Yes, that’s right, social psychologists have figured out what the Republicans have known for years, if not decades:
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued a flier to combat myths about the flu vaccine. It recited various commonly held views and labeled them either “true” or “false”….
When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flier, however, he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.
Younger people did better at first, but three days later they made as many errors as older people did after 30 minutes. Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.
The psychological insights yielded by the research… have broad implications for public policy. The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.
(…)
The research also highlights the disturbing reality that once an idea has been implanted in people’s minds, it can be difficult to dislodge. Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.
Indeed, repetition seems to be a key culprit. Things that are repeated often become more accessible in memory, and one of the brain’s subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are true.
(…)
Furthermore, a new experiment by Kimberlee Weaver at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and others shows that hearing the same thing over and over again from one source can have the same effect as hearing that thing from many different people — the brain gets tricked into thinking it has heard a piece of information from multiple, independent sources, even when it has not.
This is why “zombie lies” are so hard to kill: The act of debunking actually sustains them. (Up to a point, anyway – BushCo’s failures have become so glaring that the lies now only work on the Republican base and the Democratic leadership.)
So how do we fight them, then? Well, the researchers recommend debunking the lies without actually repeating them, which is a bit tricky.
My crudely amateurish suggestion would be to simply substitute “Contrary to what Bush/the Republicans say,” where the lie would have been: i.e., “Contrary to what the Republicans say, President Bush has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attack.” The lie itself does not get repeated, and everyone in America hears Bush/Republicans accused of dishonesty over and over again. (Note: This is probably more practical for politicians and talking heads, as blogger protocol typically requires an explanation and/or link to the claim one is rebutting.)
Anyone have any better ideas? Ideas that will work for bloggers?



234 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
! Eli!
zed
Can Science catch up to the MSM, too?
Laura Doty @ 3
Dang, I forgot that I intended to say that science had finally explained the Democratic leadership, and I was going to link to a something about the Stockholm Syndrome…
hiya Eli!
Rats!! So close.
Sorry I have to run out of what looks like a great thread. I look forward to reading it all later. Thank you Eli! (Hi LL!)
Eli!!!
“denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.”
Yes, but this is the insight that led Kerry to ignore the swiftboaters, with disasterous results. The true lesson is to counterattack, fast and hard. Never defend, never explain, always attack.
(waves to Laura)
rude pundit is the man with the plan – take down Vitter the Diaper Sh*tter.
The primo example of telling the same lies over and over to convince folks that the lie is true is that Saddam had WMD’s and that he was responsible for 9-11. Many still believe this hoax.
Hiya, LL & CTut! Biya, LD!
Bloix @ 9
I *think* it could be done without repeating the original lies. “These people are shameless bought-and-paid-for liars. Here’s the truth…”
Oklahoma kiddo @ 12
Yep, it’s the main example in the WaPo piece, too.
Ignore the untruth
Simply state the truth
Bush has made us less safe
His policies have made us a scourge internationally and a disaster at home.
He has weakened the Justice Department so that criminals will go free.
His economic policies have made the rich richer and the rest of us beholden to our insurance providers.
He abandoned the Gulf Coast.
He abandoned the Rust Belt.
Great post, Eli.
The Big Lie worked so well for all history’s recent dictators…Stalin, Hitler, and now this little shit.
Introduce your own memes in the refutations and repeat *those* everywhere.
That’s just silly, Eli, next you are going to tell me Saddam wasn’t behind 9/11.
Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that people are stupid?
mack @ 15
And keep repeating and repeating the above.
Isn’t the repetition of lies the basis of Faux Spew’s ‘reporting’???
raven @ 19
Such a great comment you had to repeat it twice?
which is why kerry would have lost even if he DID address the swift boat smear machine immediately
the ONLY way to combat the smears is with ATTACK and INDIGNATION
for instance kerry HAD to respond;
“these yellow maggots have the NERVE to challenge MY performance in vietnam, are they totally MAD
and then attack the maggots in response
that’s really the only strategy, attack the attacker, get friggin indignant and make them look like mindless marionettes
AZ Matt @ 22
Nah, I’m stupid too.
OT, but relevant…
Quantitative data on the success rate of Bush v Congress… an all time low.
from Yahoo via Huffington Post
Keith did have an excellent point. Draper claims the actual policy is endless continuation of the Iraq War/Occupation/Genocide. Then the Iraq Study Group, the Petraeus Report, speeches at the VFW, and so on are part of a fraud, to deceive Congress, and the people. That seems quite impeachable.
Hugh, is this Bush War Fraud on your list yet?
Reperplicans have diminished America.
Demand better.
Be better than Reperplicans.
raven @ 19
The repetition technique is a lot easier if people aren’t paying attention to where their information is coming from, or whether it’s true.
I wanted to include this quote, but was trying to keep the post length down:
perris @ 23
I would love to see more of that. Democrats need to start saying “How dare you?”
Look at the bright shiny light. You are gettin sleepy, very sleepy, your eyelids are getting so heavy, you can’t keep them open. Now listen very carefully:
“You support the surge because progress is being made in Iraq.”
(KO is the King of “How dare you?”, I might add.)
Reperplicans have given us a C-minus America.
Let’s put the big A back in America again.
Demand better. Be better.
That’s all I got….
Eli @ 29
No, more of their constituents need to start saying it to the Democrats.
Frank33 @ 26
I have this:
Kerry
Yale graduate
member of skull and bones (or whatever)
had films of himself taken in Viet Nam
never, never knew anyone who did that
asking james and raven
james @ 33
I think they are. They’re just not listening.
Oh,
And Larry Craig is what happens when you don’t let gays marry.
james @ 33
To me the most damaging part of the Swiftboaters was not O’Neil and the early attack but the later ones by the POW’s. Kerry could have fought back against the lies and distortions but when the POW’s talked about how they “felt” about Kerry that was indisputable.
Be better than Reperplicans.
Aw come on – ask for something that at least takes a little effort..
A better idea is to distill arguments into a sentence or two that goes to the heart of the matter. I know someone here at FDL talked about that a few months ago. For example, I blog both privately and publicly. At my “public blog” http://www.deafdc.com/blog/?p=946” (which I need to post something at! *blush*)I wrote an entry in July where I talked about the values I was taught as a child, and how these values were being applied by Bush in his commutation of Libby’s sentence. I distilled the whole situation into the basic elements of truth and lies (ok, so I took more than two sentences).
