More than ever before, political operatives struggle to influence what people talk about, and thus influence what they believe. More than ever, it's done by making assertions that are, at face value, false.Why do they do this and how does it work?
Many years ago, I watched an election campaign in which a member of Congress was seeking reelection. His opponent had been active in local causes but was not well-known statewide. The incumbent's campaign staff thoroughly researched the opponent for past public statements, such as letters to the editor. For the last 45 days of the campaign, the incumbent blasted the challenger about every three days for some past public comment. The result was that the opponent was always defending himself, and never got to go on the offensive. He lost the election in no small part because what people believed about him was defined by his opponent, not himself.
In all manner of public relations, practitioners want to maximize the positive and minimize the negative. That's why negative news is often released after 3 pm on Fridays - because fewer people will see it Friday evening and Saturday, so any reaction will be smaller, and less intense.
Years ago, when Donald Trump became a celebrity, he learned that when he said outrageous things, they would be reported by journalists. He learned about the news cycle, in which his statements would be reported for a day or so, and then any reaction would be reported over another day or so. He learned to influence what the media talked about.
When he became a political candidate, reporters were guaranteed to report what he said in campaign rallies/interviews, particularly when it was something other than a standard stump speech. It was the same pattern - inflammatory statements reported for a day or so, and reaction for another day or so, always repeating the original claim and thus validating it.
And on top of that, the more inflammatory the Trump statement, the more it, and reaction to it, would dominate the news for a couple of days, often marginalizing other stories having less controversial content.
Lesley Stahl's report that Trump has admitted attacking the news media so that negative stories about him won't be believed is just another way of using the news cycle to control the narrative. It's not really a new tactic. Vice President Spiro Agnew was famous for attacking the press (before pleading guilty to tax evasion, resigning from office, and serving felony probation).
Singling out of people and media employees for personal attacks uses the ad hominem logical fallacy, and while all of our teachers tell us that we should avoid logical fallacies, they can be highly effective in persuasion, because most people do not detect that the logic is flawed.
So here is the pattern:
- A claim is made, with either no evidence or faulty evidence, but is reported by many media outlets because of who said it.
- Other people react, repeating the original assertion, denying it or supporting the assertion, so the original claim is reinforced from many directions, creating doubt about the truth in the minds of the public.
- When there has been enough talk, allies then say "we need a formal investigation into whether this is true."
- The investigation repeats the claim endlessly, making it seem more and more plausible, or disappears into the background static of the news, and gets little attention when conclusions are finally released (if ever), because they are not as inflammatory as the original claim, thus leaving the original claim as the strongest thing most people remember.
You can criticize this strategy of controlling the media. You can make an excellent case that the use of falsehoods and exaggeration makes it unethical (along with a lot of other things in politics).
BUT...
It is a sly, crafty, and highly strategic way of manipulating the media and controlling the narrative, making sophisticated use of the fundamental ways in which journalists work, public psychology, and ways in which people consume news content.
