Government psyops
Throughout history, rulers across the globe have tried to control their populations, to gain consent, and to enable them to implement their policies without obstruction. This was done either by persuasion or by coercion. However, since the start of the early twentieth century, a new system of applied behavioural psychology has been developed, which includes using covert techniques to persuade populations to think in a manner that meets with approval of those who set policy. The early behavioural scientists included Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, and B.F. Skinner, who changed psychology from a science that tried to find out what was going on in the mind, to a science that set out to change emotional and psychological responses [1]. Following these scientific advances, Aldous Huxley in 1962 stated that the ultimate, final revolution would act directly upon the mind. He stated that if populations are going to be controlled for any length of time a measure of consent is required so that people learn to “love their servitude” [2].
The British government was an early leader In applying behavioural psychological techniques to its population, introduced to the British public by Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010 as ‘The Nudge Unit’, or the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) [3]. One of the most important contributions of the BIT was the MINDSPACE document, published in March 2010, in which methods are outlined for influencing public opinion, without the public being aware of the techniques in use, or that they were being preyed upon [4] (p.66). MINDSPACE is an acronym of the nine methods used in this operation: messenger; incentives; norms; defaults; salience; priming; affect; commitment; and ego. The BIT techniques have been at the core of the psychological operations that have been used against the public since that time; for example, during the Covid-19 era [5].
Information control in the age of the Internet
With the development of the internet, citizen journalism meant that a new array of uncensored information was available for public consumption. In order to control this information output, a new global censorship industry emerged, paid for by those with immense wealth and power. This industry includes universities, think tanks, regulators, NGOs, tech companies, the media, and with fact checking platforms [6] introducing a new layer of influence and control over circulating discourses.
Media literacy is the most concerning of the new information control techniques that are currently being practiced on an unsuspecting public. Media and information literacy training uses psychological techniques such as those outlined in the MINDSPACE document to train people to follow official narratives and to discard information that comes from dissenting or alternative viewpoints. Media literacy programmes are often aimed at children and students; however, they are not restricted to those specific groups. Media literacy training is often disguised by Orwellian-style language, for example, training courses are described as teaching ‘critical thinking’, in order to reduce harms caused by dangerous or harmful ‘conspiracy theories’.
Of course, developing critical thinking skills is to be commended, for example, these skills help people to evaluate information in order to decrease online fraud or to detect untrue claims such as in clever marketing and elections campaigns. Also, children are more vulnerable on the internet, experiencing bullying, child grooming, or sites that glorify suicide or terrorism. Training courses that encourage children to think carefully when online are useful and some media literacy websites offer children good advice. However, not all media literacy training has such lofty aims. For example, in a report on media literacy for the UK government prepared by RSM UK Consulting LLP in 2021 [7] issues that were listed as appropriate for media literacy training of children and adults included prevention and challenge of online grooming, harassment and cyber bullying, items that are relatively easy to define and where harm is plausible. However, the report extends the scope of media literacy training and gives equal emphasis to numerous vague concepts such as, preventing and challenging ‘unwanted behaviour’; ‘potentially harmful content’ and ‘inappropriate content’. These are far more contentious and likely to restrict knowledge, understanding and sharing of ideas, essential for critical thinking and for a functioning democracy.
An introduction to the Online Media Literacy Strategy report, written by Oliver Dowden, then the Minister in charge of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, describes media literacy as essential to tackling falsehoods surrounding issues such as Covid-19 and 5G. However, these are not issues to be dealt with by media literacy trainers. These are issues that need to be openly debated by scientists who have opposing viewpoints, involving public participation at all levels. This alarming statement gives away the purpose of this new form of media literacy training. It is to instil solutions into the minds of people on topics that have already been defined as problems by the government, when the government has already dismissed any alternative points of view, even by experts in their field, as inaccurate [8].
Similarly, the USA developed a Media Literacy Design Manual (2022) which indicated that media literacy is to delegitimise disfavoured speech, rather than protect children [9]. Media literacy training is being rolled out in schools across the USA; it is described as a ‘demand side’ solution to ‘disinformation’. The Foundation for Freedom Online describes media literacy initiatives as “government-backed influence campaigns to pre-bias online audiences against disfavored narratives.” Interestingly, the UK’s Ofcom advised the US government on its media literacy policy whilst the US report was authored by an EU advisor [10].