But the concept is the same. We want to fight these lies they’re bandying about? Then we have to counteract them by distilling every issue, every lie, every fact into something that can be comprehended across the board. This doesn’t mean treating the average American as stupid, but merely reducing everything to concepts that everyone knows, or cannot misunderstand. We all share the same values: most of us were raised not to lie, and to tell the truth. What’s simpler than that? We have to do that with all the other issues and topics as well.
The next step is harder, of course: disseminating these concepts. This is where we have to try to transcend the blogosphere, and work within the Corporate Media (there’s nothing “mainstream” about it– with the proliferation of computer use over the last decade or so, internet media are just as “mainstream” as traditional venues) to get the message out. That’s as opposed to “with”– obviously the talking heads aren’t about to move over anytime soon.
Clearly, my writing pales compared to the posters here and elsewhere; I don’t pretend to be anything but a small-time blogger and one of the vast readership of this forum (and others), but make use of my contributions as you will.
Short version: distill rebuttals, facts, etc. to the Lowest Common Denominator. Then share liberally (*grin*) as much as you can, in any way possible. After all, the opposition is used to being as loud as possible; we need to do the same.
Jonathan @ 35
I told James earlier about home movies of Quang Tri on AFVN’s site. I have 8mm’s of my outfit in Korea. Look on the Mobile Riverine Force website and you’ll find plenty of links to video.
Eli @ 31
yup, and that’s what the democrats need to start doing
whenever a repukelican challenges a democrat on ANY subject regarding national security, the fight against terrorism, the economy, supporting the military, a lesson from ko;
“how DARE you!!!…etc”
good point eli, you say in one sentence what it takes me paragraphs
jayt @ 39
Have you *heard* the Democrats lately?
Eli, this is a very interesting post – and what you are saying is totally consistent with how people learn. I learned never to use true/false stuff when I was teaching, even on tests. People remember the statement, but not whether it was true of false.
First one must call a lie a lie. If the lie was from stupidity, or political hack, or something out of context, deal with that later. But the important thing is to call the son of a bitch a liar and speak to his credibility. Like this “YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR”.
jonathan, left you a few comments back in the last thread……….
Okay. Whois Draper?
Where I grew up, there was an old saying: “No woman ever improved her reputation by standing on a street corner and yelling, ‘I’m not a whore.’” The point, as I understood it (aside from various levels of sexism), was that once someone is on the defensive, everything they do to defend themselves will backfire. And that is why it is so important to attack Attack ATTACK.
raven @ 41
Lookeee here Rotor head Home Movies
wigwam @ 48
And to state the truth, not argue with the lie.
ccmask @ 47
Texas writer, he was on Tweety and, except that Tweety wouldn’t shut the fuck up, the dude was really good.
ccmask @ 47
The guy writing the tragic tale of Dubya’s presidency.
From what I’ve heard, it doesn’t sound like it’s going to come out quite as well as Dubya thinks it is…
Re: “My crudely amateurish suggestion would be to simply substitute “Contrary to what Bush/the Republicans say,” where the lie would have been: i.e., “Contrary to what the Republicans say, President Bush has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attack.” The lie itself does not get repeated, and everyone in America hears Bush/Republicans accused of dishonesty over and over again.”
I think it’s best to just say “Bush has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.” It’s always better to not sound reactionary when making a point. The more one makes points that are not provided in contrast, the more those thoughts and ideas are taken as primary and original.
Eli @ 52
(You might want to check out today’s Froomkin)
The Goopers’ position is crystal clear – Right Now on 9/4 – What are the Dems going to do? Sit on their hands until Bush slaps them around again before the vote, and then cave?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap…..81366.html
WASHINGTON – President Bush’s senior advisers on Iraq have recommended he stand by his current war strategy, and he is unlikely to order more than a symbolic cut in troops before the end of the year, administration officials told The Associated Press Tuesday.
The recommendations from the military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker come despite independent government findings Tuesday that Baghdad has not met most of the political, military and economic markers set by Congress.
Fern @ 50
Yes. Arguing with the lie gives it life. It says you’re taking it seriously. You have to go at it with an “Are you out of your mind, you liar?” type of response. Then state your stuff, not in defense but as an attack or moving forward.
Very tricky to do though. Most of us are very defensive.
dmac @ 46
dmac,
Sorry for the non-response.
I got it. Thanks.
raven @ 51
Nice haircut though. geez.
Eli @ 52
Oh yeah. right. Thanks.
i was just watching shows i taped on pbs……..
tavis smiley, david iglesias………..last night………..
The dems need to hire more advertising experts. That’s what it’s come down to. Repetition of a lie, said in many different scary ways. I’m surprised they haven’t put a jingle to it. The last two elections were nothing but ads.
Muzzy @ 53
Works for me.
jayt @ 58
Yea, he looked like Warhol!
radiofreewill @ 55
As of today, they have given me no reason to expect otherwise.
Jonathan @ 35
Other people usually took pictures of their friends…..I took pictures of places I went or of things you intel people wanted pics of.
I never, ever trusted Kerry when I was in VVAW. I was more of a radical revolutionary type and he was just not right, you know what I mean? He didn’t have the same values or the same ideas about organizing poor people that some of the rest of us had.
Skull and Bones people are different from other frats. It’s a senior society which implies that its precepts and goals are meant to be carried with the members out into the world. Anthony Sutton did a really good book on the history of Skull and Bones and its brother societies, probably back in the Germany of the revolutionary late 1840s.
This whole century was predicated on some great ideology pitted against another. The lasting fight was in embryonic form at the end of WWI when Pres Bush left Yale after being in Skull&Bones and the Bolsheviks were bringing their revolution to fruition in Russia. They were stranded there because the revolutionary war that Trotsky wanted to spread to the rest of Europe was vetoed by Lenin who told him to negotiate at Brest-Litovsk.
That led to the mirror image of Stalinism which was Nazism, totalitarianism by another name. And then we had the monolith of godless communism pitted against the free world for the remainder of the century until the Soviet Union imploded.
Prescott Bush and his friends supported the Nazis after Wall Street financed the Bolsheviks in their revolution.
We are just pawns and sometimes the more you know the more pissed off you get over this stuff.
Hey I’ve got the new Republican Party slogan : Cognative Dissonance — It’s a Family Value
I read that this afternoon and while I have few solutions for bloggers, here’s an interesting further thought: If people believe things and they become unshakable conclusions, then let’s stop and think about the impression of the US in the Arab world. We are now seen as imperialists, as conquerers, as occupiers. And I seriously doubt there is anything at all that rove or cheney or bush can do to reverse that thinking. Wars will only reinforce it, not change it.
