We can't sacrifice freedom of information and we shouldn't anyway

I have found that I have an “underlying condition,” so I went willingly, if not eagerly, down to the clinic to get the third dose on a recent Thursday. I did have adverse reactions to the ol’ shoulder jab after both of the first two doses last year—two days of fever, chills and heavy fatigue. But I got the same from a flu shot, so I wasn’t too worried.

I woke up at midnight that night with a rapidly revising opinion. It wasn’t the fact that my shoulder was swollen up like a balloon and painful to the touch or the fever and chills or even the diarrhea that had me worried. It was the searing fire burning off the lining of my stomach. That was disturbing.

I writhed in bed (when I wasn’t crawling to the toilet) for several hours observing as the unrelenting pain grew and grew to a crescendo that had me mewling on my mattress like a hurt kitten. I am used to being able to go back to sleep even with some discomfort but there was clearly no help for it.

I reached out for my phone with a shaking hand and started googling. Was this a regular sort of side effect or some kind of rare and dangerous reaction? I searched on the web and on social media. Surely, if people had this kind of reaction there would be mentions.

Image by Yuris Alhumaydy via Unsplash

But there weren’t. And that scared me more than the searing pain itself. That could mean this must not be a “normal” adverse reaction and it might well be dangerous.

I made the decision then, at about 3 am, that if the pain increased any further I would call 911. I was 20 miles by icy roads from my nearest family members and I can’t drive, though driving in the condition I was in would have been highly inadvisable even if I normally could.

I am not the kind of person to call an ambulance for anything short of the apocalypse. I didn’t call emergency services last spring when my son was injured in a bike accident and he came too close to comfort to dying as a result of my reticence. I have only actually called an ambulance once in my life, when my husband thought he was having a heart attack and our first child was four months old. And that time the ambulance crew griped at me for calling them “over nothing,” because it turned out to be a false alarm.

So, I didn’t call and I waited another agonizing and terrifying three hours until 6 am when a doctor friend in another time zone woke up and answered my text and confirmed that this kind of reaction happens, that she’s seen it and that ibuprofen probably wouldn’t hurt me more.

It didn’t help much either. But what did help a great deal was the reassurance that I wasn't dying of some weird reaction or appendicitis brought on by the chemical brew. And later in the day, my mother braved the icy roads and brought me activated charcoal, which really did help. I still had chills and fatigue and a bit of diarrhea for two days but that is nothing compared to that searing pain.

Spread the word about the activated charcoal as an antidote!

But my advice is that you do so without using the word that I have avoided here which starts with a V or the other word I have avoided which starts with a C. Because if you use either of those words, your post or social media message will be de-prioritized, hidden, deleted or otherwise disappeared.

And that is a sad state of affairs. Really. More than sad. Even dangerous.

Look, don’t get me wrong here. I live in VERY rural, very conservative America. I’ve had a group of sign-waving wackos yell at me for wearing a mask. I’ve heard it all, the nano chips, the fake news virus, and the three people who went blind (or died) from the shot who a friend of a friend told the person I’m speaking to about. I do understand the frustration and I’m even relatively okay with pressuring platforms to cut off rabid purveyors of conspiracy theories and disinformation, as Niel Young did (and yes, he’s awesome for lots of other reasons too).

But there is a vast difference between such conspiracy theories and personal reports of unpleasant side effects to the shot and helpful remedies for those side effects. I am talking to my people, the people who already agree that the virus is dangerous, inoculations in general have deeply changed our society for the better and protecting the vulnerable is important. Please think this through.

There are crucial reasons why we cannot accept the silencing of personal experiences and even the censoring things we don’t agree with.

1. There will be some terrified person who was responsible enough to get the shot waking up in agony tonight somewhere and the next night and the next. And they’ll be googling and they won’t find much except platitudes about how “adverse reactions are rare…” The terror of those hours matters. Allowing comments about side effects may give ammo to a few extremists, but it will calm the fears of those who have done the right thing and it will actually increase the likelihood of some to get the poke.

2. I am not alone in actually trusting science. I know why the messaging hasn’t been consistent. Because it is f—king science, people! They actually have been learning things over the past two years. They were cautious when they didn’t know about this new strain and now they do know something, so they have changed their recommendations. Because they are real doctors and real scientists and they care more about helping people than about appearing to have always been perfectly right. It is not that complicated.

3. By the same token, I trust a pharmaceuticals MORE when the side effects are fully and widely discussed, not less. That means that the companies care about them and are working to improve the given medication and it is unlikely that something worse is being suppressed. That is how trust of science works. This kind of silencing is a worse blow to public confidence in science than any tinfoil-hat influencer could ever dream of striking.

4. And it has never been more urgent to remember that whatever tactics one uses in this country against political enemies WILL be used against you in return one day. I remember back during the days of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars when the censorship of critical voices in the American mainstream media was problematic and many of the same people who are now most committed to curtailing the virus were justifiably upset about it. But we had free rein on social media and alternative media was accessible if you just knew where to look. When I think of the devastation a right wing power center could do with the tools of website de-prioritization and social media silencing for political purposes, I really start to worry.

