A stunning story in Bloomberg BusinessWeek reveals Donald Trump’s end game: Suppress the Hillary vote. Target certain audiences and bombard them on the Internet with negative stories that discourage them from turning out.
Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg went “inside the Trump bunker” to learn the campaign’s strategizing. Trump has abandoned traditional fund-raising events and is replying now exclusively on the Web to find campaign contributions. He has a small team with pre-written Tweets, ready to go to synchronize with his speeches. He has a highly sophisticated data team, conducting its own polling. His campaign is led not by veteran political operatives but by people skilled at marketing. Marketing the candidate is no different from marketing any other product.
They write:
When Bannon joined the campaign in August, Project Alamo’s data began shaping even more of Trump’s political and travel strategy—and especially his fundraising. Trump himself was an avid pupil. Parscale would sit with him on the plane to share the latest data on his mushrooming audience and the $230 million they’ve funneled into his campaign coffers. Today, housed across from a La-Z-Boy Furniture Gallery along Interstate 410 in San Antonio, the digital nerve center of Trump’s operation encompasses more than 100 people, from European data scientists to gun-toting elderly call-center volunteers. They labor in offices lined with Trump iconography and Trump-focused inspirational quotes from Sheriff Joe Arpaio and evangelical leader Jerry Falwell Jr. Until now, Trump has kept this operation hidden from public view. But he granted Bloomberg Businessweek exclusive access to the people, the strategy, the ads, and a large part of the data that brought him to this point and will determine how the final two weeks of the campaign unfold.
The Trump team knows very well that they are behind in the polls, and they have shaped a plan to reverse Clinton’s edge: suppress her voters.
Instead of expanding the electorate, Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans. Trump’s invocation at the debate of Clinton’s WikiLeaks e-mails and support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to turn off Sanders supporters. The parade of women who say they were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton and harassed or threatened by Hillary is meant to undermine her appeal to young women. And her 1996 suggestion that some African American males are “super predators” is the basis of a below-the-radar effort to discourage infrequent black voters from showing up at the polls—particularly in Florida.
The nation is at risk if Trump wins, and the Republican party is at risk if he loses.
Regardless of whether this works or backfires, setting back GOP efforts to attract women and minorities even further, Trump won’t come away from the presidential election empty-handed. Although his operation lags previous campaigns in many areas (its ground game, television ad buys, money raised from large donors), it’s excelled at one thing: building an audience. Powered by Project Alamo and data supplied by the RNC and Cambridge Analytica, his team is spending $70 million a month, much of it to cultivate a universe of millions of fervent Trump supporters, many of them reached through Facebook. By Election Day, the campaign expects to have captured 12 million to 14 million e-mail addresses and contact information (including credit card numbers) for 2.5 million small-dollar donors, who together will have ponied up almost $275 million. “I wouldn’t have come aboard, even for Trump, if I hadn’t known they were building this massive Facebook and data engine,” says Bannon. “Facebook is what propelled Breitbart to a massive audience. We know its power.”
Since Trump paid to build this audience with his own campaign funds, he alone will own it after Nov. 8 and can deploy it to whatever purpose he chooses. He can sell access to other campaigns or use it as the basis for a 2020 presidential run. It could become the audience for a Trump TV network. As Bannon puts it: “Trump is an entrepreneur.”
Whatever Trump decides, this group will influence Republican politics going forward. These voters, whom Cambridge Analytica has categorized as “disenfranchised new Republicans,” are younger, more populist and rural—and also angry, active, and fiercely loyal to Trump. Capturing their loyalty was the campaign’s goal all along. It’s why, even if Trump loses, his team thinks it’s smarter than political professionals. “We knew how valuable this would be from the outset,” says Parscale. “We own the future of the Republican Party.”
Win or lose, he is not going away. White nationalism is his base, and he is cultivating it with dexterity. And keeping it intact for the future.
LIKE the GOP was going anywhere, they were looking for a new position, What to become
DEM. 02 . It is just nationalism, We do not have French or German illegals coming in by the 1,000s
You really have to wonder what sort of idiot lets Facebook chatter keep them form voting.