This research also explains why heresies take root. Because when you repeat information, in hopes of showing how false it is, that repetition strengthens the learned connection. The article doesn’t explain all of that, but it’s the repetition of information, especially information that has taken on a “mythical status” that seems to linger. I would hazard a guess that it also relates to information which generates fear. Fear is a very powerful learning tool, unfortunately, and even myths that play on fear seem to be very strong. Think of superstitions. And you have something like what we are discussing here.
The only thing I can think of is to encourage people to face fears, even false fears, generated by lies. Fear leads to avoidance, but facing fears can eventually conquer avoidance.
bush/rove/cheney play on fear. Terrorism plays on fear. And I would suggest that we need to urge people not to give in to fears. Urge them to courage. Urge them to demand that leaders stop cowering, stop playing on fears, and stand up and show courage.
One further thought: Mock the fears. Humor may help also. It’s a high level coping mechanism. It promotes distance. And it disarms fears.
Eli @ 54
And his “Dead Certain” Amazon page.
raven,
I’ve always had the feeling that Kerry’s home movies from Viet Nam were taken for political reasons. FWIW.
ccmask @ 68
If I’m Dubya, just the title would make me say “Uh-oh.”
Then again, if I really *were* Dubya, I’d probably be saying, “I like that. It sounds resolute! Heheheh.”
Jonathan @ 69
I told you how we laughed at Dewey Canyon when he ran around with a bullhorn trying to act like he was in charge. No-fucking body was “in charge” of me when I came home. I do suggest that you get “Going Upriver, the Long Journey of John Kerry”. I don’t care for his politics but his statement before congress was great and he was in the shit no matter who likes it. He did not have to go and he did.
Well fellow kiddo’s… time to call it a day. Gonna sit here with my only squeeze, Lahoma and watch the tv until I go to the old Aunty’s for the night. Ya’ll take care…an Oklahoma good evenin’ to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGYiyZUmNKM
TheraP @ 67
The debunking *also* fleshes out the lie or the heresy, as we tend to retain more each time we’re given the same information.
Jonathan @ 69
Roger that.
james at 65
Of course, I agree with you.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 72
Hey, we enjoyed having all them OSU Cowpokes in Athens last weekend. From all reports the fans really were impressed with Athens.
raven @ 71
Didn’t you have the feeling that he was FOS? He never did anything spontaneously and I’m convinced that he was being paid by somebody to be something of a provocateur.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 72
Somn usor, OKK.
Olbermann’s special comment
Bush just playing us with ‘troop withdrawal’
Night is day, and death is life, and enraging the world against us is safety
Dead Certain reminds me of “The curtains, father?”
I’m going to bed, boys and girls.
My kids start school tomorrow and I want to be at their mom’s house in the morning for the first day of school.
Sleep tight all.
james @ 77
Provacateur? I saw him personally talk us out of going over the wall at Arlington when they closed the gate on the Gold Star Mothers. If anything he was too moderate.
OT, but with the AP report on Senator Larry Craig “rethinking” his resignation, my swag is that he’s looking for a “payoff” for going quietly.
Phone lines between Idaho and Senator Mitch McConnell are probably burning up.
What does Larry “really” want?
An Idaho “boondoggle” like that Alaska Bridge to Nowhere?
A final say or the only say in his replacement?
Or just cold, hard cash?
To gauge just how badly the Repugs want him gone, watch for “how big” and not just “what”.
raven @ 82
Interesting tidbits on Kerry. I’d still say we’d be better off if he’d assumed the presidency in ‘04. No one is worse than the clusterfuck here…
More troubling conclusion from Schwarz’s study is that most people obviously have their brains stuck in ‘park’.
I mean these people are either trusting to point of being negligent or they simply lack any deductive abilities.
Mad Dogs @ 83
Just one night with Jeff Gannon…
TheraP @ 67
I hear the strains of “Singin’ in the Rain” here: “make ‘em laugh, make ‘em laugh, make ‘em laugh!”
punaise for the next president’s Chief of Staff!
cahuenga @ 85
This does describe most of the people I deal with day to day to a tee…
I’d still say we’d be better off if he’d assumed the presidency in ‘04.
Well, yeah. And we’ll be better off if Hillary takes the White House than if it’s Giuliani. But I still don’t want her to be the nominee.
David Ehrenstein @ 66
Yer a regular Frank Luntz, you are.
cahuenga @ 85
Too many people take everything they hear at face value, regardless of source.
I’m sure there are lots of people who believe Fox is fair & balanced because, well, it wouldn’t be their motto if it wasn’t true.
cahuenga @ 85
More troubling conclusion from Schwarz’s study is that most people obviously have their brains stuck in ‘park’.
I mean these people are either trusting to point of being negligent or they simply lack any deductive abilities.
hey – nice handle. Are you from L.A.? If so, I used to live on you, err, your street, err, or the one named after you – or something.
Renee in Ohio @ 89
Edwards ‘08!
I’ll just repeat that :-)
Peterr @ 87
If you haven’t seen it already, this is one of the Greatest Things Ever.
OT-a TPM reader on Craig’s deresignation & the W war-drums plan:
raven,
Do you have a sense of deja vu about Iraq?
good suggestions eli! fighting the neo-con lies with the Truth is essential in winning back our Democracy. here’s some more useful info…
“Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003
BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it’s clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.
The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.”
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/m…..koff.shtml
one major reason for the ‘dumbing down of America’ is the constant right wing spin from the always availabe Fox (Fake) News.
From the book, page 102:
Explaining how Bush is not afraid to put Rove in his place, Draper recalle an incident from a meeting in Austin in 1999. Rove was strutting his stuff and Bush put a quick end to it. “’Karl,’ said the governor. ‘Hang up my jacket.’’”The room fell silent and Rove put the coat on the rack.
Page 17: Flashback to the ’92 GOP convention in Houston. McCain is about to go on stage when a “youthful-looking fellow grabbed him by the arm” and implores him to hit Clinton for draft-dodging. No go, McCain replies to the president’s son, that’s not my thing (italics not quotes in orig.)
Bunch of excerps here.
David Ehrenstein @ 66
*sputter* but, that’s Life, I prefer ‘controlled chaos’!!! *g*
it’s as if Bush/Rove and the Military Industrial complex are conducting psychological warfare on their own fellow citizens.. Bush legacy: Psychological Coup D’etat.
A few things I think work a little, which I would like to see in conversations on the tele or radio.. When a Gooper finishes spewing a stream of lies.. just say firmly and forcefully, Wrong! then as Eli suggests state truths without repetition of the original lies.
