Many Americans now consider disinformation to be a key national security threat, and disinformation topped the World Economic Forum’s list of short-term global risks for 2024. But what’s the history of disinformation and how is it increasingly interfering in international relations and eroding the trust of civilian populations? Are democratic nations simply more susceptible to disinformation? Whose responsibility is it to limit the influence of disinformation and can we mitigate the threat moving forward?
Join Jack and Julia as we examine the role and challenge of disinformation. On this episode we’ll discuss:
Many Americans now consider disinformation to be a key national security threat, and disinformation topped the World Economic Forum’s list of short-term global risks for 2024. But what’s the history of disinformation and how is it increasingly interfering in international relations and eroding the trust of civilian populations? Are democratic nations simply more susceptible to disinformation? Whose responsibility is it to limit the influence of disinformation and can we mitigate the threat moving forward?
Join Jack and Julia as we examine the role and challenge of disinformation. On this episode we’ll discuss:
Straight from the Shoulder, s01e03, Disinformed
Julia (00:33)
On today's episode, we're going to be discussing the topic of disinformation and how and why disinformation is now considered by many Americans to be a top national security threat. Disinformation also recently took the top spot on the World Economic Forum's annual list of short -term risks. So it's not only Americans who are concerned about this. Jack, what exactly is disinformation?
Jack Devine (00:58)
Well, I know it's a complicated subject and it's a fancy word. We're just going to call it a lie. What a lie. But it did remind me the other day when I was reading an article about World War II, but it's basically false information on the white hat side of trying to make an outcome, influence an outcome against an adversary or enemy. And so when I was thinking to the World War II story, it was the British service used a cadaver, a very authentic looking soldier, and it was carrying a message. And the message said the invasion was going to take place in another place, another time than Normandy. And the Germans command were thrilled with they found this intelligence piece and ordered their plans. That was a very successful form of disinformation. It wasn't in the media, but again, it was a lie. So we're going to. Philosophically, we can talk about this, but here's what I'm really saying is false information.
Julia (01:55)
And it was a lie with intent, which is the second and critical part, I think, of what you're saying there. The intent is what separates disinformation from some stories that are simply inaccurate. With disinformation, you're trying to sow chaos or get someone to buy in for your cause or rally against an enemy. And it does have a strong history of usage in a military context for sure. But it's also worth noting that disinformation now, it can come from anywhere, can be an effort by an interested party, unaffiliated, government, foreign government, our own government. Jack, how is disinformation traditionally a tool in the intelligence operator's toolkit?
Jack Devine (02:33)
Well, first, I think you made a really good point. I mean, what I was talking about is an isolated, focused disinformation operation. And what you're talking about is worldwide, literally everybody is sitting at their elbow, the capacity for disinformation. But going more specifically to the intelligence world, disinformation was always a part of the spymaster's bag, if you will, of tricks. But I was never a big fan of it. But I was looking at it from the American perspective. And the reason I say I wasn't a big fan of it, I thought we didn't need false information. We had a good story when we compared ourselves to our adversaries, the Russians and Chinese. We didn't have to make up stories about their economy and their violation of civil liberties. It was all there for us. I did run across a few bizarre examples.
Julia (03:30)
Oh, please tell us.
Jack (3:30)
Well, this one is not the intelligence community at its finest. It was an experience I had when I first arrived in Santiago, Chile, my first tour. I had no field experience. And I remember going to the office one day because my neighborhood was full of cats. I mean, you couldn't walk out the door without a pack of cats attacking you. I know that's a bit more vivid than than it was. But when I walked you over, I just said, look.
Julia (03:57)
That's like straight out of a children's book. The whole alleyway was filled with cats.
Jack Devine (03:59)
It's good that you're visualizing because I want you to visualize the whole event. So I walked into the office and there were a few old timers and I said, you know, it's amazing. My neighborhood is just full of cats, stray cats. They all broke out laughing. I thought, well, I didn't realize I had that sense of humor. And I said, oh, Jack, that was one of our great ops. And I said, well, explain that to me. He said, well, we got this idea one day sitting around eating and drinking Pisco Sours that:
Why don't we put an ad in the newspaper and say that you'll get two escudos equal to two pesos. And if you brought a stray cat and dropped it by the front door of the Russian, or gave it to the Russian embassy, they'd give you the two escudos. Well, the Russians were livid. You know, every time someone knocked on the door, they slammed the door and the capersuno dropped the stray cat and it populated my neighborhood. So they thought it was a great op, and I sat back and I said, what in good grief is this. This is not, this is prep school pranks. This is not in serious intelligence operators. You have to have a finite objective. I mean, if you're going to influence your enemy, it's to accomplish something, to change their activities. And sure as hell, the Russians are going to, two months later, suggest that drop off a stray dog in front of our Tokyo embassy. And it served no useful purpose. So I was against mindless, action and that's why I said I was not a big fan of disinformation.