Rigging? What is intimidation of voters, and one-sided wiki-leaks, but a kind rigging? The whole Trump campaign is a house of mirrors peopled with those whom I would call clowns, were they not so dangerous.
Fascists are not funny.
Not funny . . . precisely.
I may have to change my vote to Trump, if he puts this on social media after all who could be better than my childhood hero’s . Donald of course!
Time for some head shaking or laughing till you cry
Where are those people who said that Trump wasn’t serious and that he would step down and hand the baton over to Pence? I would say that Trump is fighting tooth and nail to become president, that he wants all that power and prestige and that he’s not going to step down now and especially if he wins. Nothing should be taken for granted and I hope that HRC wins. Even with all her flaws and shortcomings, she is no where near the disaster that would be a Trump presidency.
From what Trump says, he thinks he can “wing” the presidency! And he’ll be the greatest president ever!
I wouldn’t assume Trump even knows what “president” means, not to mention “democracy.” He seems to think it’s like a kingship or worse, a dictatorship? Everything he says is either “code,” innuendo, or flat-out lies. “Just wait” and see what happens to (whoever crosses him) when he becomes president.
Tocqueville was right: the worst danger to a democracy comes from erosion within. Russia seems to understand this point quite well.
Two things Trump doesn’t know that he quoted erroneously while campaigning: the Constitution and the Bi le.
One thing he does know: greed.
FLERP!
Yes Indicted with out a trail . You are entitled to face your accuser in a court of law . Comey had the right to indict her or close the case. His opinion is like a_ _ holes everybody has one. We did not need it nor should he have given it.
He tried her in the court of Public Opinion. That is a slander coming from a prosecutor.
Not to be too technical, but everyone who’s ever been indicted has been indicted without a trial.
FLERP,
There are two policies of the Justice Department that Comey ignored. First, it is not customary to announce an investigation without cause. For that matter, why is the FBI investigating Anthony Weiner’s revolting conduct? Second, federal agencies are supposed to stay out of electoral politics within 60 days of the election. In addition, Comey was not making an indictment. The FBI does not have the authority to indict anyone. They investigate. They don’t prosecute. His announcement said that there were thousands of emails; that the FBI had not yet reviewed them; that they may or may not be significant. Did he have grounds to announce a new investigation 11 days before the election? If he were investigating Trump, you can imagine the howls from Republicans. It stinks of unfairness.
I tend to agree.
Again that edit button = Trial
The story just broke that the FBI is reopening the email investigation.
We may have President Trump to terrify all of us who are non-believers in his boasts and promises.
Did Putin threaten Comey’s children? Do not the Press understand the difference between (a) their own “regular” responsibilities and (b) their responsibilities to a real threat to their own foundations, namely, to “freedom of the Press”? I think I am going to throw up.
Here is the story from Politico. Can Hillary overcome this one?
“In a stunning, late-stage development in the presidential race, FBI Director James Comey said Friday that his department had learned of new emails that “appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into Clinton’s private server. It had closed that investigation in July, concluding that Clinton had been “careless” in her handling of sensitive information but was guilty of no criminal wrongdoing.
Comey offered few specifics in his letter to House chairmen Friday, saying the FBI does not yet know if the new material in question is “significant.”
“I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation,” Comey wrote”.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-nh-230457
From Politico just now….
“In a stunning, late-stage development in the presidential race, FBI Director James Comey said Friday that his department had learned of new emails that “appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into Clinton’s private server. It had closed that investigation in July, concluding that Clinton had been “careless” in her handling of sensitive information but was guilty of no criminal wrongdoing.
Comey offered few specifics in his letter to House chairmen Friday, saying the FBI does not yet know if the new material in question is “significant.”
“I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation,” Comey wrote.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-nh-230457
Is he trying to give the election to Trump?