Goopers treat sane truths with forceful disdain and compelling contempt.. I don’t know why the truth tellers cannot use the same tone from time to time.
ccmask @ 98
And I just blogged this charming little tidbit from Slate:
Un. Fucking. Believable.
Jonathan @ 96
My friends kid (I was his first babysitter) went back last week. 1/9 Infantry mortars, 2nd ID. My outfit in Korea was attached to the 2nd. Deja vu. . .that’s the best thing that’s going on in my head. BTW, this kid is a college grad from a big-10 university, enlisted man. He thinks democrats are fucking stupid and more likely to get him killed.
It’s not quite so simple as mere repetition. Bottom line is, people believe what they want to believe, whether it is true or not. That being the case, repetition works. When they hear their belief refuted, it’s not that they don’t understand it’s being refuted, it’s that the repetition reinforces for them their unwillingness to believe the refutation, regardless of the evidence.
There are of course people who want to believe the truth, whatever it may be. So they actively seek it out, keep an open mind, listen to arguments, think about them, etc. Such people are, unfortunately fairly rare. Possibly *despite what many would like to believe) rarer than they were in the past.
More to the point, in all probability almost everyone has issues where they “just don’t want to go there” — they just want to believe what they want to believe. Most liberals flatter themselves that they are not in that category, only conservatives are, but the truth is (if you want to hear it) — it all depends on the issue …
flex @ 97
The Democrats would do well to listen to Lakoff. And Westen.
And, well, their own base instead of DLC-tainted Shrum-clone consultants.
Less is More.
This is key to responding to the avalanche of bullshit. Have simple one-liners at the ready for various issues, and do not repeat the lie at all. Ideally, have some pre-loaded questions as well for responses. Raygun’s “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” is a good example. Forces the audience to engage their brains, and since you’ve asked the question is a specific context, they come to the conclusion you want for the most part. Maybe a good response to any Iraq questions might be, “So where’s Osama bin Laden, six years and $500 BILLION later?” Just keep repeating like a robot until they answer. Things like this.
As Liberals, we’ll look into the issue and educate ourselves about it, which we can use as the debate gets more in-depth, but in situations of quick back and forth, let’s say a candidate debate, less is always more.
Howard Dean has gotten very good at this over the last few years.
Night lakers, don’t let the bed bugs bite.
The answer is to identify the lie as a lie. People hate to be lied to. The study about myths or misinformation about flu is not a perfect analogy. It’s a bad one. Nobody is spreading lies about the flu.
Gore should have said Kit Seely is lying about me. Dems should say Bush’s lie X, etc etc. The lie label will force the media to examine the facts and stop pretending lies are just a different opinion, like Krugmans famous different opinion on the shape of the earth.
Bush is lying about progress in Iraq. Such is easliy provable. Just say it.
raven @ 82
Maybe I used the wrong word…that was my feeling too. When he refused to reach out and expand into organizing drives for poor and unemployed people I saw him as somebody who didn’t want to challenge the status quo and he wasn’t going to let our anger or our fervor be used for those purposes.
raven @ 106
Adieu, Raven!!!
raven at 102
Thanks.
eCAHNomics @ 95
Oh Jeebus, Amato and I are sitting here eating sushi and laughing our asses off. So true.
Jonathan @ 110
Now I mean it, goodnight.
Eli @ 94
Oh yes!
And it’s a perfect example of how to do just what you describe in the post. Don’t repeat their lies — go after them with “corrected” versions:
White Flour!
White Flowers!
Tight Shower!
Wife Power! Wife Power! Wife Power!
This is my entry on Dick Cheney:
rapier @ 107
*sigh*…another Friedman Unit is be tacking on!!! WTF??? *g*
Hugh @ 114
Does this list have a catchy name yet? Can I suggest “Ickypedia”?
Jane Hamsher @ 111
Good to know ya’ll aren’t ‘dumpster diving’!!! ;-)
perris @ 23
Yes, EXACTLY. I agree with you on this. I *know* I read something about this tactic a while back, but it’s what needs to be done. Treat it with indignation, laugh it off as if what they’re saying is crazy, then say something strong, forceful, REASONABLE, and comprehensible in return. Then repeat, wash, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat…
Jane Hamsher @ 111
C’mon, Jane! Throw up a post!!!
SUPPORT LARRY!!!
http://craig.senate.gov/webform.cfm
i haven’t kept up on comments, i tried, but am unpacking, but wanted you all to know…….we have a show on pbs here, called state of ohio……i taped it from last friday, i was outof town………..the host had john glenn on……..now THAT’S a politician…………wish we had more like him…..omg i wish we did…………nite all………love to the pups…………
Mr. Sandman @ 118
The key being to demonstrate with your reaction that *their* claims are unreasonable, absurd, insane.
Eli @ 116
I think we just found its unofficial name.
The BIG picture. Advertising works. And the mental health aspect of advertising are – brainwashing?
Hope ya’ll don’t mind the OT, but I just wanted to re-post a message that Jim Himes wrote a few threads ago thanking the Blue America community for today’s incredible support. We’re now up to 105 donors for Jim on the Blue America page!
Ha! In the time it took me to copy/paste Jim’s message, we just went up to 106 donors to Jim Himes on Blue America! Awesome! John Amato suggested a goal of 108 donors today, matching Chris Shays’ total number of donors last quarter. Can we make it tonight?
Draper’s grandfather was friends with Poppy. His name was Leon Jaworski.
Leon Jaworski (September 19, 1905, in Waco, Texas – December 9, 1982) was the Special Prosecutor during the Watergate Scandal. Jaworski was appointed to that position on November 1, 1973, shortly after the Saturday Night Massacre which led to the dismissal of prosecutor Archibald Cox.
wiki:
During his tenure as Special Prosecutor, Jaworski was perhaps most famous for his protracted constitutional battle with the White House concerning his attempts to secure evidence for the trial of former senior administration officials on charges relating to the Watergate cover-up.
OT – am I the only one who didn’t know that Senator Craig’s children are adopted?
I guess I kind of assumed he just closed his eyes and thought of, umm, baseball.
ccmask @ 125
Wow! Wheels within wheels.
Thanks for this!
jayt @ 126
I did not know that. And here I thought he was bi.
A simple approach that applies the truth without reinforcing myths or falsehoods is to tell the truth as simply as possibly.
“Bush is a liar.”
“Cheney is a criminal.”
“Petraeus is a toady.”