Julia (04:56)
That's a prank. That's a disinformed prank. Right.
Julia (05:26)
I guess there's a fine line there. Are there some examples of how intelligence officials have used a disinformation in a more effective way to advance their mission?
Jack Devine (05:38)
I'm sure there's one on the American side, but one that comes to me is I probably voted it down and they overruled me. But when we got to, when I was looking back in writing Spy Master's Prism, I came across a story which I had forgotten about. And that was, there was a big hoopla about Nazi documents found at the bottom of Devil's Lake in Czechoslovakia. And the documents were just full of old Nazi papers with numerous West Germans names in there and doing various deeds and tied into different things. So that it became an international story with tremendous import and it influenced, you know, the press around the world, but also in Germany, people's names were smeared. Well, it turned out that years later, the defector came out to the West. Vladislav Bitman, and he was part of the team that was involved in this operation, but it was a Russian made KGB operation, which I thought was very professionally done and ingenious and had the impact. In other words, how do you mislead your adversary? And in this case, they were misleading the adversaries in a nefarious...
Julia (06:48)
Absolutely.
It sounds like they spent a lot of time on that and they probably considered, I guess, both the advantages and the potential backlash or damage that could happen from the operation.
Jack Devine (07:06)
Well, I'd like to think that but my experience people get excited with their idea and they the natural mindset fights against let me tell you what's wrong with your own idea because you think it's a brilliant. So you don't you give yourself a break and rationalize what may be a problem and I would say real professionals and this is why you should red team it right? You better make sure you have somebody in the room and that isn't as enthusiastic as you are about some of your great ideas. I had one that I will never speak about publicly where I got carried away and thank God I had a chief of station who said, are you crazy? Put that, put it away. So I do think you need checks and balances.
Julia (07:12)
Yes.
Julia (07:39)
Yes. We need those people that are not yes men. Actually, I was reading about the history of disinformation in the United States. And there were some examples in the mid 1980s that are particularly striking and perhaps didn't work in our favor. That can be debated. But in 1986, for example, an important memo, the Poindexter memo was leaked and the American public learned that the US government had launched a sizable disinformation campaign, right? This particular one aimed to convince first the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at the time that he was going to be attacked by the United States or ousted in a coup. And then the campaign, the media effort by the US government was aimed to also convince and get the support of the US population and sort of the global population in any actions that the US was going to be taking.
Jack, do you, what was the US government up to with this campaign and was it effective?
Jack Devine (08:48)
Well, first of all, it would make a good script for Homeland because what you have in here is the inside political dynamics of a government and how they go about developing plans that are wrong footed. Okay. So there's so many aspects to this particular case. And remember, I was in charge of Iranian operations and about the same time frame and knew these principles and law.
And there are some similarities, which I'll get to in a second. But there's a couple of real important points I want to underline, and you cut me off if you want to cut it into a couple different questions. But the first one is when you're talking about CIA, in the mid -70s, there was a Senate investigation committee, and the lines were drawn about how you use media. And rightfully, they said, the CIA is involved in covert action, disinformation. It has to be on the United States. In fact, the CIA has to stay out of all of its operations after they have to out of the United States. I thought that was a very good formula. So.
Julia (09:48)
And at that time it was probably easier to keep the media more localized, right? Like Chilean media might stay within Chile or Latin America, or would it make its way to the U.S.?
Jack Devine (09:54)
Well, you could, I mean...
You're going to take it off on a tangent. There the agency, the agency was first one was called the Georgetown set in Washington. And it's when Washington ran with like a club, you know, all the top journalists, all the top politicians, they drank martinis together. They didn't shake them by the way. They were all stirred. So that when, when issues were involved, they were, you know, the top people from CIA, the FBI dealing with the Washington Post. So there was a little, it might've been a little too clubby for this issue, but as time went by, I mean, during World War II, there was probably more interaction between media, the US media and ourselves. But under those rules, people have to understand that when a media operation takes place and CIA is doing it abroad, it is by law. They cannot, they have to make sure. that they've done everything, that that is not coming back to the United States. You don't have complete control, but it cannot be designed. So the one you're talking about was designed to influence American people. It partially to do international, right? And that's where CIA was brought in. And that, they were the place articles about Gaddafi's going to be overthrown in this and the other. But the way I read that, it was...
