FUD

[scheming daemons]

FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

Definition:

Fear, uncertainty and doubt, frequently abbreviated as FUD, is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,<1><2> politics and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor's product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival.

The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly.<3> FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt


I work in the computer industry.

FUD is what Microsoft spent a good bit of the late '90s and early '00s doing to keep companies from looking into open-source solutions like Linux.

Utilizing astroturf campaigns, greasing the palms of "friendly" editorial writers in trade magazines, and other tactics, Microsoft was able to keep just enough big companies afraid to switch to Linux to hold on to their market share a little longer.

It was an effective campaign. Without it, most of you would likely be reading this on a Linux-based platform (instead of only 20% of you), since Linux is much more stable, reliable, and inexpensive than Windows.

...but I digress.


The reason that I bring it up here is that this tactic is not confined to the computer world. It is used politically all the time. By both sides, but much much more often by right-leaning groups.

They try to make just enough people on the other side start to second-guess their support for a politician or a party to drive down enthusiasm and get-out-the-vote efforts.

It is done on right-wing forums, where someone will pretend to be VERY much to the right and say things like "Rick Perry is a RINO - he used to be a Democrat!" or "Our party can't win with a flip-flopper like Mitt Romney!"


But you also see it on left-wing forums, where it is much more prevalent. The Republicans know the same things about current American demographics that Democrats do. Namely, the groups that traditionally vote Democratic are increasing in proportion (latinos, blacks, elderly poor, urban) and the groups that traditionally vote Republican are decreasing in proportion (suburban whites, rural whites).

The demographics point to an increasingly large Democratic advantage. So.. if you are a Republican strategist, what do you do? Here's what you do:

1. Suppress voting among traditionally Democratic sectors of society. (Hence the push for Voter ID laws that disproportionately affect the poor and elderly).

2. Get maximum turnout among traditionally Republican sectors of society. How? By amping them up by hitting all the emotional dog-whistles that they respond to (Sharia law is creeping upon us! Gays are trying to destroy traditional marriage! Democrats want to punish your success!)

3. This is where FUD comes in. Divide the other side. Get them fighting amongst themselves. Maybe they'll even spin off an "independent" candidate to split the traditionally Democratic vote. But how do you get them divided? By "seeding" their discussions, both online and in the media, with talking points that all use the same phraseology... "The president is weak"... "I am so disappointed".... "Democrats and Republicans are the same".... "I won't vote for the lesser evil".


Like I said.. to be fair, we try it to. Many Democrats go to opposition sites and foment Perry-Romney or Bachmann-Romney wars.

But mostly it is a right-wing tactic. Why? because the demographic realities make them more desperate.

In 2008, they even put a name on it: "Operation Chaos". They flooded pro-Obama sites pretending to be Hillary supporters. Earlier on, they flooded pro-Hillary sites pretending to be Obama or Edwards supporters.


I'm telling you they are here. Some of them have been here for a while.

It's a tactic that works, and that's why they'll keep doing it.

[whatchamacallit]

1. I believe most DUers know their own minds

and base their beliefs and opinions on their own analysis. Your OP is condescending.

[scheming daemons]

2. Most IT dept heads know their own minds too.. but they fell victim to FUD

It works.

[whatchamacallit]

3. If being inundated with messaging all day has that great an effect

you and pro sense would have converted all Obama Doubters by now. ;)

[scheming daemons]

4. If being inundated with messaging DIDN'T work, there'd be no commercials on TV

And Pro Sense (who is a treasure, btw) and I are but two individuals.


We're up against an army of FUDmeisters. ;-)

[whatchamacallit]

6. Hmm...

Maybe so.

[joshcryer]

5. +1, never get over the fact that MS anti-trust over "Internet Explorer" was a scam...

...and that the true anti-trust issue was their NDA forbidding OEMs from installing competing operating systems! Who cares if they bundle a web browser, but how dare they forbid competitors from being installed!

[pa28]

7. Thanks for the warning.

How do we protect ourselves from this FUD?

DU'ers are generally literate people who think critically and are capable of forming their own opinions about elected leaders. Are you suggesting the problem is right here or should we look elsewhere to combat the evils of FUD?

Maybe you could produce a list of 57 or so posters who are guilty of FUD and then we could just ban them. Problem solved.

[sabrina 1]

8. Why do you assume that people need to be deceptive to

'seed' the opposition with negative thoughts about their politicians? That is a strange concept to me. I have gone to Rightwing dominated sites, in fact that's where I started getting into politics, but I never pretended to be one of them. They knew I was Democrat. Why would I have to pretend to be one of them when I had facts on my side?

The only reason anyone would play such a role would be if they could not defend their positions. Most people here CAN defend their positions. There is no need to pretend, to infiltrate or whatever it is you are talking about. You would have to be a very deceptive individual to do that. I prefer to confront rightwingers with the truth and the facts. It works far better than attempting to 'plant' anything in their minds.

The reasons have to do with POLICIES. There is no mystery to it. We do not support catering to Republicans and their rotten ideas, period. That's it, nothing more, and frankly I think what you and others who post these silly OPs are doing is attempting to discredit honest Americans who do not want to see their parents and/or grandparents SS and Medicare or poor people's only access to HC, medicaid, used as bargaining chips with Republicans eg.