How Extensive is Media Literacy training?
Media literacy is a global endeavour, far larger than the censorship industry, although it has a low profile and practitioners are not easy to locate. To judge its size, a preliminary study of the global censorship industry found over 500 fact check platforms and at least 200 supporting organisations; by comparison just one American media literacy networking organisation, the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE) lists 8,000 members, 82 partners, and 300,000 educators on its website [11]. In the UK just six fact check (censorship) platforms were located, compared to 170 media literacy NGOs listed on Ofcom’s website; via the Online Safety Act (OSA) Ofcom is obliged to improve the media literacy awareness of members of the public [12]. Ofcom has extensive obligations for media literacy organisation, supervision and training of teachers in the UK [13]. Teaching media literacy is now compulsory in British schools [14]. The EU manages its extensive media literacy programme through the European Media and Information Literacy (EMIL) [15]. EU countries are enforced to participate in media literacy training through the EU’s censorship legislation, the Digital Services Act [16].
Media Literacy also extends throughout the Global South. Africa Check states it has trained 10,000 persons in media literacy [17]. PesaCheck extends to over 16 African countries in Central and East Africa, and undertakes media literacy training in several African languages, in conjunction with African universities [18]. UNESCO oversees the media literacy network in Asia Pacific [19]. India has its own media literacy network, FactShala[20] operating in 500 cities in 28 states, with 400 universities and colleges and 60 radio stations taking part in training programmes. In Latin America, Latam Chequea run by the Argentinian Chequeado coordinates media literacy in Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries [21] assisted by the Columbian NGO digiMENTE [22].
As well as having a global reach, the industry is professionalising and coordinating its activities. Ofcom lists over 100 academic books written on this subject [23] many targeting researchers and teachers. An internet search found hundreds of books available to purchase, many aimed at children and students. Additionally two journals of Media Literacy were located, the Journal of Media Literacy Education [24] and the Journal of Media Literacy (JML) [25], published by the American based International Council for Media Literacy (IC4ML). This organisation, first formed in 1953, now organises conferences as well as publishing the JML.
Regular annual and biannual conferences are some of the networking features, with the numbers and frequency of such meetings increasing. In the USA, NAMLE holds the largest annual conference [26]; several others are organised by universities and media literacy networks. UNESCO has an annual Global Media Literacy Week, including a two-day conference; in 2025 this will be held in Columbia [27]. The earliest European conference found was in 2014, organised by UNESCO, the Global Alliance for Partnership in Media and Information Literacy (GAPMIL) and the European Commission (EC) [28]. Since then, the EC has organised regular forums for media literacy researchers, funders and trainers [29]. Media literacy researchers are meeting in a conference in Rome in 2026, organised by the International Media Literacy Research Symposium (IMLRS) [30]. The Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting also organises regular conferences, which include media literacy forums [31].
Hundreds of universities from most of the world’s nations are part of the media literacy network. One of the most influential is the Cambridge Social Decision-making Lab (CSDL), part of Cambridge University. CSDL is headed by a Professor of Psychology, Sander Van Der Linden, who began his campaign for ‘pre-bunking’ training in 2018. CSDL works with the UK and American governments to organise media literacy campaigns on hot button topics such as climate and Covid-19, designing games that are attractive to children and young people [32] . Universities worldwide are funded to take part in research programmes, as well as implementing media literacy training programmes for their own students.
What does media literacy training actually do?
Media literacy operatives state that they train people in critical thinking, or the ability to analyse and evaluate information in order to make informed decisions. Taken at face value, this is a noble aim. However, on deeper investigation, training is designed to encourage trainees to think in the same way as those who make policy, in order to create a docile and compliant population. It is an applied behavioural psychological programme, and it fits with the intentions of the UK’s MINDSPACE document. Although the teaching itself is done openly, what remains hidden are the intentions; instead of teaching resilience and independence, its hidden purpose is to control minds.
Media literacy courses are sometimes in-person, and sometimes online. Generally, when taught to groups, for example, school children or university classes, these are in person, although trainers sometimes bring games or videos to support their teaching. School teachers often do not feel confident in teaching media literacy and outside specialist teachers tend to offer in person classes. The face-to-face teaching adds additional costs to the programme.
