Several weeks ago I made the disheartening observation that Internet rumor-mongering has become, for lack of a better term, "integral" to the political process over the past few election cycles.
It works like this: a smear against a particular candidate erupts on a blog, a message board, or in an email; it spreads as other bloggers pick it up and the email is repeatedly forwarded; and in no time -- a matter of hours, in some cases -- it reaches critical mass and becomes an obligatory topic of discussion on talk radio and cable news shows. Once a reporter jams a microphone in the candidate's face and poses the rumor as a question, there's no going back. It's "news."
Mind you, there needn't be -- and usually isn't -- a particle of truth behind such gossip. If you dial up the buzz it has to be talked about, true or false. And the people playing this game understand this only too well.
Fight the Smears
So, it appears, does the primary target of campaign rumor-mongering this election year, Democrat Barack Obama. Unlike his predecessor John Kerry, who infamously failed to quash the personal attacks that dogged him in 2004, Obama has come out swinging, first criticizing the press for repeating "scurrilous rumors" as if they had legitimacy, and more recently launching a website, FightTheSmears.com, wholly dedicated to debunking misinformation about him, his family, and his candidacy.
The website, actually a refinement of the fact-check page that has existed for several months on BarackObama.com, encourages users to "spread the truth" by emailing information from the site to friends. Topping the list of debunked items at the moment is a smear that bubbled up from the right-wing blogosphere over the past few weeks alleging that Michelle Obama, the candidate's wife, delivered a racist speech at the Rainbow/Push Coalition Conference in 2004 in which she railed against "whitey." The truth, says the website, is that although Michelle Obama attended the conference, she delivered no speeches at all, let alone one that defamed white people.
Short on documentation
The site wins high marks for its combative, no-nonsense presentation, but falls short when it comes to documenting its claims. If I were to offer one piece of advice to the folks running Fight the Smears, it would be to offer proof and cite sources, and do so in exhaustive detail. Denials are all well and good, but it's evidence that makes the case.
Read more about it:
• FightTheSmears.com - The website
• That Chain Email Your Friend Sent You Is (Likely) Bogus. Seriously. - FactCheck.org
• Obama Site Confronts Rumors - Associated Press
• Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan - Time
• Barack Obama Rumors - Netlore Archive
It works like this: a smear against a particular candidate erupts on a blog, a message board, or in an email; it spreads as other bloggers pick it up and the email is repeatedly forwarded; and in no time -- a matter of hours, in some cases -- it reaches critical mass and becomes an obligatory topic of discussion on talk radio and cable news shows. Once a reporter jams a microphone in the candidate's face and poses the rumor as a question, there's no going back. It's "news."
Mind you, there needn't be -- and usually isn't -- a particle of truth behind such gossip. If you dial up the buzz it has to be talked about, true or false. And the people playing this game understand this only too well.
Fight the Smears
So, it appears, does the primary target of campaign rumor-mongering this election year, Democrat Barack Obama. Unlike his predecessor John Kerry, who infamously failed to quash the personal attacks that dogged him in 2004, Obama has come out swinging, first criticizing the press for repeating "scurrilous rumors" as if they had legitimacy, and more recently launching a website, FightTheSmears.com, wholly dedicated to debunking misinformation about him, his family, and his candidacy.
The website, actually a refinement of the fact-check page that has existed for several months on BarackObama.com, encourages users to "spread the truth" by emailing information from the site to friends. Topping the list of debunked items at the moment is a smear that bubbled up from the right-wing blogosphere over the past few weeks alleging that Michelle Obama, the candidate's wife, delivered a racist speech at the Rainbow/Push Coalition Conference in 2004 in which she railed against "whitey." The truth, says the website, is that although Michelle Obama attended the conference, she delivered no speeches at all, let alone one that defamed white people.
Short on documentation
The site wins high marks for its combative, no-nonsense presentation, but falls short when it comes to documenting its claims. If I were to offer one piece of advice to the folks running Fight the Smears, it would be to offer proof and cite sources, and do so in exhaustive detail. Denials are all well and good, but it's evidence that makes the case.
Read more about it:
• FightTheSmears.com - The website
• That Chain Email Your Friend Sent You Is (Likely) Bogus. Seriously. - FactCheck.org
• Obama Site Confronts Rumors - Associated Press
• Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan - Time
• Barack Obama Rumors - Netlore Archive
Comments
I am so glad you started this website. I wanted to start one myself. I watched Fox news how they did John Kerry in 2004 and I just could not sit back and see Obama be done like that. I have e-mailed Sean Hannity so much because he is a Liar and I will tell him that to his face he tells straight out Lies yes I am calling him out. Will stand up for you Barack Obama as I told you at your Rally in my State. We Love you and your family and we are praying for you.
It is time all Americans DEMANDED truth not just from those whose views we disagree with but UNIVERSALLY. Every one, regardless of political affiliation, must be held to the same standard and we can stop this horrific practice. I, too, am relieved that the Obama campaign has taken action. Now I want to see the people who are willing to spread such nonsense hold the Bush administration and John McCain to the same standard of truth-telling. The fastest way to halt the spread of political distortion is to never watch a FOX network – no ratings, no network. It is that simple and easy.
One of the major points about the Obama site is that it IS very poorly documented. In fact, some of the “smears” are non-existant. His claim of a smear by Limbaugh is untrue — Limbaugh never made that statement. Several others seem to be “invented” smears created so they could be debunked, and make Obama look like he is being picked on.