If you cannot grasp that the policies that are of concern to so many Americans are not being dealt with and you think that everyone one in the country who is worried about them is some kind of undercover agent, all I can say is, maybe you should think more about the issues, than about the politicians in DC.

Spend as much time telling the Politicians in DC to start working for the people as you do being suspicious of every single person who is not happy with the way things are going, and if they listen to you, the problem will be solved.

[hfojvt]

13. because deception is more likely to work

let's say I was a rightwinger who wants to see Obama defeated. Because of the liberal policies that he has passed or threatens to pass. It's pretty obvious that approaching you as a rightwinger and arguing against all of Obama's evil socialist policies is not gonna do much good. You will quickly form defenses and have skepticism against the arguments of an enemy.

But if I can pretend to be a friend, then perhaps I can weasel my way in.

Let me try a football analogy. Obama is your quarterback, let's say, for the New York Jets amd I play for the Winnipeg Sharks. If I show up in my Shark uniform, you aren't gonna listen. But if I pretend to be a Jet, I can create some grumbling in the huddle. "Man, this quarterback sucks, did you see that last throw? It was right to the opposing linebacker." Grumble, grumble, grumble. "Wow, he fumbled again. How long do we have to put up with this lousy quarterback?"

Next thing you know, there is fighting in the Jet huddle. The offensive line is mad at the quarterback for perceived slights and isn't protecting him very well. The wide receivers aren't trying any more. Aren't running very fast, aren't blocking, aren't getting open when the quarterback is scrambling.

And the wonderful part of this strategery is that the worse things go for our team, the more I can grumble about the quarterback.

Now you say it is about policy, but there are lots of things going on. Good policies. Like the expansion of SCHIP, which Bush vetoed twice. Like the making work pay credit, which was refundable (meaning it went to the lowest income workers). Like the Matthew Shepard act. Like the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act. Like unemployment extension. Like the end of DADT. Like women on the Supreme court instead of young, male Scalia clones.

But I can cynically scoff at any celebration and keep coming back to all the failures. It's Thanksgiving, but like Yossarian, I insist that I can name two things to be miseable about for every one thing you can name to be happy about. I am pretending to be on your side, but my real mission is to make you discouraged, angry, disgusted - unwilling to help re-elect Obama. After all, how can Favre be a great quarterback when he has thrown so many interceptions?

Grumble, grumble, grumble. Constant contact with Cassandra leads to some contamination of Pollyana.

[Morning Dew]

9. Good job spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about fellow DUers.

unrec.

[hfojvt]

10. well now I feel like such a sap

what a fool I was to be disappointed by the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

we may be getting played by the unending stream of negativity. I complained about it for a while, and still push back against some complaints that ring hollow to me.

But I really don't like Obama's embrace of Reaganomics. At all.

If we are being played, unfortunately it seems to be the Obama adminstration that is providing much of the ammo that we are bing shot with.

The President is weak - well if that is just propaganda, then why didn't he win the fight to end the Bush tax cuts? Why didn't he even bother to fight? Why didn't he get a public option? Why did he campaign against a mandate and then embrace it?

I am so disappointed - Again, am I supposed to NOT be disappointed by a continuation of the Bush tax cuts? By a trickle down jobs plan? By proposals to cut social security? By Obama's embrace of both the Catfood commission and the gang of six? By a mandate and a lack of a public option?

Democrats and Republicans are the same - well that does not seem to be true, because every time Obama takes a step to the right, the Republicans counter by taking two steps to the right themselves. So now Obama is standing a little bit to the right of George H.W. Bush and Republicans are practically the libertarian party without the pot. But Obama keeps moving right trying to find that middle ground. But his trickle down jobs plan and his embrace of social security cuts don't sound very Kennedyesque to me.

I won't vote for the lesser evil - well that still seems like suicide to me, but on the other hand, if Obama refuses to represent me, and the rest of the Democratic Party does not bother to fight for me either (and against Obama) then how the hell am I supposed to show them that THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE???

I still say I, for myself, absolutely NEED, and INSIST upon a chance to vote against Obama in a primary. Some way for me to register my disapproval of his lack of fighting for me. Because if I cannot do it in May, then the only other alternative, as odious as it admittedly is (except in my own case, I believe it will not make a damn bit of difference in Kansas - a state Obama is not gonna win anyway). Then the only other alternative way for me to register my disgust at his betrayal is in November.

That's how I feel. Not how Greenwald or Hamsher tell me to feel. It's how I feel. It's not rational. I admit straight up, I am pissed at the man. I have no fear, uncertainty, or doubt about it. Only rage. And the more I am denied an opportunity to vent that rage, the stronger it gets.

[Union Scribe]

11. Your post seems like a great example.

"Divide the other side. Get them fighting amongst themselves."

I can't think of a better way to do that than to try to whip people up into a witch hunt mindset, where people who disagree ought to be thought of as operatives and infiltrators instead of members of a diverse party.

[MilesColtrane]

12. K to the R

[Luminous Animal]

14. And your OP is a perfect example of FUD. (THEY are here... oooh, be afraid of THEM.)

Thanks.