Expert Intermediation
Citing carefully selected experts whose conclusions align with predetermined narratives, while omitting equally credentialed dissenting voices. The "expert" becomes a vessel for institutional preferences.
Documenting indirect misinformation, narrative laundering, and third-party credibility abuse in modern media and institutions. Evidence-based. Non-partisan. Forensic.
A form of indirect deception that creates accountability gaps through the strategic use of intermediaries.
Lying by proxy occurs when misleading information is disseminated through intermediaries rather than stated directly by the original actor. Rather than making a false claim outright, the actor cites "experts," relies on "anonymous sources," delegates to "independent" validators, or leverages institutional partners to advance a narrative they wish to promote but prefer not to personally endorse.
This differs from direct misinformation in a crucial way: attribution becomes diffuse, accountability becomes murky, and corrections—when they come—rarely propagate through the same channels as the original claim. The distance created between source and statement is not accidental; it is structural.
Deception doesn't always come from the speaker. Often, it comes from who is allowed to speak on their behalf.
The original actor maintains plausible deniability by outsourcing controversial or misleading claims to third parties who absorb any subsequent criticism or legal exposure.
The intermediary's credibility is borrowed to lend weight to claims that would be scrutinized more heavily if stated directly by the interested party.
When proxy claims are debunked, corrections rarely reach the same audience through the same channels, leaving the original narrative largely intact.
Understanding the psychological and structural factors that make indirect misinformation effective.
Credibility borrowed from authoritative intermediaries substitutes for direct evidence. The reputation of the proxy becomes the argument itself.
Claims attributed to experts, institutions, or officials receive less scrutiny than identical claims from unknown sources.
The original actor can distance themselves from problematic claims by pointing to the intermediary as the actual source.
When multiple parties are involved in amplifying a claim, no single entity bears full accountability for its accuracy.
The structural patterns through which indirect deception operates across media, institutions, and platforms.
Citing carefully selected experts whose conclusions align with predetermined narratives, while omitting equally credentialed dissenting voices. The "expert" becomes a vessel for institutional preferences.
Unverifiable claims attributed to unnamed "officials," "sources familiar with the matter," or "people close to" the subject. Accountability disappears behind a veil of confidentiality.
Formal arrangements where organizations outsource credibility to each other, creating circular validation loops that appear independent but share aligned interests.
Technology platforms deferring content decisions to algorithmic systems or third-party moderators, creating distance between editorial choices and the platforms that implement them.
Reliance on nominally "independent" verification services that may have their own institutional biases, funding dependencies, or methodological limitations.
Evidence-based analysis of proxy deception patterns. No accusations beyond documentation. No conclusions beyond evidence.
Understanding why indirect deception creates unique challenges for accountability and correction.
Common phrases that create distance between claims and accountability. These patterns are not inherently deceptive, but warrant closer scrutiny.
Our commitment to evidence-based analysis, source verification, and intellectual honesty.
All documented cases require primary sources. Secondary reporting is cited only when primary sources are unavailable, and this limitation is noted explicitly.
Clear distinction between documented facts and analytical inference. When conclusions are drawn, the reasoning chain is made explicit and open to scrutiny.
Errors are corrected transparently with timestamps. Original text is preserved with strikethrough. Material changes are noted in a changelog.
Lying by Proxy is an independent documentation project focused on identifying indirect deception and tracing responsibility across information chains.
We are not partisan. We do not speculate beyond evidence. We do not make accusations without documentation. Our purpose is to provide a clear, searchable record of how misleading information moves through intermediaries—and why that matters for accountability.
This project exists because deception has become structural. Understanding how it works is the first step toward addressing it.