“The Swift Boat Vets hate Kerry and want revenge.”
Harsh, but it works. You have to poison the well of your opponents so that everything they say and do is brought under the lens of a simple statement.
The most important idea in the Book of Sacred Magic of Abra-Melin the Mage is the simple looking formula “Invoke often.”
The most successful form of treatment for so-called mental disorder, the Behavior Therapy of Pavlov, Skinner, Wolpe, et al, could well be summarized in two similar words: “Reinforce often.” (“Reinforcement,” for all practical purposes, means the same as the layman’s term ‘reward.” The essence of Behavior Therapy is rewarding desired behavior; the behavior ‘as if by magic’ begins to occur more and more often as the rewards continue.)
Advertising, as everyone knows, is based on the axiom “Repeat often.” …
The opposite and reciprocal of “Invoke often” is “Banish often.”
The magician wishing for a manifestation of Pan will not only invoke Pan, directly and verbally, create Pan like conditions in his temple, reinforce Pan associations in every gesture and every article of furniture, use the colors and perfumes associated with Pan, etc: he will also banish other gods verbally, banish them by removing their associated furniture’s and colors and perfumes, and banish them in every other way. The Behavior Therapist calls this “negative reinforcement”…
Hypnotism, debate, and countless other games have the same mechanism: Invoke often and Banish often.
Robert Shea & Robert Anton Willson, Illuminatus! (1975)
wangdangdoodle @ 128
He still might be – to one degree or another.
OT but cnn is doing a poll about whether Sen. Craig should stay and fight.
I tried to call to tell him to fight it, but line busy. Guess I will try http://www.cnn.com/…Lets see if we can prolong the GOP’s problem.
jayt @ 126
I believe it was all a package deal when he married her.
Cozumel @ 119
TRex already claimed it. Believe me, there was a bit of a backstage tussle. Eli got a big, bony therapod elbow thrown at him.
newtonusr @ 127
Here is where I learned that.
snip
Robert Draper’s new book about George W. Bush, Dead Certain, is set to be released next week. Draper’s family is friendly with the Bushes (his grandfather, Leon Jaworski, was buddies with George H.W. Bush). So I guess you shouldn’t expect any surprises. One thing for sure — the title says it all.
jayt @ 126
‘Marriage of Convenience’ was bandied about since its inception…!!!
eCAHNomics @ 95
Looks like a good republican plan to me. Avoid the Iraq benchmark issue.
Jane Hamsher @ 134
he he he! ; )
Great post, Eli. I love social psychology. It actually has some validity, unlike regular psychology.
I remember an experiment described in my college social psychology text where they played the two tones that were close in pitch and asked the subject which was higher. When the subject answered, the experimenters played canned laughter (supposedly from other people in adjacent rooms listening). The overwhelming majority of subjects ended up changing their opinion on which tone was higher!
mack @ 15
spot on
ignore the lie
state the truth
ie:
unfair,unbalanced.
half truth is whole lie.
infotainment is not news.
a sucker will believe anything.
lower taxes = higher fees.
maintainance deferred = higher costs
etc.
Now repeat after me:
“All republicans are gay”
“All republicans are gay”
“All republicans are gay”
“All republicans are gay”
Come, now evrybody do it……evrywhere
And when they counterattack, we say
“You are only uspet becuase you are gay”….
“You are only uspet becuase you are gay”….
“You are only uspet becuase you are gay”….
“You are only uspet becuase you are gay”….
Riesz Fischer @ 139
Thanks, RF!
When I posted about the Stanford Prison Experiment, someone linked to an interesting study where there were “plants” in among the subjects, (successfully) creating peer pressure to choose obviously wrong answers.
Jane Hamsher @ 134
*sputter*…but you’re the ‘Proprietrix’ crack the whip!!! *g*
My suggestion, if B claims X and you disagree…
1) First, state a clear, positive alternative: “What A said is wrong. Y is true.”
2) Paraphrase X in such a way that you don’t make it into a common slogan. Explain the evidence that makes it wrong.
Step one should hopefully be enough for all the people who aren’t paying enough attention.
Step two is for the people who want to argue, and should be below the fold etc.
OK. So now that Senator Notgay is publicly vascillating between his greed for power and his fear of being outed, we have a truly unique opportunity to study rethug psychology. Get out those microscopes… He should try that zombie lie repetition principle: notgay notgay notgay.. um, oh, well, maybe that won’t work afterall.
Sen. Larry Craig must have figured that he’s bottomed-out.
-GSD
People do hate to be lied to. But I am beginning to think that for some, comming to the conclusion that they have been totally played for suckers is just too much to bear. How could you live with the idea that you supported a lie, and, heaven forbid, lost a friend or family member in this fiasco who felt the same way. There was a news report recently about a family who just buried their second son, both killed in Iraq. The father is still 100% behind Bush. It may be that it is just too crushing to imagine, that your children are gone forever for a pile of BS. Some families get angry, but I think many more just can’t face the reality of what has happened, so they cling to the idea that the death of their loved one was something noble, instead of just a tragic waste.
Terr @ 144
What about (if applicable) restating X in such a way that highlights its inherent absurdity?
simple technique for bloggers : quote the lie, but make it difficult for the subconsious to mark it as “good information” by spallyng veery baedli. (and note : instead of “emphasis mine”, just use “spelling mine”)
Blub @ 145
I think he is pissed at his Republican colleagues.
madmommy @ 147
I have thought much the same thing. People hate to be played, but even more so, they hate *admitting* that they’ve been played.
But if they finally *do* realize it, the backlash will be proportional to the time spent in Cognitivedissonanceland.
Dang, I wish I’d seen this one earlier in the evening.
I’m a social psychologist and worked on research on this very topic about 15 years ago.
What we found in some laboratory studies is that people seem to automatically believe what they hear — meaning the affirmative form of what they hear, not the denial. It takes subsequent cognitive effort to process the negation, or even to process the fact that it contradicts what you already know (there’s no cognitive dissonance if you don’t even notice the conflict between thoughts). This automatic acceptance happened even when people were told in advance that what they were about to hear was false.
The cognitive effort finding comes out of showing that people who are distracted at the time they hear the message are less likely to process the negation, and end up believing what they just heard. We were able to manipulate attitudes about a person just by giving the reader information that we told the reader had been completely made up.
Scary stuff.
Eli @ 151
…an eternity, from what I hear…!!! ;-)
jayt @ 126
Craig’s wife is one of his former staffers. Probably seemed like a good move to her. Provide for her kids, and not have to put out.
