Your Guide to Election Distortions and Machinations
Aug 04 2010
Politics is not a game. It is an earnest business.
-Winston Churchill
The Season Begins
Not that the political season actually ever ends. But without a doubt members of every part of the spectrum are ramping up their efforts to discredit opposing forces heading into the mid-term elections. As per American tradition, truth has taken an enormous amount of vacation time these past few months. While the distribution method of the information has started to switch from traditional emails to open forums, partisan websites and social media to pull them all together, email lists still play a critical role.
In this and other articles, we will be exploring common tactics of disinformation and political spin in the information world. Additionally, we’ll examine sources and websites to help guide you through the web, armed with knowledge of warning signs and some specific places to avoid as well as trust. Ric Romero fans will enjoy this article.
As there are only a few viral emails out there right now that are highly active and related to the military, so we’ll take a look at those in the coming days.
Key Words and Phrases
For ease of purpose, let’s just call emails/articles/tweets/messages on forums and all other type of information an article.
Working with the evidence of the most common bilge articles, there are a few similarities among highly inaccurate messages both in style and argumentative methods. If an article contains any of the following statements (especially more than one), consider it partisan and seek another source:
- Wake up (usually followed by ‘America’)
- Socialist
- Birth certificate
- Destroy our way of life
- New World Order
- Neocon
- Zionist
- Obamacare
- Teabagger
While some of these are obviously directed at liberals, it works both ways. While the ‘Birther’ movement is a right wing effort (which most analysts agree it is, at least in the majority of cases), the 9/11 ‘Truthers’ tend to be more geared against the conservatives or ‘Neo-Cons’. This generalization does not hold together in all cases of course. A feeling of urgency and anti-government sentiment drives almost all of these efforts and in more cases than not the ‘us vs. them’ is not among the citizenry but ‘us’ vs. the federal government. While articles can be focused on individuals such as President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh or President Bush and others, the attacks on individuals are most commonly due to the fact that they are representations of a particular group.
If an article frequently uses New World Order and Zionist, you can usually count on it being an anti-Semitic source, and the information is almost always twisted beyond any semblance of truth. In this group’s eyes, the end of the world is always just around the corner and whatever is being done (from the Gulf spill to banking manipulation) is in preparation for a global takeover of the country and is being coordinated by a small cabal of power. Supporting evidence for an issue, however weak, is trumpeted loudly, while other evidence and reality as a whole is attacked.
Writing Methods
There are three major red flags that should tell you further investigation is necessary. The first two depend on the writer’s belief that readers will not actually check out any supporting documentation or links closely. The third is common boilerplate.
‘Check it out on Snopes’ – Often put in the first line with a ‘This is 100% true’ qualifier, there are two variations of this ruse. Either they won’t actually provide the link to Snopes, or the link they provide actually points someone to a Snopes page that states clearly that the email is not accurate. Just because something is written up on Snopes does not mean that it is true, and checking it out first will save you a bit of heartache and trouble.
‘Don’t believe me, check out the links at the bottom’ – A common feature in viral disinformation is creating or linking to websites that parrot the exact same bad information. This tactic goes hand in hand with presenting opinions as facts and does nothing to promote truth. Check the links, but don’t expect them to be from overly critical or unbiased sources. A link to a message board posting or a diary at DailyKos does not necessarily mean the information is accurate, it only means that someone else has the same feelings on an issue and has used the platform to promote it.
‘You won’t hear about this in the Mainstream Media’ – Used almost as a template for emails or blog postings from the ‘alternative’ media, this is the go-to phrase to try and establish credibility. It reaches deep into the psyche of the reader and connects them to the ‘us vs. them’ mentality. While most of what you’ll read that contains this verbiage is directed towards the supposed left wing bias of the media, it is really more of an opposition tactic. When President Bush was in office, many articles attacked the media for not reporting on the good things happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as we see them today attacking the media for being too soft on President Obama. The media is seen as a propaganda arm of the group in power in Washington, regardless of which power that is. And opposing the ‘traditional’ media by ‘telling it like it is’ is one of the most powerful ways to get a message across. But it is usually just smoke. More times than not, there’s a reason you don’t see these stories on the networks or in the major newspapers – staffs have researched them and found them to be inaccurate or overtly partisan.
Using the Tools Available
One word: Google. The first thing you should do before taking any article to heart and passing it on is to go to the middle of the message, copy a paragraph or two that are relatively unique, and plug it in to Google to see what comes up. You’ll instantly see one of two things. If the article is new and especially if it is based on opinion, you will get a result that shows dozens of the parrot sites mentioned above that have spread the message verbatim. Click on some of these links and pay attention to what the website looks like, check out their ‘about us’ page if they have one, and most importantly look at the discussion or comments. User comments are an excellent way to gauge what kind of people are visiting the site and always blow the actual article out of the water when it comes to incendiary rhetoric. If you see a slew of the same commentary, you know you are in partisan land.