Imagine you’re James Comey. Your investigators come to you and say they’ve just learned that there are emails that they didn’t know about before. You turn red, stave off a heart-attack, and resist the urge to strangle someone (or not). Then you ask, “What’s in the emails?” They say, “We don’t know, we haven’t reviewed them yet.” You say, “Well, review them today.” They say, “Unfortunately we can’t — we have to restore some backup tapes and process the emails first, it could take a week or two.” The election is happening in 12 days. Do you stay quiet and wait to see what’s in the emails, or do you inform the House Oversight Committee immediately? What if you wait and then learn one day before the election that some of the new emails are significant? What if you learn the same thing one day after the election? Or what if you wait and learn that the emails are not significant, but in the meantime it leaks that the FBI learned there were new emails and intentionally tried to suppress the news until after the election? It’s not difficult to imagine a scenario in which disclosing the existence of these emails now was the best decision to make.
I agree with those who say that the FBI was wrong to inject a statement 11 days before the election without details. It is a charge minus any facts. This is unprecedented. The American public has been told something is wrong but not whether it is significant or not. What is the FBI investigating? Comey didn’t say.
What do you think Comey should have done?
I think Comey should have waited until after the election.
Suppose that his announcement elects Trump. And six months later, Comey announces that the FBI completed its investigation and found nothing irregular.
That would be a horrible result. Comey has taken the election into his hands.
On the other hand, suppose that it leaks that the FBI has learned that there is new, relevant evidence that is potentially significant and inculpatory against Hillary Clinton, but is refusing to take any action or disclose it until after the election. That’s a better narrative for Trump than Comey disclosing the information immediately and making clear that the FBI does not know yet what the emails contain. One scenario suggests secrecy and possible corruption and is the strongest possible reinforcement of the Trump narrative that the system is rigged. The other suggests that government is functioning professionally and properly.
According to the statements of various federal prosecutors, it is customary for federal agencies to remain scrupulously neutral and to avoid any direct intervention in the electoral process for 60 days before the election.
What we have now is a charge that is highly inflammatory that contains no facts, no evidence, no findings, and no means of rebuttal.
I suppose if both candidates were equally qualified, I would not care so much. But they are not.
No need to rehearse Trump’s well-known ignorance, bigotry, fraudulence, misogyny, xenophobia, incipient fascism. If he were elected, I fear for our nation and the world. He is uniquely unqualified and unfit.
After some reflection, I think you may be right. It’s definitely a lose lose proposition for Comey, though.
Comey should have done the complete investigation last July.
Okay, so the FBI director feels compelled to inform the chairmen of these relevant House committees. Under what circumstance should a committee chair or member of a committee be releasing information that has not been determined to be relevant? To talk about transparency is a little disingenuous since committees do not routinely release information about committee work or correspondence nor should they. At this point to make public this information was designed for purely political purposes. It serves no useful function as a government function and provides no actionable information to the public. If the information came directly from the FBI director, he has no business releasing it publicly. Here we sit with no idea what this information is, but people are immediately assuming that where there is smoke there must be fire. How many more emails are going to appear from various sources?
Read this link: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/ex-doj-spokesman-blast-james-comey-230459
I just heard Hillary speaking about the letter. It was my understanding that it was sent exclusively to House Republicans?
Comey letter was sent to the Republican chairmen of relevant committees.
Since when does FBI announce an investigation with neither facts nor findings?
Re: what the FBI is investigating, it’s investigating the same thing it’s always been investigating: Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for emails while serving as Secretary of State, and whether she used a private server to send or receive classified information. It’s a reopening of the original investigation. It is clearly a CYA move by the FBI, but as I see it, any other decision would be highly fraught.
What’s important, and what Trump followers seem not to be able to see, is Trump’s too-quick jump to conclusions (about this and everything else) followed by totally hyperbolic descriptions.
And THIS is presidential material?
He’s not the only one jumping to conclusions.
Looking at the Times story, it appears the timing issue would relate to the determination of whether information was “classified,” which presumably is not the kind of determination that can be made without a fair amount of deliberation and discussion.
My immediate reaction remains that Comey had no choice but to inform the House, and that any other decision could have had disastrous consequences.