The trainer usually presents him or herself to media literacy trainees as an expert – a university lecturer, a journalist, or a self-styled disinformation expert who works as a fact checker – the messenger, in MINDSPACE terms. For example, in an online course run by MediaWise in the USA designed for seniors, the trainers are mature well-known television presenters. In some online courses designed for young people, the messenger is an attractive person of a similar age, or may be a cartoon character. In some games, the trainee or gamer becomes the messenger, playing the part of a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or a ‘super-spreader’ of disinformation, who is doing so for nefarious reasons. The messenger is designed to be attractive to the group of trainees attending the course.
Lateral searches and smearing
There are various systems of media literacy training. One called Media Analyzer looks at the way a news item is presented in social media or in the press. It concentrates on things like spelling and grammar errors, checking out the author, headlines and content, references and citations, and illustrations. Whilst this seems innocuous at first glance, courses using this method teach the student to use lateral searches; firstly checking out the sources of the story, including the author, and secondly checking how many others have reported this story [33].
Lateral searches include internet searches on authors to check their credibility. However, in recent years experts who dissent from mainstream opinions are routinely smeared; if anyone searches for an author who has independent viewpoints, they may find a negative reference. For example, cardiologist Aseem Malhotra has different opinions on diet and medications to many other doctors, and the first two paragraphs of his Wikipedia page state that his views have been criticised by ‘experts’ and the British Heart Foundation. Another smeared dissenting voice is Willie Soon, an astrophysicist formerly from Harvard University, who does not agree that all climate issues are caused by anthropogenic activity. His Wikipedia page calls him a ‘climate change denier’ who disputes scientific understanding of climate change.
One example of the smearing of a credible voice was on the MediaWise media literacy course for seniors [34] concerning Professor Luc Montagnier (since deceased), a French Virologist and Nobel Prize recipient [35]. Although MediaWise call Montagnier a virologist they do not refer to his esteemed status, and further state that his opinion was incorrect because there is a contradictory statement on the World Health Organisation (WHO) website. However, Montagnier was more qualified than the WHO advisers, thus his opinion only added to the quality of debate. MediaWise is owned by the Poynter Institute, one of the large players in the censorship industry and funded by those with immense wealth.
Malhotra, Soon and Montagnier are misrepresented by these descriptions; they may be right or wrong, but each are experts in their field and hence their views have value. By its nature science can never be settled and the term scientific consensus is misleading. Science evolves when other scientists challenge existing ideas and practices, moving knowledge and understanding forwards, otherwise, there would never be progress. Media literacy students searching for sources as they are trained to do are likely to view opinions of those that are not ‘approved’ negatively, rather than viewing all opinions of suitably qualified persons as equal, authentic, and worthy of consideration.
Using lateral searches, the media literacy verifying instructions also include internet searches to find what other sources say about the same story, in order to find out what is most likely to be ‘true’, based on the numerical balance of results supporting a particular story. For example, when searching about vaccine injuries, or the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the stories that come to the top of the internet feed are likely to be mainstream versions of events. Thus, media literacy trains students to follow a set pattern of ‘verifying’ rules, that will inevitably lead them to opinions that are favoured by the media literacy trainers; they are being ‘primed’ to think in a particular way.
Media literacy systems
Several other media literacy courses for adults apply lateral searches for verification purposes; although the systems are set out differently, the verification tool used throughout is the same. This includes SMART (Scope, Motivation, Authority/Accuracy, Relevance/reliability, Timely) designed by Lone Star College, Houston [36] and the CRAAP test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy and Purpose), developed at California State University [37]. SIFT (Stop: Investigate; Find Better Coverage; Trace) is designed by Mike Caulfield who is described as a media literacy expert. In one video Caulfield compares two paediatric associations in the US using a lateral search of Wikipedia for verifying information. He chooses one association as reputable, based on its size, income, and membership, and the other as a ‘hate group’ based on the fact that it is newer, smaller and less well endowed, and because this association also takes a stand against same sex adoptions [38]. However, Caulfield’s investigation seems to be far too narrow and superficial to draw such conclusions.