5. Last but not least, we set a precedent—one which our children observe—when we sacrifice important ethical principles to counter a foe. We essentially hand those principles to that enemy. With this kind of suppression, we are handing the principle of freedom of information to right-wing extremists. And that is a crying shame.

While I know that those in a position to actually change these practices aren’t reading my blog, it matters what we, ordinary people, think and talk about. The reason there has been such overt suppression of critical reports, personal experiences and differing opinions on this is because a large portion of the population enthusiastically supported blocking that stuff. I know. We were reacting to pretty extreme provocation but still, this has gone too far and public opinion may still be able to turn back this unwise step.

Please make your concern about this known, if you agree that we can’t, and shouldn’t, sacrifice freedom of information.

Talking to journalists:

A guide for direct action participants

If you are part of a direct action you may be approached by journalists. Whatever the goal of your action, you have some sort of message for the public. Your main target may be the government or a company but your second target is ALWAYS the public. Journalists are a stand-in for the public, whether we like it or not. Therefore, it is very important to know how to get your message across to journalists.

Before your action consider these things:

1. Do you want all participants to talk to journalists or will you politely redirect journalists to your organizer?

2. What is the most important goal of your action? What do you want? Make sure you can say it easily in one or two sentences.

3. What is your message for the public? Remember that when you talk to journalists, you are also talking to average, uninformed people listening to or reading a news report. Some of them will actually want to know your message and support you. Treat them kindly.

When journalists approach you, try to figure out what kind of press they are. There are three types of press:

Creative Commons image via Pixabay

1. Friendly press: Those who already agree with you or share your values, even if they don’t know who you or your organization is specifically. They will help you if they reasonably can.

2. Hostile press: Those who have already set their minds against you and your values or which view your organization negatively for political, financial or other reasons. They will use whatever they can against you, including your silence or dismissal. 

3. Uncommitted press: Those who have not openly taken a side for or against you and which may either be indecisive or trying to appear objective. There are no objective people. We all have sub-conscious assumptions and values. Uncommitted press will usually try to listen to your message, but they owe you nothing and they are often most interested in controversy and shocking details.

How to talk to the different types of press in order to get your message across to the public and to your specific targets through the media:

Friendly press

These journalists may happily publish your message and even specific information like your demands or the date and location of your next public event. It is important to be concise and clear. Keep your details in order and have your main message in written form to give to them. You cannot assume they know when the big action day is, no matter how much you have publicized it.

You don’t need to pander to them, but don’t take them for granted either. If you have time, you can give them interviews and even include some of your personal feelings.

It is better to avoid talking about organizational problems or internal conflicts. Uninformed people are always your audience and if you portray your organization as disorganized, it takes credibility away from your justification for disruptive direct actions. Finally, note that some hostile press might pretend to be friendly press in order to make satirical reports about you.

Hostile press

There are different types of hostile press. They may politically disagree. Their owners or major advertisers may be financially against your goals. They may be frightened and conservative with a lot of false assumptions about you. It is easy to think you should not talk to hostile press at all. However, it is important to remember that if they have come out publicly to talk to you they will probably publish or broadcast something from your action. And ultimately when you speak to them, you are speaking to their audience.\

If you react angrily to a rude and offensive journalist, thousands of people watching the video of your reaction will feel that you are angry at them or disrespect them. So, don’t engage too much with hostile press. They will use just about anything they can against you. Give your two-sentence statement of what you want and then a one sentence message for the public. Repeat it if they ask you for more. Be polite but firm.

Uncommitted press

These journalists may have false assumptions about you, your organization or your cause gained from those who are hostile toward you or simply from information confusion. If they state something incorrectly or show an incorrect assumption, resist the temptation to give a frustrated or irritable response, even if you have heard it many times.

Remember that uncommitted press may know very little about your goals or message. They may jump to false conclusions without meaning to. They will often be looking for what is most shocking and outrageous. You can use that to your advantage at times with creative actions, but it can also hurt you if what they get stuck on is some trash that fell out of your bag.  

Be ready to state what you want clearly in two sentences. Add a one sentence message to the public if you can. Avoid talking about organizational problems or disagreements within your movement. If asked about another faction that is pursuing the same goals as you, it is best to be vaguely supportive and avoid criticizing other groups, beyond stating your clear differences, such as, “We are non-violent. They may have similar goals but because they do not abide by non-violence, they are not part of our movement.”

Uncommitted press thrive on controversy and they will often look for controversy within your movement, which can be very harmful to your outreach and your message to the public. If asked to give personal feelings, you can state your emotions. “I’m sad.” “I’m very worried.” “I’m so angry!” Psychology tells us that if ordinary people hear you state your emotions starting with the word “I” they will be naturally empathetic. It is much more difficult when you have to accuse someone who is doing harm. It is good to start it with “I,” such as “I am angry that….” or “I am sad that our prime minister won’t do anything about this crisis.”

Finally:

Look at the camera, rather than the interviewer when possible. Avoid using words you wouldn’t want a six-year-old you loved hearing. And enunciate, particularly in crowds!