Remember, this was the period Iran conjured White House running operations. White House never, ever should run operations. They get knocked up. They should do lots of other things, which they do well. CIA should not run anything in the White House. So this was an effort inside the White House to do this. And I remember reading through it, Admiral Crowell, who was the ambassador in London, I knew him on my many visits to London. a really first class Admiral and a man of great substance. And he said, well, gentlemen, you're going to run these articles about Gaddafi is going to be overthrown and this and the other. I'm the head of the armed forces. And they think I'm coming. I don't come. Then it looks like we were weak, like we didn't have the resolve to do it. And he had a good point. So this is that voice in the corner saying, you know, calm down boys, let's make sure you know what you're doing. And the operation did go forward and it did end up in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, they believed the story. And I have a really strong allergenic reaction to meddling in the forming through operations, the American populist mindset. So it backfired on them. Now let me make one point. Many of these things start from the very best of intentions. Gaddafi was rotten. I mean, he is the leader behind the bombing of Pan Am 103. And I know people on that plane. And I can't think of anything that would be too harsh. But that doesn't mean you run any old operation. You want to make sure you're running the best operation. So this, someone ought to bring this back because it's more, you know, more relevant in this complicated world we live today. The clear lines on how you use propaganda and I am absolutely opposed to any effort by anybody to try and misguide the American people. Certainly the CIA, if it comes on your desk, resign.
Julia (11:23)
Hahaha.
Was the CIA hesitant?
Julia (13:20)
It was certainly the first time in the mid -80s, I think, that the American public familiarized itself with the term disinformation and what happened with Gaddafi, what happened with Iran -Contra. I mean, these kind of things, they resonate beyond the immediate reflex of a reader. It kind of starts to erode trust in our institutions. But how did they...
Jack Devine (13:42)
I agree, I agree 97 .3%. The other margin is in some degree the American people are so used to being, you know, they're politicians given them less than, it's gotten worse than media. And so I think today if you were looking at the polls, the status of information outlets, Congress, all of our sources of information are really low rated. So I think there's just, I would say today everyone's skeptical about all information. Maybe we're heading into a good place because of that.
Julia (13:48)
At least I got the point three.
Julia (14:22)
Well, how does the US differ in terms of its use of disinformation than Russia or China?
Jack Devine (14:28)
Well, let me make a distinction of there's the US and there's our adversaries at the policy level officials have one set of rules. Don't press me on exactly what they are. The rule is you will never lie. Okay. So that's not the rule. I can give you one rule, but in the intelligence. In the intelligence information world, as I touched on earlier, 90 % of what I ever touched, and I can't even remember things that were worthwhile and the disinformation, how do you get your good news story out? How do you keep hammering our good news story and hitting them where, why make up a story if you have enough good material? Now, let me just add one thing on the other side. The Russians had a lousy story. So they got really good at making up false information to try and make themselves look better and to make ourselves look worse. I thought we had the better position.
Julia (15:26)
That may be true, but our democracy or our better position is kind of a double -edged sword, right? Because democratic nations are also more vulnerable to disinformation. We have more media freedom. There's a lot more exposure to different ideas, true or manipulated. And Russia controls so many of the materials. Praise the Lord is right, but Russia controls what a lot of its people are reading.
Jack Devine (15:42)
Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord. Now, what I'm saying, I mean, we're rejecting here, but the great thing about this country is its freedom, right? Freedom, and one of them is freedom of speech and ability to say what you want and stand up on the street corner and you can criticize the president. I'm in countries where you stood up and even suggested anything, you would disappear. Okay, I've been in them. So I'm prepared to live with that, but you're absolutely right. And so therefore we need to value our freedom even more because this is going to be a real challenge for how we maintain that discipline of civil liberties and allow this disinformation to eat us alive. So I think policymakers and the technical people are working together trying to sort their way through. I'm pessimistic. Normally I'm optimistic on most things, but I'm worried about our ability to tackle this thing. So I hope better minds will sort it out.