This is a new form of dirty trick: Play it on yourself then cry out that you are a victim!
On the website, why doesn’t Obama address the accusation that he had a homosexual affair (along with the use of cocaine) with Larry Sinclair in Chicago in 1999. If he doesn’t address the issue on this website, can we assume it’s true?
If the Obama’s (Barack & Michelle) approved the FightTheSmears web site they are waisting their valuable time and, are adding gasoline to the flames by giving attention to inflammatory rumors and speculation…it would be prudent of them to just ignore the claims through “one” public presentation rather than use the gossip super high way (internet) to deny the smears.
I agree that the response to a serial slur is most effective when well documented, but what about the totally irrational amongst us with smears such as: “why doesn’t Obama address the accusation that he had a homosexual affair … in 1999.” there ought to be some bounds in human discourse. otherwise it’s just mental masturbation.
Ultimately what determines the level of discourse is the law. Politically, you can say just about anything just so long as it’s not libelous or slanderous. That’s the way it should be. If a candidate for President did anything, it’s fair to talk about it. What’s not fair is lying about anything, either in the accusation or the denial. When candidates are willing to lie and try to get away with lying about personal matters, public matters are not far behind. Let’s expose the truths of everyone entering politics, most who seek to control our lives. I don’t want people trying to control my life who can’t really control their own.
How is anyone supposed to believe a site that is so obviously slanted FOR Obama. I still believe that he is not the patriotic man a president should be. All of his answers to these questions sound so staged and they dance around so as never to really answer anything. I think he’s a rat. I think it would be the beginning of the end if he was elected president. And I pray that never happens. He’s a muslim pretending to be a Christian just to keep people off his case. He’s a liar and a fake. I can’t stand the sight of him.
So many things left unadressed on Obama’s site.
1. Did he or did he not hear Rev. Wright’s hateful black liberation theology comments in church?
2. Was Rev. Wright’s sermon “Audacity of Hope” (same as Obama’s book title) a hatefull black liberation theology speech?
3. Did Rev. Wright grow up in a racist, segregated society and therefore fill his sermons with hate against whites as Obama claims as his excuse or did he grow up in Upper Middle Class suburb of Philadelphia, Germantown and attend a top, selective Philadelphia high school-Central High (compare this to Clarence Thomas growing up in Pin Point Georgia).
4. Was Obama signed into the Jakarta school as a Muslim and did he and his family attend the mosque regularly as his half sister states. (father and step father were Muslim and his Kenya tribe and Grandmother Sara Hussien obama is Muslim).
5. Was Obama raised in a single parent home or by his grandparents (grandmother was VP of Bank of Hawaii)or should we credit him for foreign affairs experience since he grew uo in Indonesia as he claims (age 6 to 10.)
6. Is it true that Obama supported his Cousin Odinga running for President of Kenya in 2006 with stump speeches? Is it true that Obama contributed to Odinga’s campaign and that Odinga promised Sharia law for Kenya? Is it true that Obama called his cousin from the NH primary to ask that his followers quell the violence that took 1000+ Christian lives in Kenya after Odinga’s loss?
7. Did Obama confuse the number of states in one of his speeches (“I will campaign in all 57 states”) with the number of Islamic states. Probably tired but strang coincidence. Can he spell POTATO??
Why is it that the problems are ALWAYS caused by those mean, rascally conservatives? The liberals (now call progessives) are masters at promulgating lies as the truth and truth as lies. Just because someone says ‘that it isn’t true’ doesn’t always mean that it’s not. The truth is the truth and those that try to mask truth behind some curtain and then blame the opponent are the real culprits in the ‘game of lies.’
It is sad that this comments section has been almost turned into a compendium of lies about Barack Obama. I would reply to one of them.
Even if Obama WERE a muslim, so what? Our Constitution specifies that “there shall be no religious test for public office.” Granted, I would not vote for any candidate I believed would, as President, be a stand-in for his or her minister, priest, rabbi, imam, or other religious leader; we have already seen the disastrous result of having a President who is a stand-in for the Vice-President. So the appropriate question is, would Barack Obama be a stand-in? Would John McCain? I am confident that the answer to both these questions is ‘no,’ in which case I don’t care what their religious affiliations are.
I support the Constitution of the United States of America, including (but not limited to) the prohibition of a religious test for public office.
Three months before he was elected president, Barack Obama vowed not only to reform health care but also to pass the legislation in a transparent way, with discussions even being conducted on C- SPAN . But now, as a Senate vote on health-care legislation nears, those negotiations are occurring in a setting that is anything but revolutionary in Washington : Three senators are working on the bill behind closed doors.
These closed door sessions tell me that what is currently happening is wrong. It sends a message that you want to bypass the public in order to pass legislation that we do not want. That is wrong. In addition, giving the state of Nebraska extra benefits in order to gain a vote is pure and simple bribery. Outrageous does not do justice to describe this situation. Sen. Nelson also secured an exemption from a new insurance tax for non-profit companies in his state. Mutual of Omaha and Nebraska ’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield will not have to pay a tax other companies will be required to pay. The bribes given to Nebraska represent white-collar crime. Those responsible should be arrested and tried as criminals.
There is next to nothing honest about the entire health care debate anymore.