How does a democracy deal with lies? In the last several national elections, political operatives, exemplified by the Swift Boaters in 2004, have employed a deeply cynical and highly effective strategy to distort and manipulate public discourse. This strategy poses a serious threat to the very foundations of democratic self-governance.
The core of the strategy is simple: Consultants, political spokespersons and even the candidates themselves systematically repeat a false statement about their opponent's positions, statements, or actions. The very assertion of the falsehood puts the target on the defensive. If he ignores the false accusation, it gains traction; if he disputes the lie, he dignifies it, gives it greater publicity, and sounds suspicious; if he calls the lie a lie, he comes across as accusatory and mean-spirited.
An essential element of this strategy is that the perpetrators of the lie will insist, no matter what, that the lie is true. Confronted with the facts, the perpetrators will reiterate the falsehood. The key to this strategy is the willingness to lie, and to lie repeatedly.
We saw this strategy used masterfully four years ago against John Kerry, who was eviscerated by a carefully orchestrated series of falsehoods. The same political operatives appear to be resorting to this strategy again in 2008.
How can a self-governing society defend itself against such a strategy of deliberate deceit and distortion? One approach, of course, is recourse to the courts. That is, we could rely upon the law to forbid and to punish such lies. In theory, government authorities could criminally prosecute the perpetrators of political lies for intentionally undermining the democratic process. But this "solution" is a non-starter in a democratic society. We should not empower government officials to pick and choose which allegedly false statements to prosecute. If officers of the government could wield this power, it would be readily vulnerable to partisan political abuse.
Rather, in a self-governing society, we rely upon informed public debate to sort out the good ideas from the bad, the truthful statements from the falsehoods. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, a free society assumes that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition" of the marketplace of ideas.
The problem, though, is that public debate may be well-suited to inviting candidates to explain their positions and enabling citizens to decide which candidate's values, policies, and qualifications they prefer, but it is not well-suited to enabling citizens to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying, when one side is determined to lie. Public debate is not like a trial. It does not have rules of evidence, opportunities to cross-examine witnesses, or methods to scrutinize documents. In the context of Holmes's marketplace of ideas, individual citizens often do not have the resources to make reasonable judgments about the truth and falsity of competing factual claims. If one side says X and the other says not-X, how is the citizen to know who is lying?
This is where the free press enters the picture. One function of a free press in a self-governing society is to serve the public's interest in learning the truth. Unlike individual citizens, the media have the resources to check facts and to separate truth from falsity in a professional and objective manner. The media can be a relatively neutral and detached referee when one side accuses the other of lying, and the capacity of the press to help resolve such factual disputes can serve as a powerful restraint on political lies.
This is precisely why those who embrace a strategy of political lying make a concerted effort to denigrate the credibility of the press. This is why at the Republican national convention, speaker after speaker vehemently attacked what Fred Thompson described as "the media big shots." If the strategy is to lie, then it is necessary to destroy the standing of the one institution with the power to exact a penalty for lying.
Moreover, two recent developments have opened the door to this strategy. First, in the 1980s, the Republicans repealed the Fairness Doctrine, which for half-a-century had required broadcasters to be fair and balanced in their political coverage. By so doing, they ushered in the Rush Limbaughization of the media, thereby undermining the political neutrality of the broadcast press. Second, the corporatization of the news media has left much of the mainstream press beholden to corporate interests and much more reluctant to speak truth to power.
This strategy of deliberate, concerted and systematic lying for partisan political advantage exploits these changes in the media and poses a serious challenge to the future of American democracy.
Uninformed voters can lead to disasterous consequences.
How can anyone expect to make an informed decision with misleading information?
Mika asked: the way a campaign is run is indicative of how one would govern. Some of your ads are questionable on the facts. How do u reconcile this disparity? (not verbatim)
Sen McCain said “check our website it says the ads are factual.†Morning Joe, 9/16/08.
Independent and non-partisan sites refute this, as do many journalist. So are they to be discounted?
Reminds me of the incorrect information that led us into the pre-emptive war in Iraq.
Sen McCain didn’t read the Iraq NIE of 10/2002. The NIE effected there is no compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing the development of WMD.
Meet The Press:
"In hindsight, was it a good idea to go into Iraq?" McCain's reply that the invasion of Iraq "was certainly justified" because "every intelligence agency in the world, not just U.S., believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
Except the National Intelligence Estimate which was made available to all members of Congress before the vote, according to The Washington Post.
Had McCain availed himself of the information contained in the NIE, would he have voted differently?
No kidding. You might almost call it "The Assault on Reason" (c) 2007 Al Gore.
Don't forget biased corporate-owned media and a Supreme Court that in 2000 decided that *not* counting votes was the way to decide an election.
I know we're supposed to "Get over it" -- but I can't help feeling that what was essentially a coup d'etat should have been the beginning of honest American outrage. That we fail now to challenge or even recognize lies is the utter abnegation of our duty as citizens.
The failure of the press results in the failure of our democracy. The hope I can hold out is that, eventually, the Internet evens the field against the older, traditional media, but I fear not yet in time for this election.