Eli,
I read Gordon Allport’s 1954 tome “The Nature of Prejudice” in 6th grade. The exhaustive analysis was boiled down to preexisting beliefs reinforce even in the face of negative reinforcement. EX) All Lutherans are dumb(picking on myself here only). When meeting a smart one the prejudice is reinforced by “He’s the exception, they are still dumb.”
This always puzzled me till right wingnuttia radio came around in the 80’s
AZ Matt @ 150
I think that I predicted sort of a free for all among the Republicans as their world collapses around them.
It is all against all now. The Party is so big daddy oriented that they are still unable to disengage their arms from the rubbery neck of George W. Bush. They hate daddy but they can’t let go, yet.
But the more Bush and his hagiographers push others under the bus for the sake of gilding Bush’s wilted lilly, the more those that see the bus are going to try to step aside before they become a road apple.
-GSD
AZ Matt @ 150
Maybe he’s pissed enough to do us the favor of outing 10 more closetland wide stancers
The wife made him do it!
http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..resig.html
It was embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ wife who persuaded him to pack it in.
The nation’s beleaguered top lawman decided to resign last week after his wife, Rebecca, urged him to abandon his long-shot fight to stay in office, friends told Newsweek.
Gonzales’ wife told him to give up after they came back from a summer vacation, the magazine said.
GordonM @ 154
Eggsactly!!!
Eli @ 151
Too bad we don’t have the luxury of time. The end of KO’s comment tonight was chilling. Look at what has come out, and happened in the last 500 days. Now think about how much damage can be done in the next 500 days. The Bush gang is cornered, and that concerns me greatly.
madmommy @ 147
Cindy Sheehan, for example, whatever you think of her, cleared that hurdle early. When you talk with her, you realize that she had an instant realization of the death of her son being a waste. Other soldiers parents simply cannot conceive of it – the alternative to their child dying for an honorable cause is unthinkable. Great point.
my bold
Don’t people love to extend the result of a single study to everything else? You heard it was true, therefore it must be true _everywhere_. Why not avoid falling into the same trap and think.
If dissecting an argument, refuting a fact, questioning a conclusion reinforces the other side, then not doing any of these would be the death of your opponent. Is this the argument you think is true?
Actually you need to attack all three. The most important is the argument, or logic, of a point of view. “If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here”. Logic can easily extend into every set of facts, just as it has in this case.
Next conclusions. Conclusions could use an unstated or assumed logic and facts. They don’t go as far, and are not as durable…unless you can change the logic and facts. “Cut taxes because the economy is doing well, oops, cut taxes because the economy is doing badly.”
Finally facts. The reason why Bushco makes everything a secret is because facts are the easiest to refute. But that still requires knowledge of the situation, which can be controlled. They can still be questioned. Public policy should not be based upon secret facts. (That is an argument which can spread into every criticism)
Jane Hamsher @ 134
No, no. A TRex’s elbows are petite and dainty. It’s the effing tail you have to worry about.
Eli @ 148
Plus, or course, there is always ridicule.
GordonM @ 154
The story gets more & more solid. What a (formerly) great cover.
But that still doesn’t explain why he’s trolling in an airport men’s room.
BTW, Rs have picked a winner for 08 convention-city where bridge fell down & R senator pled guilty. Guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Eli @ 151
Just so long as I don’t have to wait another four years for the backlash…!!!
newtonusr @ 161
Thanks-every now and then the synapses fire the way they’re supposed to.
GordonM @ 163
Easy for you to say — those elbows weren’t being swung in your direction.
Jim Clausen @ 155
What’s scary is that they’ve been able to shake people into *new* prejudices. Unless they simply re-weighted the old ones so that fear of Muslims became all-consuming.
Jeffrey Toobin on CNN…Gee, I didn’t notice that he used the word “intend”.
This guy’s a F’ING lawyer???
IANAL and I heard it!?
I agree with the approach of calling a lie a lie. Not dramatically, not hysterically….just factually, e.g., “the Bush administration lied to the American people when they said Saddam was involved in 9-11.”
It is a fact and it needs to be said. And followed with the evidence, in equally clear and simple terms. “They knew the story about the Atta meeting was false.” Etc.
I think that calling someone a liar is a powerful accusation. I don’t let my kids throw that word around in everyday household arguments.
I
Someone pointed out on FDL a few days ago the technique of Ciceronian Ellipsis– but now I can’t find it. The point is that you state a charge that you know is untrue– indeed, you say it is untrue– but somehow the hearer remembers it as a truth. I don’t remember the example provided, but it was something along the lines, “I know that Senator Kerry was not a coward and a traitor, but he seems to be a flip-flopper.” Somehow or other, in memory, the “not” is forgotten and people start to think that Sen. Kerry was indeed a coward and a traitor. The Wiki provides an analysis under the heading of Zeugma, but I don’t find there an example quite as telling as the one the FDL commenter provided.
President Bush used this technique a lot in associating Al Qaeda and Iraq. He would use both words in the same or adjacent sentences again and again. Now, if you look at the sentences literal meaning, they sometimes were factual. But by associating those two words over and over, he was able to imply a connection where none existed.
Bob in HI
eCAHNomics @ 165
I think all the restrooms at the airport need to have nice “welcome to Minneapolis” banners in them as the delegates arrive, along with some great toe-tapping music in the background.
bobschacht @ 172
And since no one has ever gone broke underestimating the gullibility of the American public, it worked like a charm. I still get the “he didn’t actually say…..” line from the true believers. He didn’t have to say it, he just needed to imply it over and over until people believed it.
AZ Matt @ 150
Well, I’m sure his approval ratings back home have ‘tanked.’ It’s enough to make a man fall to his knees and testes-fy. Man, that’s gotta suck…
Argonaut @ 152
This does not surprise me at all. Probably good evolutionary reasons for this “immediate acceptance”.
As communication is part of our biology/genetics, one could posit that survival is utterly dependent upon receiving the “communication” and immediately believing it.
For example, Lion approaching, run! And one runs.
I can’t imagine how survival could be successful if one ignored the “communication” or immediately considered it false.
For example, Lion approaching, run! Hmmm.I’m not buying this. Ergo, lion has dinner.
bonkers @ 175
You owe me a new keyboard, mine is now covered in wine :0)
madmommy @ 174
A lot of times, just the parsing of how the Bushies say stuff is very revealing of just what they know to be true at the time.
Fern @ 164
Oh. And also questions. When I write reports these days, I no longer do much in the way of making recommendations – just questions. And then they come to the conclusion I want them to and they think they dreamed it up all by their clueless little lonesomes and that I’m brilliant into the bargain. Works slick.
