"Unsmearing the Smear"

Free Exchange looks at a report on "How unscrupulous campaign strategists are taking advantage of a quirk in our brains – and what reporters can do to stop helping them":

Unsmearing the smear, Free Exchange, The Econmist: An interesting behavioural look at the world of political mud-slinging... It helpfully begins:

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, Americans increasingly get their news from multiple sources. More than one-third use Internet-based sources such as Web sites, blogs, and even social networking sites. Only a minority rely entirely on traditional sources, including print, radio, television, and cable news. The survey did not include chain e-mail, which has fed rumors... This proliferation of sources creates competitive pressure on journalists to bend their standards in order to get a story quickly.

It's always good to see blogging given a clear edge over crazy, ungrammatical emails typed in multi-coloured fonts. The piece continues:

Our brains tend to remember facts that accord with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it. ...

The human brain also does not save information permanently, as do computer drives and printed pages. Recent research suggests that every time the brain recalls a piece of information, it is "written" down again and often modified in the process. Along the way, the fact is gradually separated from its original context. For example, most people don't remember how they know that the capital of Massachusetts is Boston.

This is actually quite a serious point. Repetition in any context strengthens memory. Incredibly it also creates its own aura of credibility:

In another Stanford study, students were exposed repeatedly to the unsubstantiated claim that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Those who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than the National Enquirer), giving it a gloss of credibility. Thus the classic opening line "I think I read somewhere," or even reference to a specific source, is often used to support falsehoods. Similarly, psychologist Daniel Gilbert and his colleagues have shown that if people are distracted from thinking critically, they default to automatically accepting statements as true.

A week or so ago, Mark Thoma responded to a piece on "Libertarian Paternalism" by noting that he didn't like feeling like he was being manipulated. It's interesting to me that even if we assume that journalists are impartial actors, there is an asymmetry in the presentation of information, since the smearers are presumably well aware of these findings and using them to their advantage. We are being manipulated.

So here is the question: should journalists actively study behavioural economics in an effort to adjust their coverage such that the effect of the coverage will be something closer to factual truth? Either the media aims to be deliberately manipulative in an effort to produce better content, or the media will abet the manipulations of others, by predictably being not manipulative. Which is preferable?

Let me add the following from the article as an example of how journalists might use this in their reports:

Journalists should avoid presenting both sides of a story when one is false - and take into account how readers' brains process the disagreements. The following four rules can guide their efforts.

1. State the facts without reinforcing the falsehood. Repeating a false rumor can inadvertently make it stronger. In covering ... controversy..., many journalists repeat... the charges against the candidate - often citing polling data on how many Americans believe them - before noting that the beliefs [a]re false. Particularly damaging is the common practice of replaying parts of an ad before debunking its content.

A related mistake is saying that something is newsworthy because "the story is out there." Reporting on coverage by a less credible source such as The Drudge Report, even with disclaimers, will inevitably spread the story. False statements should not be presented neutrally since they are likely to be remembered later as being true.

2. Tell the truth with images. Nearly half of the brain is dedicated to processing visual information. When images do not match words, viewers tend to remember what they see, not what they hear. Karl Rove has said that campaigns should be run as if the television's sound is turned down.

Television journalists should avoid presenting images that contradict the story. One recent CNN ...story featured a threatening swarthy face subtitled "Obama the Antichrist?" - a statement that CNN would presumably not claim to be true.

3. Provide a compelling storyline or mental framework for the truth. Effective debunking requires replacing the falsehood with positive content. ...

4. Discredit the source. Ideas have special staying power if they evoke a feeling of disgust. Indeed, brain pathways dedicated to processing disgust can be activated by descriptions of morally repellent behavior. The motives of the purveyors of falsehoods can provide a powerful story hook. A recent example is the press coverage pointing out Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi's motivations and past of racist Web commentary and allegations of Bush Administration complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

To avoid contributing to the formation of false beliefs, journalists may need to re-examine their practices. In 1919, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum. But by better understanding the mechanisms of memory, perhaps journalists can move their modern audience closer to Holmes's ideal.

"Journalists should avoid presenting both sides of a story when one is false." I think that alone would take us a long way. But from what I've seen written about economics, I wonder if journalists have the knowledge to make that determination enough of the time.

Comments

[Oupoot]

Mark, this will only happen in Utopia. The whole advertising industry is build on this assumption that through persuasion, they could influence the decisions of the viewer/reader.

I agree that the way information is presented is critical in what message is received. E.g. presenting the "falsehood" before the rebuttal may be interpreted as "the writer finding resonance with the statement, but for fairness, has to put the other side of the story as well", or presenting the rebuttal only (maybe with link to the statement) may be interpreted as "I disagree totally with the statement, but for those interested, please go read the stetement somewhere else". It has decidedly different impacts on the receiver / reader of the message.

