A prominent case study of such an operation was the one that created the idea of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) “rogue unit” in 2014 in an effort to head off investigations into corruption and state capture. Other recent local examples have included the white monopoly capital idea, the General Johan Booysen “death squad” allegations, the “DA axes all its black leaders” campaigns, the campaign to curb party-political funding in South Africa, the white genocide hysteria, and campaigns in favour of ideas such as expropriation without compensation.

But the SARS example is complete enough, and enough is known about it, to make it a good single case study on how to prevent being taken in by information operations.

In 2007, SARS established a special unit to investigate organised crime, tax evasion, and the illicit economy. The unit was responsible for examining complex cases involving powerful and politically connected interests. When it threatened to become very successful, a plan was hatched to scupper it, and that plan took the form of an information operation.

An information operation is an effort, run in full public view, to skew public perception around an issue to such an extent that people lose their ability to think pragmatically about it. Once that happens, it becomes possible to act against the target of the operation in a manner that the public may not only think justified, but may even come to demand.

In the SARS case, the Sunday Times, in cahoots with various corrupt political actors and security people, launched the operation, which was in turn echoed by most of South Africa’s mainstream media companies.

A front-page report by the Sunday Times alleged that the unit had operated unlawfully, intercepted the communications of political figures, and spied on politicians and businesspeople. These allegations, and their repetition across the media, were designed to create the impression that the unit itself was unlawful and that the officials responsible for its work had abused their powers and acted improperly.

This followed a routine information operation tactic to invert reality by accusing the targets of the operation of exactly the thing they are trying to root out. This inversion tactic, discussed in point six below, is a common giveaway that such an operation is afoot.

The Sunday Times and related media reporting created extreme hype around the unit, which served as justification for politicians to enter the debate and demand investigations and corrective action. Committees were established and reports commissioned, leading to the removal of the top investigators behind the unit. It took years for the damage to be undone, and its scars remain visible around the South African economy to this day.

So how do you protect yourself?

Here is some advice.

First, do not be naïve. Corruption has penetrated all institutions in South Africa, and that includes the media and civil society. Understand that it is perfectly possible that you are being lied to and manipulated, and that the bigger the story is, the bigger the lies may be. No story is too big for this.

Second, to start separating lies from the truth, think for yourself and ask whether the allegations you are being told about in fact amount to wrongdoing. Has an offence been committed? If so, specifically which offence? If it becomes hard to answer that in a very specific manner, then be on your guard.

In the SARS case, for example, you were told that the investigative unit had “spied” on businesspeople and politicians. What did that mean? Did it perhaps mean that they were being investigated? Do tax authorities not have the power to investigate? Anyone thinking for themselves and asking those questions would quickly have come to suspect that they were being manipulated.

Third, be especially cautious if you hear the same allegations repeated over and over, particularly if those allegations start sounding more like vague slogans than specific offences. The repetition of slogans is not necessary if crisp, clear evidence is at hand and can be presented and argued.

Fourth, be suspicious when every media outlet tells the same story in much the same terms. A large number of articles may create the impression that people in positions of authority have all independently reached the same conclusion. Often, however, they are being directed by the same corrupt source. Try to find a source you have found reliable in the past and see whether it is reporting the same allegation in the same manner. Also look for counter-narratives arguing something different. Counter-narratives are very useful stress tests for mainstream arguments. Ask whether the counterargument makes more sense than what the herd is telling you to believe.

A very useful fifth test is to ask who benefits from the target in question being removed, sanctioned, or deplatformed. This is perhaps the definitive test. Information operations are usually designed to produce a specific practical outcome. That may be the removal of an investigator, the destruction of an institution, the discrediting of a reformer, or a change to a policy or regulation. Ask how the public benefits if the target is sanctioned or the policy changed. Do you benefit? If it is obvious that the public interest benefits, in other words, that your life will be better, then it is likely not a nefarious plot.

Did you stand to gain from SARS’s high-end investigative powers being curbed? Does the ordinary person in the street? Likely not.

Lastly, point six, watch for the inversion of reality. If the public interest is the key test, then the inversion of reality is the key smoking gun. The tactic is to accuse effective investigators, whistleblowers, or reformers of the very misconduct or policy they are trying to expose or reverse. Officials investigating corruption may suddenly be described as corrupt, those weakening institutions may present themselves as defenders of accountability, and those fighting disinformation may be accused of peddling disinformation. A good test for inversion is to ask whether the accusation being levelled aligns with the history or track record of the person or institution in question.

You can use all six points, but especially points two, five, and six, as a checklist of sorts. Be on your guard if you are not getting clear answers about what exact offence has been committed, how sanctioning the target is in your direct interest, and whether the issue in question is a case of inverting reality by representing something as the opposite of what it is.

Follow that advice and you should have little trouble navigating around reality and illusion – and if it is taking you a while to think whether you should trust this advice, then well done, you’ve just passed the first and most important test of how to read the press.