More about the autor

Morning Feature – The Little Blue Book, Pt. II: Don’t Remember That Lie

August 10, 2012

Morning Feature

Morning Feature – The Little Blue Book, Pt. II: Don’t Remember That Lie

It’s difficult to challenge a myth or lie without repeating it, yet repeating it will also reinforce it. (More)

The Little Blue Book, Pt. II: Don’t Remember That Lie

This week Morning Feature considers George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling’s The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic . Yesterday we looked at their core premise, that human reasoning is grounded in moral rather than factual analysis. Today we explore how to challenge political myths and lies without reinforcing those same myths and lies. Tomorrow we’ll conclude with a Democratic phrase list that evokes progressive moral reasoning.

George Lakoff is a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of several books, including Don’t Think of an Elephant and Moral Politics. Elisabeth Wehling is a Ph.D candidate at the University of California, Berkeley and earned her master’s degree in communication psychology at Hamburg University. In addition to her research, she writes and consults on German and European politics.

“There is no B-3 bomber.”

Barry Levinson’s 1997 film Wag the Dog was cynical fiction and not a documentary, but this snippet of dialogue illustrated a key insight on how humans think:

CAIN: But there isn’t a B-3 bomber.
BREAN: Where’d you go to school, Kid. Wellesley?
CAIN: Dartmouth
BREAN: Then show a little spunk. There is no B-3 bomber. General Scott, to the best of your knowledge, is not in Seattle to talk with Boeing….

A story denying that General Scott is in Seattle to talk with Boeing about a bomber that does not exist has the same effect as “Don’t think of an elephant.” The reason has to do with how our brains work: you cannot negate an idea or image without thinking of that idea or image, and a vivid story or tangible object is more salient than an abstract idea such as negation. Worse, repetition makes us more comfortable with an idea or image and we conflate comfort with reliability, a concept known as the illusion-of-truth effect.

Simply, the more often we hear that General Scott was not in Seattle to talk with Boeing about a bomber that does not exist, the more likely we are to believe he was in Seattle and did talk with Boeing about that bomber … which thus must exist. Oops.

Bad Fact-Checking Can Be Worse than None

That creates real problems when it comes to challenging myths and lies. Consider this common fact-checking pattern:

Claim: Responding to pressure from religious groups, Alabama’s state legislature redefined the value of pi from 3.14159 to 3 in order to bring it in line with Biblical precepts.

Status: False

Example: [Quotes in full a common version of the story.]

Origins: [Documents that the story began as an April Fool’s parody.]

That pattern is logical, and if our brains functioned solely on logic that would be fine. Yet this fact-checking pattern – repeating the myth, all too often in bold type and/or in detail, before explaining how it is untrue – is more likely to reinforce than to dispel a myth. It works for “the choir,” confirming the suspicions of those already predisposed to disbelieve a story. But those who want to believe a story often dig in when faced with contrary facts, and those who aren’t already invested in a story will be subject to the illusion-of-truth effect.

Focus Fact-Checking on the Facts

For a better example, consider this editorial in yesterday’s New York Times:

Mitt Romney’s campaign has hit new depths of truth-twisting with its accusation that President Obama plans to “gut welfare reform” by ending federal work requirements. The claim is blatantly false, but it says a great deal about Mr. Romney’s increasingly desperate desire to define the president as something he is not.

For years, both Republican and Democratic governors have sought waivers from the 1996 work requirements in the welfare program, sometimes to tailor programs to their states’ needs, or to experiment with demonstration programs….

The editorial then presents examples of such requests from Republican governors in Nevada and Utah and summarizes the Department of Health and Human Services’ response issued last month, before continuing:

This was hardly an earthshaking change. In fact, it was exactly the kind of flexibility sought in 2005 by 29 Republican governors, including Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. But conservative ideologues immediately waved the memo around to prove that Mr. Obama wanted to return to the bad old days of welfare, and inevitably Mr. Romney’s campaign followed suit.

Only after detailing the facts does the Times repeat the details of Romney’s lie. By the time a reader reaches that paragraph, near the end of the editorial, the reader had already been primed to reject Romney’s claim. Indeed the Times‘ began that priming in their headline: “Mr. Rommey Hits Bottom on Welfare.”

Note the word “bottom” in that headline and its echo “depths” in the lead sentence. As we saw yesterday, vertical words imply moral judgments: Top-Up-Higher Equals Good and Bottom-Down-Lower Equals Bad. By using the words “bottom” and “depths,” the writers both correct a false statement and cast shame on an immoral act.

