combined.
I am hesitant, here, to accuse the Journal of consciously serving a nefarious agenda – but I am entirely comfortable in noting that a nefarious agenda exists which is served, even unconsciously, by this nonsense. I would remind readers of the bizarre weekend intervention by Fianna Fail EU candidate Cynthia Ni Mhurchu, who promised voters that she would, in effect, seek prosecutions for executives at twitter were she elected. There are copious NGOs and campaigning groups on the left of Irish and European politics all pushing the same message: That free speech on Elon Musk’s platform must be restricted or restrained in the common good.
Thus, an article asserting the existence of an influence campaign, consciously or unconsciously, perfectly serves that agenda. Particularly when that article wonders aloud about the dastardly Russians.
In reality, though, I’d argue that the Journal’s latest exposes the paucity of that agenda, rather than the urgency of it: The threat to Irish elections, it appears, emanates from 150 low follower social media accounts persistently asking the same questions. This is not a hard threat to negate: Indeed the solution is obvious.
Answer the questions.
Perhaps, at some stage, politicians might try that one. In the meantime, efforts to suggest that a poor outcome in next week’s elections for the Irish establishment are the fault of 150 social media accounts, rather than poor policy, might strike a reasonable person as a little desperate. And it might not strike them as the greatest piece of journalism that they’ve ever read.