It would appear that the triple threat of the Assange/Putin team, the Trump/Bannon team, and Comey/Repubs could actually throw the election to Trump with this well timed disclosure.
Yes he is . He broke protocol when he indicted her without a trail In June and now this
But as I said earlier this is Obama’s fault he nominated Comey . Along with 3 Republican Cabinet positions. Along with Ben Bernanke and Geithner … … a “Change we can believe in”. As much as I dislike Clinton she is the perfect argument for no term limits. With all her faults 30 years in the public eye lets you know who the candidate is. With all her faults . The one term Senator from Illinois proved what a novice he is . Stepped on and rolled over for eight years.
James Comey indicted Hillary Clinton?
Love that edit button
trial
You are not alone Joel…I have been scratched with the last three comments I tried to post.
Seems that Podesta has told Comey to look further. The emails had to do with the Anthony Weiner investigation. But Trump and Ryan are all over it.
Jeez…looks like Hillary did this to herself. Is she still using the home server? Reports (that I cannot seem to post here) say these emails are about the Anthony Weiner affair. She seems to still use emails with abandon, like Trump uses tweets. Why don’t they understand that online info can all be made public by both hackers and our government?
From Media Matters just now…false alarm re Hillary emails.
Hillary Clinton
A dumb Friday evening media freak out
It was a usual Friday afternoon in late October, when all of a sudden seemingly the entire media freaked out. FBI Director James Comey had sent a formal letter to Congress about reviewing new materials related to Hillary Clinton’s email server when outlets lost it and ran with breathless, unconfirmed, and ultimately erroneous coverage. Instead of due diligence, media outlets substituted the spin of Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz. They completely ignored that Chaffetz just days earlier had promised to launch endless investigations of Clinton from the moment she was sworn in. As more information came out, journalists began criticizing outlets for so easily failing for false Republican spin. This led to the humiliating spectacle of outlets being forced to walk back their over the top headlines within the span of an hour. The fact is that Chaffetz had spun the media with patently false information previously and the media should have known better. If this sounds remedial, it’s because it is. It should not take a media watchdog for media outlets to actually report stories and not just go into full meltdown mode because of partisan spin.
I have to say — I agree with FLERP on this one. The desire on the right to find wrongdoing is insatiable, and will not be satisfied, no matter WHAT people do, or how careful they are. BUT that fact, distasteful though it is, also means that great care must be taken to try not to give them anything they can go nuts over. Go nuts they will. But it is easier for people to comprehend how disingenuous they are when there is NO MEAT AT ALL on the bones.
Americans have to grow up at this point and realize that there are no facts yet — there has just been a politically driven decision (that I support) to announce investigatory steps far in advance of what would ordinarily be the norm. And then we have to go to the pols and vote for Hillary anyway.
The American electorate is being massively played by a number of actors, both visible and not (the Republican spin machine, Wikileaks, the Russians, etc.). We don’t get to pick who is in the room, or what weapons they have — but we DO get to pick whether we continue to act in a resolute and principled manner. And then, we have two years to start teaching today’s teenagers who will be voting in 202 what “resolve” and “principle’ look like.
The mass communications genie (on both sides of the political spectrum) is never going back in the bottle. We learn to live with (discount) it and seek real facts — or we lose our country.
There are voices around — like Diane’s and others — that bear paying attention to. There is tons of “noise” that needs to be ignored. Voters must learn the difference.
I agree with FLERP. Transparency is better than feeding the low-information voter conspiracy machine. Most voters have already made up their mind, though this may give some pause. The bigger concern is the email issue discouraging some Clinton voters from turning out. Get out the vote strategies through Clinton’s strong ground game is a plus.
Conservatives are strongly motivated by fear. How else can the other basket of decent, non-deplorables support such a narcissistic, misogynistic, man-child? Conservatives fear losing their guns, religion, immigrants, young people, strong woman and the list goes on. These emails do not create more visceral fear. I’m more convinced if Hillary was a man, we’d be looking at a Reaganesque landslide victory, not the close margins, and the emails would be a non-issue.
