A trend over the past few years has been the throttling or blocking of “misinformation” from news and social media sites. The proponents argue that containing misleading or false information is for the public good. Whether it benefits or harms the consumer is a matter for another forum. However, from an analytical perspective, reducing access to information or stifling debate only weakens the process.
An analyst’s job is to take in large amounts of information, critically assess it, and draw a conclusion. A trained analyst will identify and dismiss “bad” information in the research phase of his or her work by examining the quality and reliability of sources and seeking corroboration, and in the analysis phase by the very nature of the work. But what if the information is not even presented? Having too much information can be unwieldy, but it’s not a problem. On the other hand, having selectively available or missing information can result in a faulty conclusion.
One problem with hiding information that is deemed inaccurate is the judgment may change. A recent example is the COVID lab leak theory. Initially, some sources dismissed the hypothesis, but it was later considered plausible. Unfortunately, information mislabeled as false is difficult to rehabilitate and may continue to be viewed with suspicion.
Having too much information can be unwieldy, but it’s not a problem. On the other hand, having selectively available or missing information can result in a faulty conclusion.
An analyst may be reluctant to add it to a pool of theories even though free thinking and association is the essence of brainstorming. Top level analysis can only be achieved if the analyst has considered every angle of a scenario, regardless of how probable or improbable it appears. Self-editing is considered good practice when interacting with others in non-workplace settings, but not when conducting an analysis. An analyst should be able to freely share, discuss, and weigh a broad range of perspectives. Arguably, it is the exposure to ideas we may find improbable or illogical that improves our thinking and shapes our analysis.
To add perspective, although analysts spend much of their time working with classified material, sources put the contribution of OSINT between 35 and 95 percent. With those numbers, it’s easy to understand the criticality of being able to access a full range of information.
We rarely have the good fortune of having a complete data set on which to draw analytical conclusions. There may be gaps that–if filled–would give us greater confidence in our conclusions. Intelligence gaps can be minor. They can also contribute to intelligence failures. In the analytical world, having too much information is rarely an issue, but having too little might be.
The Intelligence Shop 