Discerning Truth from Lies

When opinions are sharply polarized and each side is sure that they are right, it can be very hard to separate truth from lies. Here are seven red flags to watch out for in the coming months.

NAME-CALLING

When logic and reason are insufficient or lacking, rhetoric often turns into personal attacks. Name-calling is a dead give-away. It can be as obvious as calling your opponent “a pig” or “a wacko.” Or, it may be more subtle. Instead of identifying your oponent by his or her correct title of Senator Smith or Doctor Jones, they may be identified as “Anti-LGBT spokesman George Smith”, or “Anti-gun advocate Judy Jones.” It’s still name-calling.

HIDDEN OPINIONS

The names above have something in common-- they are matters of the writer’s opinion, not facts that can be checked. This distinction is extremely important. If a person claims to be a medical doctor, that can be verified. Calling someone a “spokesman” or an “advocate”, however, is entirely a matter of the writer’s opinion. Who does he speak for? Who elected him spokesman? What is involved in being an “advocate”? We simply do not know, so there is no way to verify the statement. Watch out for opinions masquerading as facts and titles.

LOADED WORDS

Watch out too for words with strong connotations. A recent op-ed piece characterized another writer’s article as a “hoax”. This does not just mean it was incorrect. “Hoax” implies that the first writer was aware of the falsehood, and had something personal to gain by it, without actually calling the other writer a liar.

SPIN

Politicians frequently put bad spin on their opponents, while excusing themselves. For example:
I mis-spoke; he lied.
I missed an opportunity; he refused to do his job.
I was otherwise engaged; he failed to show up.
I made a mistake on my tax return; he cheated on his taxes.
I learned from my mistake; she flip-flopped. And so on.

Examine what both sides say about each other and about themselves, substituting a neutral term for both. This can produce interesting results. You may find that both candidates actually did the very same thing. Such research can be tiresome. An acceptable substitute may be to use a neutral, fact-checking website. Just make sure it really is neutral.

DISRESPECT

In the op-ed piece above, the first writer was a psychiatrist, head of Johns Hopkins University Psychology Department for forty years, and Chief Psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital for thirty years, yet the second writer, who has no medical credentials, never once referred to him as “Doctor.” Surely, one who has risen to the very top of a demanding profession and remained there for three or four decades has earned the right to their title! Such omission can only be construed as deliberate disrespect, perhaps to camouflage the difference in credentials between the two writers.

Similarly, you can often tell the party affiliation of political writers by how they refer to the President. Democrats call him, “President Obama”; Republicans just say, “Obama.” Surely a man who, overcoming tremendous odds, was twice elected President of the United States, deserves to have his title used in formal writing, even if you don’t like him.

NEGATIVE TONE

Those with logical arguments to make, make them, and usually do so calmly. Those who are short on logic stoop to demonization. Watch out for a negative tone. Pointing out your opponent’s errors is one thing, fault-finding and mud-slinging is another. A true statesman can recognize that there is more than one side to every issue, and does not need to demonize their opponent. If someone seems to be running an entirely “negative” campaign, it’s dollars to donuts that their logic account is bankrupt.

PROPAGANDA

Politicians are often accused of using propaganda. Actually, any communication designed to change your opinion is properly called propaganda. There are three main types, classified as white, black, and gray. White propaganda’s  origin is clearly labeled, and it has a clear purpose. Gray propaganda is information of questionable origin or purpose that is never sourced, and whose accuracy is obviously doubtful. Black propaganda pretends to be “failed” white propaganda coming from the other side.

If Donald Trump were to claim that Hillary Clinton is really a transgender man, that would be an example of white propaganda. True or false, you’d know who made the claim, and why.

If a meme were to appear on the Internet claiming that Hillary Clinton is a man, with no source or substantiating details, that would be gray propaganda. There is nothing anywhere to back this up, you would have no way of knowing the source, and the story is highly suspect. But some people would still believe it.

If Trump supporters were to create an organization calling itself, “Hillary for President”, and then used that organization to commend her for her courage in “coming out” as trans, that would be black propaganda. Some might believe that her campaign had sanctioned the message, and that the claim that she was really a man was therefore true, despite its unlikeliness.

Such “black propaganda” is sneaky, and can easily backfire. The creator has to walk a fine line between being too obvious and being too effective-- for the other side. Done well, it can take root, as has “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” An infamous, anti-Semitic forgery urging “Jewish world domination,” it was created by the Tsarist Russian government in 1903, and is still circulating today, despite thorough debunking.

The best way to guard against propaganda is thorough fact-checking. And remember the old saw about how to tell when a politician is lying: Check to see if his lips are moving!