Ginny shares (through a couple of hops) an interesting article by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt about, ultimately, why smear campaigns work, and what journalists can do about it.
The first part is the best, as it gathers up all sorts of rather disheartening info about how the brain processes information. Bottom line: Mr. Spock we ain’t.
- We tend to remember (and credit) information that supports our opinions and forget (or discredit) info that doesn’t.
- We tend to disassociate info from its original source, and ultimately associate it with sources we trust (we trust the info, we trust the source, so the info must have been from the source). That disassociation further blurs the truthfulness into “truthiness.”
- We tend to remember stuff that is emotion-laden.
So take the above items together, and all you have to do is come up with some fear-laden piece of misinformation that plays into concerns that people already have, repeat it enough times, and people will eventually take it as not only true, but something they heard from a reliable source.
Karl Rove is one smart puppy.
The article’s recommendations on how journalists can combat this are a bit more iffy, if only because they assume (a) journalists (and their editors and publishers) are themselves unbiased and (b) journalists can discern truth from falsehood.
The recommendations are also a scosh controversial because they assume that the purpose of journalism is to discern the truth, as to report on what’s being said and done. The two are not always the same thing (obviously), and journalists who pursue the former are likely to be labeled as politically motivated by those who don’t agree with (or who have a vested interest against) what the journalist portrays as true.
That said, they’re worth a read-through:
1. “State the facts without reinforcing the falsehood”: In particular, remember that repeating a false rumor can reinforce it, even if it’s repeated simply to debunk it. As part of this, reporting on what less reliable sources are talking about (“Word on the street from Drudge”) runs the same risk. That’s tricky, both because of the competitive pressures of the journalistic world and because it’s tough to debunk a rumor without actually talking about it.
2. “Tell the truth with images”: Because folks process so much visually, it’s important to remember the old saw of “a picture’s worth a thousand words.” This ties in with the previous point — using a picture that reflects the falsehood (esp. the falsehood itself) while debunking is sending mixed messages to the brain. Make sure your images, of course, are accurate and fair.
3. “Provide a compelling debunking”: Simply saying a smear is false, or unsupported, or unsubstantiated, isn’t debunking (and falls prey to #1). Showing how it is false, explaining how someone might have misinterpreted (or misrepresented) the facts is a critical part. It also provides a firmer basis for calling something false (rather than just a “nuh-uh!”)
4. “Discredit the source”: This plays on the emotions, by “smearing” (with truth, of course) the source of the smear. The most controversial item, perhaps, and certainly can devolved into a tit-for-tat set of accusations and counter-accusations. It doesn’t address the truth, per se, but, as they say on TV, “Goes to credibility, your honor.”
Again, a key problem with all of these suggestions is that they can be easily twisted by the unscrupulous — masking facts by spinning them, telling falsehoods with images, being compelling (emotionally), and, of course, discrediting your opponents. But, then, if it were easy, anyone could do it.
The authors actually have a book and a blog. Looks interesting.