If you haven’t seen this analysis by Spencer Ackerman at Talking Point Muckraker–it is quite eye opening.
Iraqi Sunnis, our newest, bestest friends.
A new reality being created right in front of our eyes.
-GSD
Cozumel, I just hit your name to check out your website, but I got a message “Server not found.” Then I checked the properties, and it said only that link properties would open up in a new window. Is it me, or is it your site or your link? And if it is you, then it’s also Raven, because the same thing happens with his site. Yet I can reach Eli’s site, and Hugh’s works, and Mr. Sandman’s Sandbox works. Just thought I’d let you know.
Eli @ 178
Oh, to be a fly on the wall of the speechwriters office. Can you just imagine the agony of constructing just the right sort of BS-not so blantant as to be immediately debunked, but not so subtle as to be missed by the average mouth-breather.
GordonM @ 163
I think I’ll be keeping a low profile later on tonite…!!! *g*
madmommy @ 182
More a matter of making everyone think one thing, but then when it’s proven to be untrue, they can point out that *technically* they never actually said that.
Like Dubya’s carefully constructed references to Iraq and 9-11/al Qaeda, which never *quite* actually said they were connected.
Peterr @ 173
Damn, I wish the video to this Steve Martin SNL monologue was online. Talk about toe-tapping.
madmommy @ 174
PT Barnum had it pegged; “There’s a sucker born every second…!!!”
Ann in AZ @ 181
He’s got a bad link on his name, it’s not an issue on your end. Same deal with raven, an improper/bad link is specified there.
radiofreewill @ 158
heh. A proverb updated for our times: “Behind every craven, lying slug of a man trying desperately to save his toasted ass, there’s a woman.”
Ann in AZ @ 181
Oops, sorry! Here’s my ‘website’ (for this five minutes)! lol ; )
Eli @ 178
Every State of the Union address Chimpy has given, he gets to an applause line and smirks at someone to his left (on the R side). To me, that smirk has always said “and wait till they figure out what I really meant by that!”.
The trick is to realize that the human brain will often miss the words “no” and “don’t”.
So isn’t of saying, for instance, that “There’s no evidence Saddam had working WMDs”, say instead “Saddam threw everything he had at the Iranians and their Kurdish allies, and what was left over is now so old it wouldn’t make good paint thinner.” This way, you avoid the repetition-reinforcement bugaboo, and you get people to think about something relatively innocuous (paint thinner, in my example) rather than ominous (WMDs).
Poor L. Paul Bremer(How the hell do you get ‘Jerry’ out of that name?), looks like Bush pissed all over his fontainbleau.
Pauvre Paul.
Where will he go to get his reputation and his manhood back?
-GSD
Cozumel @ 189
Thanks, that was cute. What do you do for an encore? Were any of them really you?
oddmommy @ 171
I agree with the approach of calling a lie a lie. Not dramatically, not hysterically….just factually, e.g., “the Bush administration lied to the American people when they said Saddam was involved in 9-11.”
It is a fact and it needs to be said. And followed with the evidence, in equally clear and simple terms. “They knew the story about the Atta meeting was false.” Etc.
I think that calling someone a liar is a powerful accusation. I don’t let my kids throw that word around in everyday household arguments.
I
It’s too bad, ridiculous really, that the word “lie” is banned in Congress. At least I think that’s true, having learned it on my new go-to channel – C-Span. Remember when Nadler said, during the FISA “debate”, that the president “lied”, and was then forced to take his comment down?
Dayam, PW! Potent statement: “Saddam threw everything he had at the Iranians and their Kurdish allies, and what was left over is now so old it wouldn’t make good paint thinner.”
That’s why he complied with all the UN inspections… What weapons? *g*
Ann in AZ @ 193
‘Culture of Corruption’ was mine, back in the day ;)
jayt @ 194
It’s too bad, ridiculous really, that the word “lie” is banned in Congress. At least I think that’s true, having learned it on my new go-to channel – C-Span. Remember when Nadler said, during the FISA “debate”, that the president “lied”, and was then forced to take his comment down?
NYT banned Krugman from using the L-word in reference to Bush until after the 2000 election. Wankers.
Eli: wrt this: Furthermore, a new experiment by Kimberlee Weaver at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and others shows that hearing the same thing over and over again from one source can have the same effect as hearing that thing from many different people — the brain gets tricked into thinking it has heard a piece of information from multiple, independent sources, even when it has not.
snip
It reminds me of two things:
1- msm on 911 showing the planes hitting over and over agin.
2- Not showing WTC-7 over & over again.
WRT Guiliani, it seems like a perfect time to show WTC over and over again. After all, it was NY’s emergency center. The fact that Rudy’s emergency center came down, needs to be shown over and over again.
GSD @ 192
But you see, this was a very predictable outcome-that in a failure everyone would turn on everyone else. It’ll be a cottage industry and we won’t be able to keep track of all the stories. So why didn’t they all see it? You can’t tell me Bremmer found W’s remarks a surprise.
Hoo boy! Larry Craig’s veering all over the place like a busted truck!
GSD @ 192
I posted this twice in EPU land today. Originally, Khalilzad was scheduled to go with Bremer to Iraq. Khalilzad was to do his loya jirga thing (local meetings to form a gov’t from the bottom up). Then Bremer had a private lunch with Bush. Khalilzad went to the Netherlands as ambassador. Powell and Rice didn’t even find out until it was announced.
Yup. That’s our Decider in Chief. Last asshole to get his ear gets his way.
Eli @ 197
Bush is a Lesbian? No one could have anticipated that . . .
Peterr @ 202
Krugman is shrill, ain’t he?
Watching the Bush administration wind down is like watching the last 20 minutes of a Friday the 13th horror film.
There’s bodies everywhere and the few remaining goofs keep tripping over the corpses in their efforts to keep from getting hacked-up by the monster.
-GSD
Eli @ 197
oh fer the love of Jesus. I had no idea of any of this. Censoring specific WORDS? WTF is next???
(and no, I don’t really want an answer to that)
Peterr @ 202
…but, he has an adam’s apple…!!!
Peterr @ 202
And when asked why she refused a date with Bush, Mary Cheney replied – “Have you ever *met* George Bush”?
Therefore, Congress critters are allowed to lie and no one can call them out on it.
GSD @ 204
Gotta luv it.
Except for the U.S. soldiers’ bodies & body parts & ditto the poor Iraqis.