I’ve been watching Olbermann’s essays on the GQ channel. They are highly recommended.
Mark Shields made salient points on PBS this week. First, the only Republican leader who came out strongly against Trump early and never wavered was not Paul Ryan, John Kasich, or even John McCain. It was Mitt Romney. Second, if Trump’s loss is a wide margin, he’s done. If narrow, the Republicans plunge into a party civil war.
And it is starting to work. I’ve been following the forecasts on Nate Silver’s FiveThiryEight.com and Trump has already gained back almost 7 percentage points in the forecast since last week. He has switched Arizona and Ohio back to his list of states and almost has Iowa. Clinton’s lead in Nevada, Florida and North Carolina are all eroding.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/19577/new_u.n.report_shows_just_how_awful_globalization_and_informal_employment
That this isn’t the prime issue of the Democratic candidate is a crime.
But to your point Comey, is about to throw the election to Trump. Only an idiot like Obama could appoint Republicans to cabinet and other departmental positions . Who did Bush appoint, Reagan …. add this to the list. Stay tuned
Obama’s own big ego had him thinking from the start that he alone could negotiate with the Repubs. Sad, but they showed him how disdainful they were and are of him. Even if Hillary can pull out of this new taint and win, she will have the same insurrectionist Repubs biting at her heels. America is on a downward spiral…and is so hate filled.
Cannot believe how this all happened since the Nixon/Reagan eras when greed of the Bonfire of Vanities guys took over and destroyed the Democratic Republic. And these money-over-all people are both Repubs and Dems. What is left for the rest of us?
Yes…Trump is gaining points and his rally yesterday drew many thousands of his supporters. He and Bannon changed the game plan this week. And Paul Ryan is falling into line, and he was hardline in his speech. The Repubs are sensing they have a chance of winning with this latest Hillary disclosure. Trump has been saying all along that this was coming…seems he knew about it before Comey and the FBI, Politico, and The Hill…so who is he in contact with? Putin and Assange?
Sedition?
538 still has Hillary’s chances at 80%.
Shallow consciousness, unprincipled and pliable moral comportment (outrage goes away as initial feelings subside), and short memories. A group of republicans in Congress wanted to close down the U.S. Government; and now they are getting what they wished for.
Turns out that these emails are part of an investigation of Anthony Weiner.
Here is more just in….
“Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta of Friday called on FBI Director James Comey to immediately release more details about the new evidence it is reviewing as part of its probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server at the State Department.
He also pushed back against the idea that the FBI is re-opening its investigation, which concluded in July. Comey recommended that the Justice Department not bring charges against Clinton for allegedly mishandling classified information.
“Already, we have seen characterizations that the FBI is ‘reopening’ an investigation but Comey’s words do not match that characterization,” Podesta wrote in a statement. “Director Comey’s letter refers to emails that have come to light in an unrelated case, but we have no idea what those emails are and the Director himself notes they may not even be significant.”
He also expressed frustration at the timing of the letter from Comey to lawmakers, informing them of the new evidence.
“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election,” he wrote, adding, “The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/podesta-calls-on-fbis-comey-to-release-full-details-of-new-evidence-in-clinton-email-probe-230466
Trying again to post this…
Evidently the new emails have to do with the Anthony Weiner investigation.
“Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta of Friday called on FBI Director James Comey to immediately release more details about the new evidence it is reviewing as part of its probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server at the State Department.
He also pushed back against the idea that the FBI is re-opening its investigation, which concluded in July. Comey recommended that the Justice Department not bring charges against Clinton for allegedly mishandling classified information.
“Already, we have seen characterizations that the FBI is ‘reopening’ an investigation but Comey’s words do not match that characterization,” Podesta wrote in a statement. “Director Comey’s letter refers to emails that have come to light in an unrelated case, but we have no idea what those emails are and the Director himself notes they may not even be significant.”
He also expressed frustration at the timing of the letter from Comey to lawmakers, informing them of the new evidence.
