Campaign Desk

08:20 AM - August 14, 2009

The Wrong Stuff

What we don’t know about how to correct misinformation

By Greg Marx

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print
• One Page

Comments Post a Comment

Well, let's see -- naming and shaming.

Let's see if this works on your colleague Trudy Lieberman. She said this:
"With charges, countercharges, information, disinformation, flat-out lies, and half truths being disseminated on all sides of the health reform debates, how is a poor citizen to learn the real story?"
(Italics are mind)

I challenged your colleague to show us ONE example of a pro-reform group, including Democrats, disseminating a flat-out lie equivalent to DEATH PANELS that are gonna EUTHANIZE YOUR GRANDMOTHER.

The mainstream media's propensity to perpetuate lies by way of false equivalence is itself a form of lying and disseminating false information. And they seem unwilling to reform that noxious practice. False equivalence is a toxic failure that journalists need to overcome and it is ubiquitous in the mainstream media, even here at CJR. Why should people even try to discern the nuances of a complex policy argument, let alone the truth or falsehood of a preposterous assertion like DEATH PANELS when journalists every day tell us that "they all do it," "it's flung around on both sides," or that an inadvertent slip, or being 10 million dollars off on an estimate, or leaving out a single detail in a complex policy speech, is the exact equivalent of a bald-faced lie.

All journalists are guilty of false equivalence.

#1 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 14 Aug 2009 at 09:24 AM

One way to counter a piece of false information is to make its origin and development the story. The mere fact that something isn't true may not stick in people's minds, but the story of who started the rumor and how it came to be believed will have a more lasting impression.

On the whole, however, this is a problem that people of a skeptical bent have been aware of, and resigned to, for a very long time. Some folks still believe in astrology, after all. If journalists want to make informing the public the focus of their work (as opposed to merely writing stories for money), they will have to accept that only a minority of their audience truly wants to be informed.

#2 Posted by D. B., CJR on Fri 14 Aug 2009 at 12:34 PM

The very definition of propaganda. False information (a lie, false witness, a falsehood) that is deliberately placed in full and constant view of the public as verifiable facts and honest truths. When and how did the American 'news' media become a unified block of recalcitrant sinners against the Commandment, "Thou shall not bear false witness?" How Christian or moral can a people be or act, if those people believe lies and act on falsehoods as a matter of course? How secure can such a people from being misled into committing other sins because they have trust in the false testimony of the false media gods?

"Any people who can be made to believe absurdities, can be made to commit atrocities" Voltaire

#3 Posted by J. Bridy, CJR on Fri 14 Aug 2009 at 01:01 PM

"Well, let's see -- naming and shaming."

Your arguments are well stated Tom... From were I sit, I believe that journalism in the US had become pretty much worthless. Spin this, spin that, the spin appears to be more of a tool to keep the masses ill informed and it is increasing the divisions between Americans everyday.

But given how the banking elite are transferring wealth from the middle class to the upper class, at an unprecedented rate, the press is a knowing co-conspirator.

Tom J

#4 Posted by Thomas E Johnson, CJR on Sun 16 Aug 2009 at 07:53 AM

In response to Tom who seems to believe that the lies are always on the conservative side of the argument, how about Obama's repeated claims that the health care reform package will be revenue neutral? The Congressional Budget Office has refuted this, but it doesn't stop him from repeating it. A several hundred billion dollar lie seems to qualify as a whopper.

#5 Posted by Tom, CJR on Mon 17 Aug 2009 at 09:33 AM

Someone above wrote, "how about Obama's repeated claims that the health care reform package will be revenue neutral? The Congressional Budget Office has refuted this, but it doesn't stop him from repeating it. A several hundred billion dollar lie seems to qualify as a whopper."

That's not a lie. First, just to clarify, Obama usually says the bill will be "DEFICIT neutral" -- that is, the bill will not add to the deficit.

And it’s not a lie because Obama isn’t talking about the incomplete, rough-draft bills the CBO has so far analyzed. He’s talking about the future, finalized bill – note the words “will be.” He’s saying that to get his approval, the FINALIZED BILL will have to be such that it does not add to the deficit. He makes this clear when he talks about the ways that are being considered to pay for the program. He has repeatedly said that he expects that about 2/3 of the estimated cost can be covered by eliminating waste, and the remaining 1/3 COULD, for example, be paid for by reducing tax breaks on certain line items for the wealthy, but that this is being debated right now and will eventually be worked out through debate.

“Tom who seems to believe that the lies are always on the conservative side of the argument,…”

Tom didn’t write or imply “the lies are always on the conservative side”; he implies that there’s not “ONE example of a pro-reform group, including Democrats, disseminating a flat-out lie equivalent to DEATH PANELS that are gonna EUTHANIZE YOUR GRANDMOTHER.”

#6 Posted by Mike L, CJR on Mon 17 Aug 2009 at 07:59 PM

Horrible suggestion: "find someone who’s ideologically similar to your target but willing to repudiate the claim, as conservative Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson recently did on the euthanasia story."

Really the problem is that folks who are "ideologically similar" to the birthers and the Obama's-gonna-off-granny folks are all quite insane. By quoting them, on any issue, as though they are not insane, media types merely lend credence to them and their many delusions. Look at Isakson's take on the F-22 and then on healthcare economics to see what I mean. He says we must have more F-22s no matter the cost because we don't know what challenges we'll face--like North Korea--in the future. But we should not have medicaid at 150 percent of the poverty level because it's too expensive.

Not crazy enough for you? Then get a load of this press release Isakson pooped out after President Obama (and others) tried to cite him as repudiating the granny-killer lie: http://isakson.senate.gov/press/2009/081109healthcare.html

He says, “This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don’t read the bills. The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies." ... blah blah.

Sane journalists should not quote people like this. It sullies the profession.

#7 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Mon 17 Aug 2009 at 09:39 PM

I didn't say anything about "lies are always on the conservative side," my target was journalists who engage in false equivalence by claiming wrongly that everyone is equally guilty. Don't put words in my mouth. But since you mention it, Politifact has found that with respect to claims in this health care "debate" more than 76% of claims by Republicans are egregiously false and outright lies. And they didn't find a single claim by Republicans that was deemed "true."

But I'm sure in your remote little Fox world you will deny any source of information that doesn't cater to your insecurities, which is why I didn't bother.

Here's an analysis in graph form for Poltifact's work -- it's more for the silly claims of Ms. Lieberman that this stuff is "thrown around from all sides" than anyone else. I see that she hasn't revised her fallacious claim as yet.
politifact_healthcare1.png )

#8 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 06:26 AM

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and break up the monopolistic propaganda format of talk radio OR fine and ultimately fire serial liars.
Rush, Beck and Hannity won't last a week.

#9 Posted by Lynne Gillooly, CJR on Tue 24 Aug 2010 at 01:54 PM