A long time ago, I
specialized in Russian and Soviet Area Studies.
I read the literature, listened to the music, and studied the
history. Through it all, I was amazed at
how much the then-Communist regime relied on blatant disinformation – a steady
stream of fictions designed to degrade other nations (most often the USA) and
build up their own legend in the minds of the people. One example I still remember was that when
first those tall sound-barrier walls were erected along the Capital Beltway,
the Soviet Union published pictures with captions explaining that US
authorities were building walls to keep citizens confined to the area. Who could believe that? I wondered.
That was then, this
is now. But some things stay the same:
even in the age of the Internet, the Russian government manages a stream of
false news, commentary, even blogs and commenters that justify its power and
degrade all challengers and opponents. This active disinformation is not
limited to current events, but reaches into history, as false or twisted
accounts of the past are published and made into movies or operas. Who could believe that? I wonder, but there
is evidence it does have an effect on public opinion.
As I read the
accounts of such things way back when, I was relieved that I lived in a time
and place where freedom of speech and of the press made for a background of
truth that made such cover-up and concoctions untenable. As I read the accounts now, instead of
relief, I find recognition, for even in the age of the Internet – and perhaps
especially because if it – I discern streams of disinformation having an effect
our own country and culture.
A recent example is
to be found in the most unlikely of places: British television on PBS. Well-educated and high-minded, this has been
a lifeline of serious thought and quality entertainment for more than a
generation. But now I wonder.
I read the reviews of
the show Wolf Hall when they first
appeared, and was pleased that somebody showing Henry VIII as something other
than fat and foolish (and Damien Lewis was portraying him, whom I have liked
since he was in Band of Brothers). I also found it curious that the show was
from the perspective of Thomas Cromwell, whose importance has always been
acknowledged, but whose character had never been found very appealing.
That was not because
of ignorance or disinterest among historians; quite the contrary. Historical review of the documentary evidence
indicates that “Thomas Cromwell was, in fact, a detestably self-serving,
bullying monster who perfected state terror in England, cooked the evidence,
and extracted confessions by torture.” But
in this new series, he is portrayed as the very model of virtue, charity, and
moral uprightness.
It turns out that
this elegant and erudite program is based on novels by an expressly
anti-Catholic writer, who apparently set out to “take down” the historical
understanding of Saint Thomas More, who was Cromwell’s opposite throughout the
action covered by the series. Motive and
method are fairly clear to anyone who has historical knowledge or does the
requisite research.
It would be easy to
swallow whole this engaging entertainment and walk away with the impression that
not only was Thomas More an evil man, but that his Catholic religion
necessarily is an force for evil in any society. How could one enjoy the series and not come to believe that?
The established
falsehood of the premises of Wolf Hall
does nothing to defend the consumers of the entertainment. Not only does it remind me of the “golden
age” of Soviet disinformation, but it reveals that such manipulation is alive
and well and living in our own country, in some of our most respected
institutions. Be careful what you allow
yourself to believe.
Monsignor
Smith
