Publisher’s Note: This is the first installment in a series. Find the 2nd installment here.

In the 21st century, procuring accurate information about any complex issue grows increasingly difficult. The Internet provides a forum for a cacophony of voices that range from glaringly misinformed, to well-meaning but lacking in depth and detail, to discerning experts with important knowledge that unfortunately gets lost in the din. Meanwhile mainstream media wanders seemingly lost in uncharted territory, under fire from a new president who is “at war” with the press. And brazen for-profit or politically-driven organizations unabashedly churn out biased information, even outright lies, to further their interests. Hello “fake news.” It is no secret that conscientious effort is required to investigate the variant narratives of current events.

One such tangle of narratives concerns climate change. Around 97% of scientists believe that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, such as mass livestock farming for meat consumption, are significant causes of C02 build-up in the atmosphere, which is warming the Earth and setting in motion irreparable climate changes that will affect all marine and land-based ecosystems, ecosystems upon which humans depend. Yet a range of climate change deniers are spinning counter-narratives. Embedded in the narrative tangle is, obviously, corporate profit from fossil fuels extraction and sales, and our own consumption habits of gas, oil, and coal, as well as the uncountable products we buy and throw away made in part from petroleum. The potential ramifications of climate change are surreal and hard to fathom, while the steps we need to take to slow it down threaten the very fabric of our modern narrative—a story of miles of commuter traffic lined up daily on freeways, tropical getaways in planes, and semis transporting goods from place to place, as well as petroleum as a key ingredient in dish soap, computers, and food containers.

Over the course of 2016, while a madcap presidential election danced across our Facebook walls and our televisions, one set of voices in the climate narrative grew louder and louder—the voices of the demonstrators at Standing Rock. It began as a small gathering of Standing Rock Lakota (Sioux) at the Sacred Stone Camp at the edge of the Cannon Ball River in North Dakota—a gathering of tribal members to protest completion of the last mile of the “black serpent” that would transport oil down from the Bakken Oil Reserve. The Dakota Access Pipeline (or DAPL) would run right under Lake Oahe and—the Standing Rock tribe claimed in their petition and eventual lawsuit—would carry black crude through treaty-protected sacred burial grounds. The tribe’s primary concern was safety of drinking water. According to TIME magazine, “the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has reported more than 3,300 incidents of leaks and ruptures at oil and gas pipelines since 2010” (Worland). Answering to the call “Water is Life,” the demonstration drew thousands to the encampment during the summer and fall of 2016, eventually even including veterans pledging to protect the “water protectors” from brutal pushback by law enforcement.

This little demonstration grew not only in numbers, but in scope because Standing Rock was and still is on the frontlines of the fight to stop climate change. Indeed Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II has said as much, for the completion of DAPL exemplifies a continued aggressive approach to fossil fuel development and infrastructure. The stand taken by demonstrators from several Native American tribes, citizens from all over the U.S., and  environmentalists across the globe to stop a project of the magnitude of DAPL with its 1200-mile reach maintains hope in the power of ordinary people.

However, in the late autumn of 2016 a number of negative claims emerged both in the news and on social media about the demonstrators camped at Standing Rock. One refrain was “These are NOT peaceful protesters.” A Facebook link was circulating that shared Neil Young and Daryl Hannah’s letter to President Obama pleading with him to stop the alleged human rights violations that law enforcement had been carrying out against the demonstrators by using water cannons in sub-zero weather, tear gas, and rubber bullets, and, perhaps, concussion grenades. Below the article, the comments thread was of predictable outrage over the mistreatment, but there were also numerous negative claims about the demonstrators often shouted in ALL CAPS and accompanied by swear words.

One claim was that the demonstration itself was ridiculous because the Standing Rock Tribe supposedly had plenty of time to comment and be involved in the DAPL permitting process which was allegedly uber-careful with regards to environmental and cultural concerns, but the tribe chose to ignore invitations to participate in permit discussions. A second claim was that the demonstrators used propane tanks as bombs and were “terrorizing the citizens of North Dakota.” A third claim—a common discount of any recent protest of magnitude such as The Women’s March—was that the protesters were not real protesters but, rather, were being paid to be there. A fourth rather alarming claim was that the demonstrators were slaughtering livestock, cutting it up, and barbecuing it. Most of the peace-loving hippy types who traveled to Standing Rock from cities or from small towns came back to tell stories of singing, drumming, prayer, and otherwise calm and respectful protest activities, albeit in a relatively harsh setting of cold weather and periodic onslaughts by government forces. Yet a definite clash of narratives had arisen in the media, and subsequently in the hearts and minds of the wide variety of citizens responsible for making sound decisions about fossil fuel consumption and solving the environmental threat of global warming.

What follows in this series is what I uncovered in late November/early December of 2016 directly on the coattails of the four negative claims above regarding the Standing Rock demonstrators—a snapshot of the information about each claim that was available at one’s fingertips on the Web at that time. This snapshot reveals that evidence for much of the discrediting of demonstrators was inconclusive, suspect, or biased. Since December, details of these claims may have unfolded further in the media; however, at the time that rumors of negative behavior were confidently spread on social media, what I cover in my article is all that I was able to find about the claims. The shoddy evidence for this demonization of DAPL demonstrators and the suspect motives of those “reporting” the negative claims are cause for significant concern for climate change action and for the wider public view of political demonstrations—our first amendment right.

Look for NoDAPL, Part 2 next week.

Kylee Mabel Cushman is a writer, editor, adjunct professor and citizen activist based in central Vermont.