How Unscrupulous Campaign Strategists Are Taking Advantage Of A Quirk In Our Brains - And What Reporters Can Do To Stop Helping Them

[Guest guest]

How Unscrupulous Campaign Strategists Are Taking Advantage Of A Quirk In Our

Brains - And What Reporters Can Do To Stop Helping Them

 

By Nieman Watchdog

 

 

Two brain experts offer ground rules for reporters who want to avoid becoming

accessories to disinformation campaigns. Rule one: Stop repeating things that

aren't true.

Because of the way humans process information, political journalists who think

they are dispelling false beliefs may actually be spreading them. Two brain

experts offer ground rules for reporters who want to avoid becoming accessories

to disinformation campaigns. Rule one: Stop repeating things that aren't true.

 

http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/08/26/how-unscrupulous-campaign-strat\

egists-are-taking-advantage-of-a-quirk-in-our-brains-%e2%80%93-and-what-reporter\

s-can-do-to-stop-helping-them/

 

By Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt

sswang and sandra.aamodt

 

In this year's mud-filled presidential campaign, journalists have a

responsibility to help the public distinguish fact from fiction. Unfortunately,

current reporting practices are undermined by the quirky and often misleading

ways that our brains process contradictory information. Understanding those

quirks suggests four techniques to help journalists dispel false beliefs.

 

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 that

Christian presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama is a Muslim. This

proliferation of sources creates competitive pressure on journalists to bend

their standards in order to get a story quickly.

 

Our brains tend to remember facts that accord with our worldview, and discount

statements that contradict it. In one Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom

said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were

shown two pieces of evidence. One confirmed the claim that capital punishment

deters crime, and the other contradicted it. Both groups were more convinced by

the evidence that supported their initial position, a phenomenon known as biased

assimilation.

 

This is one reason that propagandists can be effective simply by creating

confusion. Unscrupulous campaign strategists know that if their message is

initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked.

 

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 phenomenon, known as source amnesia, leads people to forget over time where

they heard a statement - and whether it is true. A statement that is initially

not believed can gain credibility during the months that it takes to reprocess

memories from short-term to longer-term storage. As the source is forgotten, the

message and its implications may gain strength. Source amnesia could explain

why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some time for the Swift Boat

Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to affect his standing in

the race.

 

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.

 

Finally, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual

merits. Memory formation is aided by the universal emotions of fear and disgust.

Moral disgust played a role in 2000, when Bush campaign operatives spread false

rumors that Senator John McCain had fathered a mixed-race child, damaging

McCain's support among southern Republican primary voters.

 

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 the controversy over a New

Yorker cover caricaturing Barack and Michelle Obama, many journalists repeated

the charges against the candidate - often citing polling data on how many

Americans believe them - before noting that the beliefs were 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 report on autism was accompanied by images of concerned mothers,

vaccines, doctor's offices, and autistic children - even though the voiceover

reported a scientific finding that debunked a link between vaccines and autism.

Another recent 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. A good

response to the McCain rumor, for example, would tell about his adoption of his

adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget, thereby accounting for photographs of him

with a dark-skinned child.

 

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.

 

 

 

Sam Wang, an associate professor of neuroscience and molecular biology at

Princeton University, and Sandra Aamodt, a former editor in chief of Nature

Neuroscience, are the authors of " Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car

Keys but Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life. "