The second Google result possibility is that the first page is a mix between debunking sites and parrots. Usually if an article contains inaccuracies that are obvious and non-opinion oriented, the debunking sites will carry a heavier search weight and will have multiple sources to choose from. For example, a Google search for ‘Obama $50 Gun Tax’, a thoroughly debunked email from 2009 and 2010, gives you the following result:
—————-
—————-
FactCheck beats MOAA to the top on that one, but that’s OK, they do great work. The biggest tool at your disposal is, of course, your own mind. If something doesn’t smell right, don’t forward it until you’ve taken the time to understand the issue and done the research that makes you feel confident that the information is accurate.
In part 2 of this series we’ll take a look at websites and news outlets and identify specific signs of bilge and provide a list of places to avoid and sites to trust. Although the second part of that comes with a strong caveat. Never trust anyone all the time.
Related Reading:
Book Review of Idiot America
Newsweek’s Attempt at Conspiracy Theory Debunking
Last Year’s Top Bilge
Discussion
Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John Christie, Matthew LoFiego. Matthew LoFiego said: Your Guide to Election Distortions and Machinations http://bit.ly/ariyGN via @AddToAny [...]
That was an excellent article – this would be a useful link to send to friend/relatives that forward crazy stuff – it is especially meaningful that it comes from a patriotic organization like MOAA.
WAKE UP RETIRED OFFICERS!! There is but a couple of good points in your article, the rest is “off our theme”" and not up to your usual good standards and is unalterated ——-. You do not fairly represent the totality of the retired officer force. You exibited neither knowledge nor understanding of what freedom of speech is all about and more important, of what this country is all about . Often, the only “tool” the “little guy” has is his voice, and as poliitcially unsophisticated, mudane (and sometime in the gutter) as it may be, it has to be recognized and heard. We need to examine the structure of our MOAA Board of Directors. To get a more accurate input from the retired field, we need the experience from all grades (with equal voices), in proportion to the number that are in the field, perhaps a single general, a couple of field grade and the rest company grade (or equivalents, of course). I cannot believe that the present board does not relalize that the greatest threat to this country today is the Muslim/Islamic’s clearly stated edict that they are going to take over this country and the world. (In my opinion, that problem along with the present administration’s problems are “one and the same”). There are daily news reports of the progess both are making. I suggest that everyone read Bridgitte Gabriel’s book, “They must be stopped”. Now, stop trying to be politically correct, and publish this. WAKE UP AMERICA!
Mr. Dehoff is right about “unsophisticated, mundane” speech being protected. However, he misses the major point of the article. There is nothing wrong with, and it is desirable to, encourage people to use discernment before spreading unchecked “facts” over the World Wide Web.
Once a tidbit of tripe is launched with a press of the Enter key, it spreads like dandilion seeds in a breeze. If you are the one pressing the key, you share in the responsiblilty of litering the internet with weeds. So thanks for the article and here’s to harvesting more useful information and less drivel.
“If an article contains any of the following statements (especially more than one), consider it partisan and seek another source:”
This is truely terrible advice. If everyone (any one) followed it we would be truely uninformed about the pros and cons of any (all) issues. Our knowledge of issues would then be like unseasoned food.
Not sure what you mean, sir. I’m advising people to look at as many sources as possible.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t read the article, but searching out other sources that may be able to confirm or deny the information can only lead to people being more informed on the issues, not less. Unseasoned food would be taking everything we read and not looking for other viewpoints.
I think your article is misguided at best and something from you should refrain! Get back to the business of MOAA ;protecting the military of all grades in all areas. I think this article has a very liberal bias and I must point out that Snopes is operated with a very liberal bias which contains half truths as amatteer of practice.
GET YOUR NOSE OUT OF THE BODY POLITIC.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Excellent article and so true. Based on some of the reader comments, it appears the article may have “hit home” with some who like to flood our emails with the type of “over-the-top” rhetoric the article discusses. I’m looking forward to Part 2.
Polical bias and critical thinking are definitely two different schools of thought. In this blog, the concept of “looking before you leap” is the premise. With a great deal of thoughts on one side of a subject, often looking at the subject from a different perspective, and checking your facts, is prudent before sending out a “the end is near” thought to everyone you know. At least it is if you don’t want to be questioned by those who do their research.
“More times than not, there’s a reason you don’t see these stories on the networks or in the major newspapers – staffs have researched them and found them to be inaccurate or overtly partisan.”–There goes your credibility! Don’t bother with Part II.