Approved and discredited sources
When verifying information, media literacy trainers suggest sources that they describe as reliable; their suggestions are all linked to power or those with immense wealth and keep to ‘approved’ narratives. This includes the mainstream news, the American government’s Center for Disease Control (CDC), Wikipedia, the Washington Post, Politifact, Google, WHO, and fact check platforms such as Snopes, and FactCheck.org. Independent sources are discredited, and it was not suggested that the investigator should contact the author or organisation. Independent sources include alternative websites and blogs of experienced journalists who have left the mainstream media in order to be able to write more honestly and accurately, or by well qualified professionals who are critical of mainstream narratives and hence cannot get their opinions published in journals that are paid for and controlled by corporations.
Media literacy for kids
Children are the prime target of media literacy training. Children’s media literacy training is often interactive and well designed to be attractive to this cohort. For example, one excellent framework is Youth Learn: Media Literacy Handbook. This is a workbook that runs over several lessons, and encourages critical thinking in children, for example, asking participants to analyse advertisements and news stories [39]. However, the value of this exercise will depend on the teacher; teachers of media literacy are often sympathetic to the censorship industry. For example, some are journalists who have been trained in censorship methodology as part of their in-service or university education, or people employed by fact check platforms, who are trained in censorship methodology because this is what they do for a living. The way that children are guided through this programme will affect the learning outcomes.
Media literacy videos are also available. In a Canadian CBC video entitled “Can you trust the news?” the messenger is an attractive teenage girl who recommends verifying information with fact checking websites and by performing lateral searches, and she also describes the mainstream media as a reliable source of information [40]. Other videos are in cartoon form, such as a CIVIX video called “Disinformation”, which claims that false news is created by foreign governments, or bad domestic actors. The video claims that ‘disinformation’ messages are produced in order to play on minds and emotions, causing social unrest and distrust of government and the media. The CIVIX video is illustrated by frightening cartoon imagery, which could itself play on emotions [41]. Thus mind control techniques to those that are used in adult training are modified for younger audiences.
Interactive media literacy games are also used for training children’s minds; the CSDL calls this ‘inoculation’ against disinformation. CSDL’s Bad News Game trains the user to think that those who dissent from mainstream narratives all have nefarious reasons. The player takes the role of a fake news producer and produces tweets that involve impersonation, conspiracy, polarisation, and more, which the game designers call disinformation tactics [42]. The game Fakey takes a quiz format, and it asks players to decide whether social media posts come from reliable sources or not [43]; those that are independent sources are labelled as unreliable. Google’s Interland has a format that is similar to other popular children’s games; it is fun and engaging. Players get rewards for making what are called the right decisions when online; at the start they are told that they will become ‘internet awesome’ by playing it. It is in four stages, the earlier stages dealing with issues such as data, privacy and passwords, and the last two stages move to dealing with what is called fake news and disinformation [44].
Funding
The media literacy industry is global, extensive, extending, developing, and professionalising. Its members include universities, colleges, government departments, regulators, think tanks, NGOs, teachers, tech and AI companies. Its activities include research, professional journals, producing literature, planning systems of mind control, arranging forums and conferences for networking, and training events. Despite its low profile, an industry of this size cannot exist with insignificant funding; although some media literacy training operates online, it also needs costly face-to-face interactions especially with children and young people, who are prime targets of this mind control system.
It is not always easy to establish funding links to media literacy. For example, the two largest media literacy associations in the USA, NAMLE and IC4ML, are non-profits but all details of their income is not available on their websites. However, both hold conferences, produce journals, offer scholarships and awards, and support media literacy training. Both have large boards and academic advisers. The business analyst website Crunchbase states that IC4ML is spending US$75,500 on IT this year [45], indicating that its total income must be significant. Their annual conference is heavily supported by sponsors from research and investment companies, including CITADEL, G-Research, Janes Trading, Jump, HSBC, XTX, plus Amazon, Microsoft, Byte Dance and Meta [46]. NAMLE lists sponsors for some of its activities as Google, Meta, Thomson-Reuters, and Amazon [47]. It has also received funding from the Educational Development Center, media company GBH, Paramount Media via its children’s media arm Nickelodeon, games designing company Roblox, TikTok, cybersecurity company Trend Micro, YouTube, and the Schripps Family Impact Fund [48] [49]. Interestingly, the Trump administration defunding of USAID affected global media literacy training [50]. It is not known whether some or all funding has been restored to media literacy programmes since February 2025; but via USAID, media literacy worldwide clearly has been funded by the US government for some years.