“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election,” he wrote, adding, “The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/podesta-calls-on-fbis-comey-to-release-full-details-of-new-evidence-in-clinton-email-probe-230466
Also of interest: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/ex-doj-spokesman-blast-james-comey-230459
WHOA
FBI Found Hillary Email Links to Weiner
The New York Times reports new emails found by the FBI related to its closed investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server came from devices owned by Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, a Clinton aide. FBI Director James Comey notified Congress on Friday that the bureau had recovered emails in “connection with an unrelated case…that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into Clinton’s private server. The FBI closed its investigation this summer after finding no crime had occured. Federal prosecutors in New York had subpoenaed Weiner’s phone and other records in September after he allegedly sent explicit messages to an underage girl. Abedin announced she was divorcing Weiner shortly after the news.Weiner’s career has been defined by a series of sexting scandals, one which led to his resignation in Congress and another that derailed his run for New York City mayor.
After the most recent news, I would think that the nation would be at more of a risk if Clinton were to win. It seems she cannot keep anything safe.
An example of exactly why it was irresponsible to release this “information” to the media. We have no idea whether the emails are pertinent or not and will not until after the election.
I really find it hard to understand why Colin Powell and apparently others are not being treated to the same level of scrutiny. Why is it only now that this issue has become so important? Several Secretaries of State have improperly used private email servers to conduct government business apparently viewing the rule against such activity as bureaucratic overreach. I wonder if in the directive the Secretaries were informed that communications that were originally deemed innocent could be declared sensitive after the fact. It is only over time that we are beginning to realize that it is probably stupid to conduct any government business through email that you want to remain private. Let the spies go back to digging through trash in the hopes that something of value has not be shredded.
I don’t know why a recent Huffington Post article isn’t an issue here also. According to the article, the Bush administration destroyed 22 million e-mails that had to do with the Iraq years; and virtually everyone is complicit in using personal e-mail accounts and odd servers.
Catherine,
I posted that story here.
https://dianeravitch.net/2016/10/15/news-george-w-bush-administration-lost-22-million-emails-covering-crucial-war-issues/
Why did no one care that 22 million emails disappeared, eliminating the historical record of the Iraq war?
Yes–and Donald Trump is Mr. Safety, especially with his racist and Russian connections to protect us.
Stan,
Whatever Clinton’s flaws, she is preferable to a racist, sexist fascist whose highest ideal is self-gratification.
Hillary will get a pass, and someone else will be fired. The deck was intentionally stacked against Bernie, by Hillary supporters. She is teflon. She’ll get off without a hitch. Welcome to the merry go round. Not that I want Trump, but Hillary … oh, Hillary. So much has been thrown at her, and nothing, zero, sticks. Do we really think Hillary is going to derail Obama’s education policies? Likely not. But we can take out our aggressions, voice our opinions, here, and elsewhere, and in the end, we’re stuck with bad policies and charter schools and vouchers, and Citizens United, and thieving politicians who kow-tow to their billionaire masters until………….when? When?
Therlo,
Nothing sticks? Hillary has been dragged through the mud for nearly 30 years.
Trump is teflon. Who cares that he is a fascist and a fraud?
Trump and his campaign is a house of mirrors–whatever they are and do that’s so utterly crumby, they accuse Hilary of–a case in point, being “Teflon,” fraudulent, criminal, blah blah blah. It’s a strategy used to put the accused on the defensive. And as someone else said here, the American people need to become more politically astute to be able to recognize such strategies. They are juvenile–my eight-year-old granddaughter uses this strategy regularly.
Nothing sticks because nothing is there. But, yes, the Clintons always just walk this side of the line. We will be electing more of these bubbling controversies, but at least we know what to expect.
The investa’gator’ tried to vin-dictate by playing the prosa’cuter’ role. He’ll try again
to vin-dictate with a finding, BEFORE the election, of no harm fouled.
OR
It’s a ploy of the knickers bidness to increase sales. If you buy a larger size, they
won’t bunch as much or as soon…
This is from the BBC website: FYI re: Truth and Propaganda
Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford. (allowed to share)
By Tom Stafford
26 October 2016
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the “illusion of truth” effect. Here’s how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like “A prune is a dried plum”. Sometimes these items are true (like that one), but sometimes participants see a parallel version which isn’t true (something like “A date is a dried plum”).
