* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Flak
Originating during WWII to describe anti-aircraft fire, the term flak has come to describe written or verbal abuse in discourse.
Collins for example describes flak as being hostility in the sense of abuse, censure, or condemnation.
One of the keys to understanding covid discourse is recognizing flak – particularly when it is not overt.
Why study flak?
We’re not going to study it exactly…but flak plays an important role in suppression.
It is worth highlighting when flak is arranged or orchestrated – ie weaponized.
Characteristics of flak in discourse.
StubbornTruths will use the following elements to describe flak:
False claims
Rhetoric – heavy rhetoric or hostile tone.
Attacks – personal attacks or smears.
Misleading – readers or viewers are misled into forming a condemnatory view of the target, or misled about evidence – and particularly, led away from making up their own minds.
Evidence. Or rather, a general lack of evidence. Tricks or ruses with evidence – for example, it is missing, is not presented, is simply claimed, or that is deliberately false or misleading.
False claims, Rhetoric, Attacks, Misleading, Evidence.
Or in a mnemonic, FRAME.
Flak is likely to be present when most of these elements are discernible (or when some are strongly discernible),
To qualify as flak there clearly must also be a personal focus, a target person or group. Someone for the lightning bolt to hit.
The presence of flak usually suggests hostile intent on the part of the writer or speaker towards the target.
The characterisation of flak in terms of its elements is particularly useful when the hostile intent is disguised as something else, particularly if the subject is health concerns – a subject in which evidence should always feature.
If a health message or article appears to target a particular person or group, it is worth examing for the elements of flak.
Is it unnessarily rhetorical? Does it attack a person or group personally?
Does it attempt to isolate the person?
Is the article short of references to evidence, and if so is it misleading or false? Sometimes links are not very supportive of the claim, or are to more flak.
If any of these elements are present there is likely to be an element of flak.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