Progressives must demand and practice fact-checking of myths, but we must also demand and practice effective fact-checking that focuses on the facts and not the lies. Tomorrow we’ll explore Lakoff and Wehling’s progressive phrasebook and how the language we use can help us reinforce progressive moral values.


Happy Friday!

  • winterbanyan

    This was very instructive! I’ve often heard lawyers talk about “ringing the bell” usually in reference to not challenging a statement because that will reinforce it in the minds of the jury. (Assuming I understand correctly.)

    But I never, ever thought of it in the context of general fact-checking before. It makes eminent sense when I think about it: dispel the lie with the facts before even repeating the lie.

    I hope I got that right.

    • NCrissieB

      That is the gist, winterbanyan. In fact, you can often present the facts without repeating the lie at all. The ideal in fact-checking is to present only the facts – about the specific topic and, if necessary, those who are lying about that topic – while using words and tactics that are rooted in and evoke progressive moral values.

      Our discussion tactics also matter, as we’ll see tomorrow. If your only choice is trying to shout over someone who is spraying conservative talking points, you may be better off walking away. A shouting contest is inherently conservative, and you act conservative merely by engaging in it … no matter what you say.

      Good morning! ::hugggggs::

  • addisnana

    This has been instructive. I’m reading the ‘fact-checking’ pieces differently. I do think that fact-checking, generally speaking, is turning into just more spin.

    If the headline is a question???? Does that interrupt the flow enough to change the way people process? I’ve noticed more Interrogatory Headlines of late. The idea of a question hanging there makes me want to know the answer. That may just be me.

    • glendaw271

      I think of that question as headline stuff in the same way as the use of ‘some people say’. It’s a way for spin to be presented as possible news, but leave an out when challenged about the story. And, it puts out the lie in a way that can be believed by a lot of people who hear it. After all, they heard it on the news, so it must be true.

      • NCrissieB

        Many interrogatory headlines are exactly that, Glenda. And if pressed, the editors/producers can always say “We never said that was true! We asked the question!”

        Good morning! ::hugggggs::

    • NCrissieB

      Too often fact-checking does devolve into spin, especially if the fact-checker is more concerned about maintaining his/her non-partisan image than about correcting false statements. When one side lies more often, ‘balancing’ every “this side lied” story with a “that side lied” story is not “fact-checking.” It’s spin.

      As for interrogatory headlines, they can be good or bad. If a headline asks a truly open question – the reporter doesn’t know and can’t find the answer – that headline is both honest and intriguing. If a headline asks a question for which the reporter knows the answer is “Yes,” it can be a good hook to elicit reader interest.

      But if a headline asks a question for which the reporter knows or should know the answer is “No” – e.g.: ‘Is global warming a myth?’ – the headline was probably crafted to misinform.

      Good morning! ::hugggggs::

  • NCrissieB

    Part of the problem, as Canadian Journalism Foundation fellow Ira Basen explains in an interview with Judy Gombita, is that PR specialists usually know more about journalism than journalists know about public relations. That puts journalists at a big disadvantage. Basen talks about “churnalism,” where reporters pass on press releases or transcribe politicians’ statements without any independent research. With newsrooms cutting staff – PR specialists now outnumber reporters by 4:1 – and reporters increasingly rushing to keep abreast of the 24-hour news cycle … misstatements are far more likely to flow through to the public before reporters can fact-check them and filter out the lies.

    Good morning! ::hugggggs::

  • Lake Toba

    Ty NCB.

    I’ve wondered for a while about this very issue. It seems to me that fact checking in the mode where the lie is stated first has another unfortunate flaw

    That is, how many people actually have the time or inclination to read the rebuttal once they’ve read the lie? They’ve already read the teaser and got the juicy reward of the “answer.” There is no motive to continue “below the fold.”

    • NCrissieB

      Fact-checkers claim to avoid that by declaring their judgment in the headline, or the next paragraph after the lie (as in the example above), or with a graphic that runs alongside the opening paragraph. Even if those defenses were true – and the research suggests otherwise – none of those tools can be used in conversation, which is how we progressive Democratic activists ‘publish’ our fact-checking with Fred. In conversation we can only focus on the facts, expressed in words that evoke and reinforce progressive moral values … ideally without repeating the lie at all.

      Good morning! ::hugggggs::