GSD @ 204
…or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise…
but who is Leatherface?
Blub @ 210
I gotta go with Cheney. Dubya would be the sheriff.
Blub @ 210
It is the Thing with Two Heads. CheneyBushenstein.
-GSD
My take home lesson from this post:
1) say it first (don’t wait until you have to respond to some garbage nonsense from public goofballs)
2) say it lound
3) say it true
4) go to step 1)
Uh, how would he Dems score?
The GOP scores very well, except obviously on number 3) the “true” part.
GSD @ 212
I’m thinking the geneticist on South Park – the beasts with multiple assholes.
wesgpc @ 213
You’ve said it more succinctly than I have. :)
A Texas Chainsaw Massacre:
Cast
Leatherface: Dick Cheney
Old Man: George W Bush
The Hitchhiker: Alberto Gonzales
Grandpa: George HW Bush
Pam (first female victim): Monica Goodling
Blub @ 216
In this version, it’s not so much “Leatherface” as “Constitutionface”.
Fern @ 50
Ding ding ding ding!
For example:
Kerry representatives: John Kerry is a war hero and the Swiftboaters are liars paid by Republicans!
Isn’t it curious that in the past there were many a young man who went to war to be patriotic, but with some hope of being elected in return and yet the Republicans now in charge almost universally avoided Vietnam?
Why did this bunch avoid war?
jayt @ 126
I didn’t know and frankly I don’t care to know about the man’s personal life. Unless he’s killing people it isn’t any of my business.
The scandal only has meaning because of the constant hypocrisy of Craig and the Republicans who benefited from his behavior and are now just revolting.
Craig’s announcement that he’s going to try to regain/retain his senate seat only adds to the schadenfreude and we Dems are delighting in that.
GSD @ 180
Next thing ya know the Taliban will be the “good guys” again.
Start every post with the following:
GEORGE BUSH IS A FUCKING LIAR
and finish it with:
THE GOP IS EVIL
Maybe that would do it. Sure wouldn’t hurt to give it a try.
There are two good ways to undermine the big lie without repeating it – humor and ridicule. Both will bring to the lie a different context, a different frame.
I know this will be EPUd but here’s my suggestion.
Borrow a crowd. Preface your statements with “Most people know” or “Most people are aware” or “Most people want”.
People like to know their opinion is the majority take.
For example:
Most people know the Iraq invasion was a mistake.
Most people are aware that VP Cheney pulls the strings in the White House for the benefit of his corporate cronies.
Most people want Bush and Cheney impeached.
See how easy that is?
Only idea I have is just state the fact and link to a citation.
Utilize the counterclaim. The standard form of the debunk goes as follows: ‘claim X is wrong for the following reasons: reason 1, 2, 3 …’ However, as you have noted that only reinforces the faulty claim.
The form of the counterclaim is as follows: ‘that person made claim X in order to harm people in Y fashion.’ The counterclaim envelops the faulty claim but places it in a larger context such that what is remembered is the counterclaim. Then keep repeating the counterclaim so as to reframe the debate.
I think the most effective response is the word ‘baloney!’
Pardon me if I’m missing the obvious, but isn’t the source of the problem with the various proposed responses the fact that they’re all initiated as responses? Rather than give the GOP’s idiotic claims currency through repetition or reference, why not just lay out our own case, something like this:
Here’s the situation.
Here’s the series of GOP policies (if that’s the term for them) that led to this situation.
Here’s why they don’t work.
Here’s the logical approach that will work.
Break it down into bite-sized chunks that people can digest (perhaps present it via ads in serial form—a bit at a time). Reinforce it with visuals (TV is an affective, visual medium after all). Repeat, repeat, repeat. Spend at least a week on each chunk. Sell it like soap. We need to acknowledge the attributes of the media we have to rely on to get the message across & use it to our advantage.
Or am I missing the point?
I would add:
1. Be first on the attack (law of primacy)
2. If you must restate, re-brand
3. Most important, repeat, repeat, repeat and while you’re at it get some others to repeat for you.
Don’t you see all of these things in what the repugnicons do every day?
BTW, you can’t do number one if you fall for the “running a nice campaign” myth.
How about lie detector technology that attaches to our TV’s and Radios. Let the truth meter on the TV sidebar help Joe and Jane six pack quantify their Cognitive Dissonance. They already have this technology for the phones.
Or repeat the truth over and over and over. That would be hard because we are talking about politicians.
I recall reading a piece explaining deconstruction in literary criticism. I will now greatly oversimplify; apologies in advance to those who know far more about this than I do. This is an example from that article.
Imagine that you read the following sentence in some text (if you’re a humanities graduate student you of course call it a “text”):
The surface meaning of this statement is that Thomas Jefferson was not a homosexual. But you’d never before heard anyone claim otherwise, and with the Sally Hemmings story you certainly never thought otherwise before reading this statement. So why does this sentence appear?
The deconstructionist would point out that the author is implicitly introducing the statement that Jefferson was a homosexual into the discourse.
If you tell someone “X is not caused by Y”, when that person never previously associated X and Y, you’ll confuse at least some of them into forgetting the “not”.
If you repeat the same thing over and over again, it becomes truth.
My suggestion is it’s okay to repeat the lie in order to refute it. But then, you must also point out 5 more lies the perpetrator has been caught in. After establishing a pattern of lying, you ask, “why would anyone believe what a habitual liar has to say?”
- Tom
When I played sports in my youth my coaches always told us to tell ourselves things like “I will make this shot” and NEVER “I will not miss this shot” because the “not” gets lost and the brain ‘hears’ “I will … miss this shot”.
seems like it was good advice.
Another thing that needs to be done is to take what is known as mainstream media and refer to it with a more accurate descriptive term, which spells out who they really are. It’s a cinch they aren’t mainstream any more. I took a phrase from a commentary written by Ray McGovern. Then, in discussion at another blog, we came up with: the corporate-owned, war-profiteering media syndicate. I know it’s a mouthful; but, the acronym is riotously funny. It’s COWPMS. I’m sure if Tim Russert and Fred Hiatt and Wolf Blitzer became known as members of the COWPMS and no longer mainstream, they might give some thought to changing their ways. At any rate, calling these guys mainstream is too complimentary and a lie. The COWPMS has given up its first amendment right of a free press by publishing all their propaganda for the Bush administration and the GOP. It’s about time they get called on it. Marcy Wheeler, Jane Hamsher, Christy Hardin Smith, Josh Marshall, Tom Englehardt, Glenn Greenwald, and many others are the true mainstream media now.