Julia (16:50)
With the proliferation of things like TikTok, I've noticed a lot of media pundits kind of giving tips to your average viewer or reader about offering advice for trying to recognize disinformation. Some have even written guides to help readers saying, you know, if a tweet only contains a screenshot of another tweet and you can't link back to the original tweet, that's likely just disinformation. And I know that I usually just try to track back and I try to read as much as I possibly can. And... come up with an assessment of truth on my own because frankly, there's not one media outlet that I trust or I trust 100 % anymore. So Jack, I'm sure you feel the same. I mean, we've discussed this issue before. What's your personal strategy for recognizing disinformation when you're coming across something online?
Jack Devine (17:36)
I have a couple thoughts that come simultaneously, so if I can hold them in place for a moment. One is I do, like most people, I scan all the different stations and then try and draw my own conclusion. When I was a young lad, they had three stations, right? And you couldn't tell ABC, NBC, and CBS one from the other because they were not politicized. Today, there's hundreds of outlets, thousands of them, right? Even that doesn't do justice to it.
And I think there's two things I would mention. One is healthy skepticism. And intelligence offers, when you go into CIA, that slogan that we've talked about is, you know the truth and it'll set you free. That's etched in marble. So knowing the truth is the main game. So one of your skills is how do I be skeptical about information, about being negative? Whereas you can, that's not true, that's not true. So you have to be skeptical and ask yourself, is that plausible? Is that really plausible? And so you have to use some of your life experience. The other thing that I think about is because of the nature of this and the proliferation of information, we have opened a valve on conspiratorial thinking. Everything is a conspiracy. Every special interest group sees a conspiracy. I was in the business of conspiracies. And you know, I'm quote, the deep state. I mean, you know, they were talking about the deep state years ago and it's all, you know, right away, you're all the conspirator people are going to get in here. But what I'm saying is we have now developed a really negative overtone of everything and people eat up conspiracies. Why? Because they're full of lies. And, and, uh, innuendo, whereas before, and I would just tell you all those conspiracies, except the one we're talking about, this one is true. This is a conspiracy. But I think we're in a world where it's so hard to see beyond conspiracy and look at reality. And I spend a lot of time thinking about that and writing to it.
Julia (19:41)
So whose responsibility is it to curb disinformation? I mean, is it my responsibility as a parent to make sure my kids aren't looking at certain things or that they don't have access to certain media? Is it the social media company's responsibility themselves to curb these algorithms and the bots? Is it our government? Is it a transnational alliance that we need? I know that people, our leaders are approaching this like terrorism, like it's cross national. We need to have all democratic states aligned. Like, whose responsibility is this? What are we doing about this? How do we handle this? Are there any examples of handling this well?
Jack Devine (20:14)
I can only say when I'm listening to you, when I'm listening to you, is God, I'm so grateful I'm not responsible for it. The second thing, the second thing is all those things are true, right? And this is where my concern resides. Individuals have to do what I say, have to approach information with an open mind and a critical mind, but an open one. But you're inundated and the news is so fast. Conventional wisdom is something I would like to discuss. It's at some point.
Julia (20:48)
Is conventional wisdom made worse with artificial intelligence? Is that something you're afraid of?
Jack Devine (20:54)
I am well, when I was in the CIA, when I would look at flaps, what intelligence failures we had, it was always rooted in conventional wisdom. And that was this is never going to happen, right? Because we here in this room all agree, right? We're not in another country. We don't know. We're not eating the food and drinking, but we think that way. So conventional wisdom, AI is the maximum conventional wisdom. Its purpose is to take all information, grind it down and come up with what is the best consensus around information. And I rely on it. I use it a lot, but I do it the way I did in the intelligence community. I question things that don't feel right to me or that don't make sense. And then I get, as you alluded to earlier, I go to the primary sources. I want to make sure I've got something that backs it up. So conventional wisdom, AI is the real troublesome. take the hand on, people are trying. I guess I wanna say at the end of it, there's none of the things that you mentioned in themselves are gonna help. And I think at the end, this thing has to crest out. At some point, we all will decide enough is enough. And when does that happen? It's very hard to say.
Julia (22:04)
Thanks again, Jack. On our next episode, we're going to be discussing another, much more entertaining way of spreading a message worldwide, and that's through the silver screen. We're also going to be chatting about what Hollywood gets right and what it gets wrong in its portrayal of global intelligence operations and the spy world. Hope you can join us.
Julia (22:28)
This episode of Straight from the Shoulder has been produced by Jen Scorey -Vogt.