After a break – of minutes or even weeks – the participants do the procedure again, but this time some of the items they rate are new, and some they saw before in the first phase. The key finding is that people tend to rate items they’ve seen before as more likely to be true, regardless of whether they are true or not, and seemingly for the sole reason that they are more familiar.
So, here, captured in the lab, seems to be the source for the saying that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. And if you look around yourself, you may start to think that everyone from advertisers to politicians are taking advantage of this foible of human psychology.
But a reliable effect in the lab isn’t necessarily an important effect on people’s real-world beliefs. If you really could make a lie sound true by repetition, there’d be no need for all the other techniques of persuasion.
(Credit: Getty Images)
The ‘illusion of truth’ can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a propagandist like Joseph Goebbels (Credit: Getty Images)
One obstacle is what you already know. Even if a lie sounds plausible, why would you set what you know aside just because you heard the lie repeatedly?
Recently, a team led by Lisa Fazio of Vanderbilt Universityset out to test how the illusion of truth effect interacts with our prior knowledge. Would it affect our existing knowledge? They used paired true and un-true statements, but also split their items according to how likely participants were to know the truth (so “The Pacific Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth” is an example of a “known” items, which also happens to be true, and “The Atlantic Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth” is an un-true item, for which people are likely to know the actual truth).
Their results show that the illusion of truth effect worked just as strongly for known as for unknown items, suggesting that prior knowledge won’t prevent repetition from swaying our judgements of plausibility.
To cover all bases, the researchers performed one study in which the participants were asked to rate how true each statement seemed on a six-point scale, and one where they just categorised each fact as “true” or “false”. Repetition pushed the average item up the six-point scale, and increased the odds that a statement would be categorised as true. For statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable.
(Credit: Alamy)
Repetition can even make known lies sound more believable (Credit: Alamy)
At first this looks like bad news for human rationality, but – and I can’t emphasise this strongly enough – when interpreting psychological science, you have to look at the actual numbers.
What Fazio and colleagues actually found, is that the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was… whether it actually was true. The repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. With or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies.
This shows something fundamental about how we update our beliefs – repetition has a power to make things sound more true, even when we know differently, but it doesn’t over-ride that knowledge
The next question has to be, why might that be? The answer is to do with the effort it takes to being rigidly logical about every piece of information you hear. If every time you heard something you assessed it against everything you already knew, you’d still be thinking about breakfast at supper-time. Because we need to make quick judgements, we adopt shortcuts – heuristics which are right more often than wrong. Relying on how often you’ve heard something to judge how truthful something feels is just one strategy. Any universe where truth gets repeated more often than lies, even if only 51% vs 49% will be one where this is a quick and dirty rule for judging facts.
(Credit: Getty Images)
The illusion of truth is not inevitable – when armed with knowledge, we can resist it (Credit: Getty Images)
If repetition was the only thing that influenced what we believed we’d be in trouble, but it isn’t. We can all bring to bear more extensive powers of reasoning, but we need to recognise they are a limited resource. Our minds are prey to the illusion of truth effect because our instinct is to use short-cuts in judging how plausible something is. Often this works. Sometimes it is misleading.
Once we know about the effect we can guard against it. Part of this is double-checking why we believe what we do – if something sounds plausible is it because it really is true, or have we just been told that repeatedly? This is why scholars are so mad about providing references – so we can track the origin on any claim, rather than having to take it on faith.
But part of guarding against the illusion is the obligation it puts on us to stop repeating falsehoods. We live in a world where the facts matter, and should matter. If you repeat things without bothering to check if they are true, you are helping to make a world where lies and truth are easier to confuse. So, please, think before you repeat.
—
Tom Stafford’s ebook on when and how rational argument can change minds is out now. If you have an everyday psychological phenomenon you’d like to see written about in these columns please get in touch with @tomstafford on Twitter, or ideas@idiolect.org.uk