WP article that shows the vast majority of viral email lies are RepublicanTh

[karynnj]

I doubt this is news to any of us, but it is refreshing when the media norm is to ignore quantity (and vileness) and speak of both sides doing it - as if it were equal. They do try - semi successfully to explain why this has been mostly a republican tool.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/when-it-comes-to-e-mailed-political-rumors-conservatives-beat-liberals/2011/11/17/gIQAyycZWN_story.html

I would like to think maybe we do want to facilitate passing lies. (Note that looking for one on Bush, they come up with what obviously was a joke, that there is no French word for entrepreneur. ) Where the article is completely weak is how to fight them. There solution - the same one Obama and Kerry argued for is lots of truth. That has to be the major part of the solution, but as far too many people still question where Obama was born - when a birth certificate is the most basic documentation - shows that some can not be reached.

I can't think of what could work. There was a point when the media had a role where there disapproval of something as untoward carried a price. (ie even 4 years earlier, Kerry putting his records on line and the SBVT having not a shred of proof would have led to the media shaming any mainstream person who gave them credence. It was funny that the RW were asking why the women who were harassed by Cain took so long to go public, but didn't question why the SBVT, troubled by Kerry's protesting, would not have come forward then if there was anything wrong- they had to know the WH would love them forever.)

[denverbill]

1. I'm convinced this is not just isolated nutbags creating these things

I think it would be a good research project for someone to collect samples of these emails with the email lists intact and try to trace them back to their sources. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority originate inside some right-wing think tank. Some of them aren't just feeble half truths, they are well thought out propaganda pieces.

[apnu]

2. I agre with you... Its the Drudges, Brietbart and their ilk sending this crap out.

I see it all the time, I know several conservatives who think its fun to "bait the liberal" and see if they can get me to react. Its like dealing with bullies, but they're all too easy to fight, because FactCheck.org and Snopes.com usually have the data tearing it all down as lies. I simply send them the link debunking their bullshit with the comment "this is bullshit." Oddly, that doesn't stop them from sending it to me, nor stop them from believing these rumors. But then, I don't actually say "stop sending this shit" because I find most of it so outrageous that it becomes comedy. And that's because I'm a sick fuck.

[karynnj]

7. True, but often some damage is done just by the accusation - no matter how swiftly debunked

The problem is that the right now sees they can just make things up and the media will put the burden of disproving it on the victim. ie Obama has to release his birth certificate - something no one running for President ever had to do - then he was told it was not the official one (even though Hawaii said it was)

The only way I can ever see it working is if some authority - the media (who has the gravitas ?), an interfaith group of churches, Oprah, a group of fake celebrities on a reality show? - to call out a campaign where they can tie it to a campaign - as they did with the SBVT - and it sticks. That hasn't happened yet.

As long as there is an almost certain gain in doing it and little or no possibility of it backfiring, it will continue. It already looks like the Republicans are gearing up with a massive coordinated attack on Congress. It hurts the Democrats the most when they generate false accusations of corruption. (There's enough real corruption, thank you) Sarah Palin and a "member of her pack" Peter Sweitzer are smearing people on stock transactions they made - even if a professional money manager did them and they were in a blind trust.

I have seen allegationa of insider trading that are real - usually for executives of companies. At minimum to call something insider trading, you need an event that will have a large impact on the stock, knowledge of the upcoming event before it is public and a transaction that benefits.

His attacks basically flag trades that are for companies in the entire segment they oversee in the House or senate. Example, if you are on HELP or Finance, buying any healthcare stock in 2009 is insider trading. This is nonsense. No one in 2009 knew whether a comprehensive bill would pass or exactly what would be in it - there were many versions as proposals failed to get 60 votes.

[kestrel91316]

3. IMHO these are produced by a highly paid think tank. It's propaganda

on a grand scale.

[Blue_Tires]

4. I swear I've searched DU every time a story like this comes up

Because about 5-6 years ago, someone posted a MotherJones or TNR or someone's big profile on a couple of people in Northern Va. who write this stuff in addition to the other dirty tricks...He was of course coy on who his higher-ups were and how many other people were doing it, but his astroturf process was very successful and all he had to do was send his pieces to friends at a couple of forums and a couple of bloggers and it was all over the innernettes in a few days...

[karynnj]

6. I would bet that you are right

If you think about it, if they got maybe as few as 10 unconnected people with many facebook friends and many people in their email address book, they could have the email to a massive number of people within a day. The more diverse, though obviously all RW, the better. In addition to the people getting the email, there will be many who hear it from others. Not to mention as the sender likely knows groups of people, many will get it reinforced when in real life someone repeats part of the lie.

[zipplewrath]

5. I've spoken to nuts that spread this dreck

When confronted with the reality of spreading false information, they are basically unapologetic. "Its sounds true, or "it should be true" or "it's close to the truth" are common responses.

I think in the end it goes back to the tendency for the right wing to work on a "faith based" approach. They decide what "should be" and then act as if it is actually true, despite facts. "It should be true so we will make it be true, through belief if nothing else". The left tends far more to believe that facts are somehow the salvation and if you can just present enough facts, the people will ultimately understand. That isn't true either.

[emulatorloo]

8. Thanks for posting this. K&R