That significant portion of our population who are preconditioned to believe that "the TV" is the source of factual information is part of our problem. Until the 80's it seemed true, and the change was gradual enough that so many who were adults in that era can't shake this preconditioned reaction.
My own father, now in his early 60's, is an intelligent and modern man, far more familiar with computers and the Internet than most people in their 20's. He can photoshop, research on the 'net, diagnose a malware infestation and install operating systems as well as the best technicians, yet he still takes the viewpoints from the worst of the known cable news outlets as factual. He admitted to me he 'just has a feeling' against Obama, but is entirely frank that he can't say exactly why. He can't quite come to support McCain either, but given an otherwise even choice, he would lean heavily towards a republican.
I fear it's been '84 for over two decades; Orwell's '84, that is.
Every decent person abhors lies--and I'd say it's the most potent libe of attack Obama can take. It will even bring some disgusted, decent Republicans over. Of course, we can expect that the Republicans will themselves throw the accusations at Obama as well, but I'd much rather have TRUTH be the big issue under discussion, the playing field, as it were, than almost anything else, so BRING IT, sleezy Republican liars, and let's sort it out in public.
When will the conservative base realize that they are being manipulated? What will it take? Eight years of Bush/Cheney/Rove/McCain isn't enough it seems.
I understand the mind of a fundamentalist, having been raised in a small town in the South. I understand many of the parallels between neocon tactics and religious fervor, but I also wait for the day that the differences finally emerge. Smaller government if it means raising taxes on the wealthy, but bigger government when it comes to personal privacy and civil rights. Which is it McCain?
These are the same people who were party to the lies to lead America into the war in Iraq and they have to this day not apologized to America.
MSM have continued their same behavior and have done nothing but feed America the republican party's lies and spin aobut McCain being a maverick.
McCain's buddies in the MSM - you know the ones - the very ones who go on and on about how wonderful McCain's biography is, have been telling lies about McCain being a straight talking maverick for ten years, they are not going to start telling the truth now.
As Chuck Todd says "the media is McCain's base '"and "McCain has plenty in the bank with the media, so he can get away with saying anything and he gets a pass,"
Actually, McCain has been getting a pass on his bona fides since he was captured in Vietnam.
That story about the Vietcong wanting to let McCain go but McCain refused to go was the first of many lies that McCain has told. Neither the American press nor any of the foreign press has ever been able to substantiate one scrap of intelligence that backed up this story.
However it's a matter of fact that the Vietcong made few prisoner trades and point in fact the Vietcong preferred to keep the highest officers as a victory point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_107409.html
Nothing that hasn't existed since time immemorial, perhaps since the first caveman wanted to denigrate another. I would like to say that the MSM has allowed itself to be bullied into caving to this tactics, but the truth is far worse. The sad reality is that corporate owned MSM has fanned the flames and fed of the ensuing mayhem.
~~~
"One function of a free press in a self-governing society is to serve the public's interest in learning the truth."
Once~upon~a~time~perhaps. What we are left with, after the "free market" ideal was applied to a once fact~distributing~enterprise, is nothing but~an~outlet for entertainment and re-direction from the facts. With the very deliberate effect of creating low~information dumbed~down consumer base to sell their product "news".
~~~
"This is precisely why those who embrace a strategy of political lying make a concerted effort to denigrate the credibility of the press."
Once again, the MSM is not a victim. An institution that can~ make and bring down presidents is not an innocent nor naive mark. Not only~did this not come~around without their~help they are very much complicit in creating it. They have denigrated themselves by their choices.
~~~
Yes, regulations~and~laws should be enacted to once~again make the Fourth State be accountable to the people and the sentinel of truth, justice and democracy that it was meant to be.
For example, everyone was told it would be certain death to stay for hurricane Ike, yet many people stayed and only called for rescue after reality set in. That’s the mindset we’re dealing with.
Winning this election is everything, and it’s going to take a lot of money and hard work to get people to understand what four more years of the same failed policies will actually do to their lives.
We need to reach or exceed 100 million dollars in donations to both Obama and the DNC for sept and oct if we intend to get the job done. The DNC donations are really critical at this point because we are lagging badly there. Please donate now and please donate as much as you can.
I used to wonder how any american could be voting for McCain because it was so clear to me that our country would only further deteriorate if he were elected and then I started traveling for work and recognizing that television is still the only source of news for many americans and many of them only get local news, FOX, and CNN. This explained a lot about why my mother is always so interested to hear what I have to say politically... she doesn't have any source other than these. Recognizing how much is working against us, I realize that the movement to elect Senator Obama is actually much stronger and more powerful than the media would suggest!
I know that the polls are not reflecting the actually numbers of democrats registered greater than republicans in many states so they are really not a good prediction of the outcome on election day. I want to push that fact out into the media because many people believe the republicans want the polls close so that they can try to get away with cheating/stealing the election. We need to do everything in our power to make this election real and fair. If it isn't america will not last long no matter who is president...
Enough!
Obama/Biden '08
Sarah Palin just burst on the political scene. We have just until the 4th of November to determine whether she is honest and credible, not to mention the "q" word, "qualified". She is being subjected to what normally takes place over a year of investigation in a compressed timeframe. What else would you want--everyone to accept a candidate without scrutiny that even McCain did not vet?