Media Literacy in UK and Europe is headed by the EU’s EMIL and the UK’s Ofcom, who are at least partially by government. Ofcom is also funded by the media organisations that it regulates [51]. It is not known whether media literacy trainers are also funders of Ofcom’s extensive obligations under the Online Safety Act. Although no evidence was found, it is likely that the UK government has funded at least some of Ofcom’s media literacy activities, as the media literacy industry has no product to sell in order to raise income to pay Ofcom fees. EMIF, the funding arm of EMIL, appears to be funded by Google, the European University Institute which is in turn funded by the EU and member states, and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation [52].
Looking at funding of universities that specialise in media literacy training, Cambridge’s CSDL lists its partners, some or all of which fund its activities [53]. This includes Google Jigsaw, and the US government’s Department of Homeland Security Cyber Infrastructure (CISA) that was found to be active in censorship during an investigation known as the Twitter files [54]. Other partners are Yale University Program of Climate Change and Communication, Facebook, Nuffield Foundation, Northeastern University USA, George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication USA, and the Dutch games manufacturer GROG. As well as joining forces with American government departments, CSDL is also partnered by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the BIT, thus proving the link between applied behavioural psychology and media literacy programmes. Other universities that engage in media literacy research were not so open to listing their sponsors and partners.
Internationally fact check platforms, all part of the censorship industry, are very active in media literacy training, for example, PesaCheck and Africa Check in Africa, Logically and Mafindo in Asia, Chequeado and Doble Check in Latin America, and many others. Wherever these platforms are located, their funding is largely from European and USA governments and their cutouts such as the American National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the European Endowment for Democracy (EED), and the British Council. Other funders are from Western philanthropy especially George Soros’s Open Society, American non-profits such as Meedan and Internews, American investigative journalism organisations such as Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and Global Investigative Journalists Network (GIJN), and American corporations especially Google, Meta, and Microsoft. Fact check platforms that are owned by media corporations are often funded by their parent company. The UN is also a funder of media literacy, especially through UNESCO [55] which plays a critical role in organising and funding media literacy, or mind control, campaigns worldwide.
Discussion
Undoubtedly, dangers lurk on the internet, including issues such as grooming, fraud and bullying. Many people do not understand how advertisers and the media can manipulate information in a way that is not in the public interest. There is without doubt a need for some guidance for vulnerable members of the public who are not internet-savvy, and especially children.
The new media literacy industry preys on that vulnerability, describing their product as educational and protective. Some sites, and even some of the information on sites that use applied behavioural psychology to control minds, meet some of these needs. Practitioners of media literacy describe training as beneficial, as indeed some aspects of media literacy are. For example, Literacy Planet introduces media literacy as follows:
“Media literacy is the ability to apply critical thinking skills to the media we engage with. It helps students discern both covert and overt messages and to recognise different points of view and/or bias. Media literacy is most important for students who are going to navigate a world that will become increasingly complex.” [56]
The expressed noble aims of media literacy organisations are therefore designed to lull parents, teachers, and all members of the population into a false sense of safety. In practice, media literacy is a rapidly developing industry based on applied behavioural psychology, funded by those who wish to control minds to ensure a future compliant and passive society. The funders are the same as those that fund censorship – those with power and immense wealth. It is also an industry that likes to keep a low profile, with few people in society realising that this faceless behemoth is consuming the minds of the next generation.
Academia is now a complicit part of this applied behavioural psychology network, paid to develop skills in taking control over people’s minds. As governments reduce funding to universities, they become increasingly dependent on the rich and powerful, including immensely wealthy philanthropists and corporates, for their research funding or sponsorship [57]. Funding challenges make it difficult for universities to step out of the system and protect people instead of protecting the interests of their funders, who want unencumbered control.
Conclusion
Media literacy training only exists because it is funded. It does not produce a product except to apply mind control techniques especially on children and young people, but wherever possible, on the whole of society. It is unlikely that the rich and powerful would fund this vast and expensive industry if it did not meet with their own objectives. Media literacy is designed to make society more passive, and people more likely to agree with policies that are enacted upon them, even though these may be against their best interests. It is time that people were made more aware of this nefarious programme of what can only be described as systematic indoctrination.
(Featured Image: “Reese, Hacker.” by donnierayjones is licensed under CC BY 2.0.)