[swells]

I'd still go back to the educational process for the solution to this problem. Teaching critical thinking skills at all levels of the educational process would be the best antidote for this problem. A kind of innoculation if you will. However, our educational system does not teach critical thinking very well or even, in some cases, at all.

I think this is because crtical thinking is also an antidote to many flawed ideologies and many people have a vested interest in seeing their flawed ideologies perpetuated.

For instance, religious schools would have a pretty obvious reason not to teach critical thinking skills.

[robertdfeinman]

People are under the mistaken impression that the purpose of the press is to provide the news. In an earlier era this error was not made.

People understood that each press outlet came with a viewpoint. To use the example of early 20th century journalism, NYC had 100 newspapers. There were the anarchists, socialists, communists, labor organizations, ethnic papers and, of course, the famous yellow journalists - Hearst et al.

Why would a person set up a paper unless he felt that some important story wasn't being treated properly? Starting a paper provided the platform to get your story out.

During the 1950's NBC and CBS were run by two men who tried to professionalize journalism (Sarnoff and Paley). They promoted the idea that their news was going to be "impartial". But, in fact, what it did was to to support the cold war, anti-communist, majority view of the day. There was so little opposition to this view that the bias of their coverage was not perceived as such (except by the "old left").

Murdoch started Fox news for just the purpose of promoting rightwing propaganda. This effort has been useful not only to the GOP, but to the corporate interests who have been running things since the end of WWII. They aided his efforts politically, but getting him favorable rulings on press consolidation, and financially by advertising on his outlets.

There is no way to counter the power of the mainstream media using the same venues, the money just isn't available. DailyKos is not about to launch a new TV and newspaper empire.

The internet and rapid, portable communication, will have to be used instead. As this ability to get other viewpoints out becomes more widely recognized expect to see the dominant powers try to rein it in. The battle has already started over net neutrality, ownership of ISP's, and content filtering.

[Noni Mausa]

In my previous life as a small-town reporter, we used to routinely get press releases from the government. A lot of these dealt with simple things like immunization campaigns, or are new funding for schools. But they were always larded with the language of the ruling government, including sentences here and there reinforcing how wonderful the ruling government was.

In preparing these stories for press, I would carefully go through and remove all the lard and all the self congratulation, dig up a few facts, phone somebody for a non-scripted quote and to answer a couple of questions, and finally end up with a printable story that, as much as possible, was not an advertisement for the originators.

We could not not cover the story, but in the end usually even the boiled down story made the originators look better than I would have if I had written the thing from the word go.

I must say though, I took a certain amount of satisfaction every time I cut out the same old pat-on-the-back that the PR people had had to painstakingly type in when they were preparing a story at their end. Or maybe they had a hotkey for "Canada's New Government"

Noni

[Donald A. Coffin]

"For example, most people don't remember how they know that the capital of Massachusetts is Boston...."

Of course, Boston is NOT the capital of Massachussetts...Springfield is. Which may be why people can't explain how they know that Boston is...

[RW]

Why does The Economist hate Massachusetts?

[Holly W.]

I disagree that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." As pointed out in the article, repetition of a claim can make people believe it is true; for instance, this is how the idea that there is a genuine scientific "controversy" concerning evolution has gotten established in people's minds. Judging by the "competition of the market," creationism as an idea is a great success -- and the value of its "truth" is pretty much a non-issue.

Recommendation 3, "Provide a compelling storyline or mental framework for the truth," might be useful if modern MSM journalism seemed more interested in truth rather than just creating excitement ...

[Holly W.]

Donald A. Coffin: Boston is NOT the capital of Massachussetts...Springfield is.

??? Last I checked, the Massachusetts State House was still right here in Boston ...

Springfield IS the capital of Illinois.

[Bernard Guerrero]

religious schools would have a pretty obvious reason not to teach critical thinking skills

Aye, Lord knows those Jesuits go out of their way to wipe out all trace of critical thinking.....

[Patricia Shannon]

Some years ago I was part of a group analyzing proposed school texts. There was also a right-wing "Christian" (the so-called "Christian Majority") group doing the same. They made no bones about the fact that they opposed the teaching of critical thinking in the public schools.

A specific incident has stuck in my mind. The religious power freaks objected to a story in an elementary school reader that included a father taking his baby for a ride in a baby stroller, because they thought it was "anti-family"!

[Ronald Rutherford]

["Journalists should avoid presenting both sides of a story when one is false." I think that alone would take us a long way. But from what I've seen written about economics, I wonder if journalists have the knowledge to make that determination enough of the time.]
If it is a matter of fact then yes by all means emphasize the truth. But how much is really "The Truth"? Did Bush cause a recession? Seems more like just opinion and how do you separate out opinion from facts?]

Also who decides what "the truth" is? Considering that most Economists favor free trade {Freer Trade-Bwaghwati}, and most reporters think it hurts economies, then what will get reported? Even the supposed anti-globalization economists like Stiglitz seem to want Developed Countries to lower their trade barriers.