I am politically independent and, depending on the issue, could be labeled either conservative or liberal. In my attempt to remain the impossible, unbiased, I read all political emails and watch as much variety of mainstream and Internet news as possible. Although overall this article has merit in suggesting we not to take everything at face value and to check out the facts, most people, even retirees, don’t have the time. Furthermore, we’d also should be checking mainstream media as well, because they have evolved into biased organizations. It comes down to the fact that little information today is 100% accurate without bias. I have to faults with this article. One: The list of buzz words, although a “possible” red flag, cannot be assumed to automatically discredit an email or article. Second: The article states, “When President Bush was in office, many articles attacked the media for not reporting on the good things happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as we see them today attacking the media for being too soft on President Obama. The media is seen as a propaganda arm of the group in power in Washington, regardless of which power that is.” Using this article’s author’s rules of thumb, he just discredited his article by these two sentences because they are contradictory. True, the soft media on Obama is seen by me at a propaganda arm of Pres. Obama, however, not reporting on the good things happening in Iraq was hardly a propaganda arm of the Bush administration. Quite the opposite. As stated earlier by Al O’Hanlon, this article has a liberal bias, well hidden, but liberal.
Excellent points, Don, and this is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping for, believe it or not. I put in those keywords due to the number of times they’ve been used in emails I’ve seen (most of which are not military related so I don’t analyze many of them in the blog) and my advice at seeing those words are to seek another source for comparison, not dismiss it entirely. I’m working on an email that is circulating right now that contains a few of them but the information beyond the commentary is solid. Hoping to post that this week.
Back to the type of discussion I was hoping for, was to use the tools I mention and information I suggested and hoped the article itself would be found in fallacy due to the exact part you pointed out. The mainstream media was all over President Bush’s faults and the war effort, so the complaint was a strong one. But Fox News has never been soft on Obama, nor has most of the right leaning talk radio personalities. CNN flirts with extended periods of ignoring the president and attacking him, and even MSNBC, which was clearly a supporter of President Obama early on, has been increasingly critical of the administration. I think the argument that the media has been too soft on the president is not supported by data.
As to not having enough time to check other sources, a couple of minutes here and there is worth it when talking about our next round of leaders and how you are going to vote.
I would want to make clear to you as I have to Al (who is a man to look up to, who I salute for his sacrifices), that this blog is produced by MOAA’s Member Service Center and not our Legislative group, so things stated here do not deviate or affect how MOAA aggressively pursues our goal of ensuring that the benefits that have been earned by putting lives on the line for the country are not reduced and that fixes for inequities in law are corrected. We do this for the military family, and our goals are to improve lives. If you see liberalism in my posts, please do not extend that to MOAA and what we do.
This is more of a place to get members discussing issues outside of the formal framework of the legislative team and our executives.
Donald D. DeHoff’s assertion that “…the greatest threat to this country today is the Muslim/Islamic’s clearly stated edict that they are going to take over this country and the world.” is flat out inflammatory hyperbole, grossly inaccurate and frankly absurd. Countless souls have been persecuted and killed over recorded history because of a grossly distorted INTERPRETATION of religion (yes, including even the Protestant/Catholic faith) or geopolitics.
Making an unsubstantiated statement like this undermines your own argument and credibility. It actually helps support the author’s thesis. Good grief!
“Wake up, America!”? I feel like I’m reading something from Sen. Joe McCarthy’s era. I guess I need to buy another gun and more ammunition.
DeHoff’s assertion concerning the Muslim/Islamic edict may be inflammatory, but it is not inaccurate nor absurd. Read any good history and one will see just how important conquest is for the Muslim faith. Listen to the rhetoric from most any Islamic leader from a Muslim nation. Watch the news and hear of the almost daily autrocities commited in the name of Allah, and then wonder if DeHoff is absurd.
The fact is, Muslims are worse than Hitler and want to take over the world. Obama is a Muslim. The MSM will not report this.
Hi, i just thought i’d post and let you know your blogs layout is really messed up on the K-Melonbrowser. Anyhow keep up the good work.
Hello there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this site before but after reading through some of the post I realized it’s new to me. Nonetheless, I’m definitely delighted I found it and I’ll be bookmarking and checking back frequently!
I simply needed to thank you so much yet again. I’m not certain the things that I might have made to happen in the absence of the actual basics revealed by you regarding my question. Completely was the fearsome matter in my position, but taking note of the skilled fashion you treated it forced me to weep over delight. I am thankful for your support and then sincerely hope you find out what a great job you are always getting into teaching many people thru your web site. Most probably you haven’t met all of us.
I went over this site and I think you have a lot of excellent information, saved to favorites (:.
In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.