Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

byronius

(7,917 posts)
Mon Nov 12, 2018, 01:31 PM Nov 2018

Weaponized misinformation in the parking lot.

Had a startling conversation with a young man I've know for three years now -- he's a lab tech in the marijuana testing lab across the street, an intelligent guy who just graduated from UC Davis with a hard science degree.

We've talked politics before -- he leans left but hangs out with a lot of libertarians and often echoes that view. But he's always seemed honest and thoughtful, and we usually end up in hour-long conversations that are pretty interesting.

Last night, however -- he passed on three news stories he'd picked up. First: he admitted to voting for two Republican DA's because he didn't like the fact that George Soros funded Black Lives Matter, because George Soros was a traitor to his own people and helped the Nazis hunt down Jews. Second: There was a second shooter on the ground at the Las Vegas shooting, and the fact that Nancy Pelosi called at 5AM about the shooting is evidence that it was a Democrat-planned false flag operation.

Third: Tucker Carlson was attacked at his home by fourty Antifa operatives who spray painted the home and threatened his wife.

I immediately called bullshit, but he insisted it was all 'mainstream news', and pulled up a NYT story about a 'second person of interest' in the shooting. I pointed out that the story said absolutely nothing about a 'second shooter', but he insisted it was all breaking mainstream news. Earnest, honest, insistence that it was factual.

I went back inside and looked up the first two stories on Snopes, which very effectively debunks both but also presents the original source of the stories -- guess what I found?

The source for the first was Infowars, Dinesh D'Souza, and white supremacy websites. Absolutely, utterly debunked.

The second was started by two shady websites with Russian ties -- and Infowars.

The third is brand new and primarily pushed by Tucker Carlson -- but there's a police report, and video, and nothing like what they claim happened happened.

I find it disheartening that an intelligent and purportedly well-educated young man would fall for this crap. I intend to engage with him, but holy cow --

We're at war, and weaponized misinformation is the new nuclear weapon. Startling to get a taste close up.

Dangerous times.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

ProfessorGAC

(75,898 posts)
4. Your Wife Is Absolutely Correct
Mon Nov 12, 2018, 01:36 PM
Nov 2018

Nobody with a lick of sense and an ounce of intellect gets fooled by that nonsense.

marble falls

(71,181 posts)
6. From Snopes ...
Tue Nov 13, 2018, 10:00 AM
Nov 2018

Alka-Seltzer Marketing

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=11417907

Claim: Alka-Seltzer dramatically increased its sales by instructing consumers to use two tablets instead of one.

TRUE

Origins: The history of corporate America is replete with examples (both real and apocryphal) of schemes to manipulate consumers into not only purchasing new products, but into buying more of the products they already use. Nearly everyone has heard the tale of the clever marketing man who doubled his company’s sales of its shampoo product by adding the final word to the instructions “Lather. Rinse. Repeat.” Umpteen comedians have mused on the deliberate waste promoted by selling hot dogs in packs of eight, but buns in packages of twelve. And “artificial obsolescence” — the yearly introduction of superficial stylistic changes in big-ticket items such as automobiles and appliances in order to lure status-conscious consumers into replacing perfectly functional products — dates from the 1920s:



In the 1920s the auto industry had been faced with a crisis: by 1926, according to reliable estimates, everyone who could afford a car already had one, and in 1927 production and sales declined for the first time. The answer was not Fordism — the durable, dependable, unchanging Model-T. No, the solution was Sloanism, or the annual style change named for Alfred P. Sloan, president of General Motors. The object of superficial changes in detail on a yearly basis, Sloan said, was “to create demand for new value and, so to speak, create a certain amount of dissatisfaction with past models as compared with the new one.”

When Sloanism began back in the 20s, the notion that a serviceable product could be rendered obsolete by appearance alone was transferred from the apparel of the upper class to the single most important industrial product in America. With the help of the ad copywriter, status and symbolism became compelling reasons for buying a new car, even though the old, black Ford out in the yard still ran like a top.1

In

the early 1960s, Alka-Seltzer, the venerable fizzy heartburn and acid indigestion pain-relief tablet, was in a fix similar to that of auto makers in the late 1920s. As exemplified by Speedy, the “cartoon disk with a squeaky voice and pop eyes” who had been

Alka-Seltzer

introduced in the early days of television and by the 1960s was one of the corniest mascots still in use to sell an adult product, Alka-Seltzer had fallen out of favor with the younger segment of the drug-buying public. Alka-Seltzer’s customers were mostly older folks, and the product was not attracting many new buyers among American youth, for whom it “had become the symbol of people who drank too much and ate too much … the unforgivable symbol of a slob, a hangover cure.” Nor was the typical advertising of the era likely to appeal to them:


Traditionally, pain-relief products had been advertised in gruesome commercials filled with horrors that would have given you pain if you didn’t already have it. People ran around groaning, clutching their heads and stomachs, men and women crawled into corners and shrieked “Pain! Pain! Pain!” at television viewers who immediately turned off their sets. In one Frankensteinian commercial an ugly Neanderthal man went through a series of tortures, hammers dropped from the skies to pound his head, hoses appeared like snakes to whip him with water, straitjackets tied him up, you wanted to scream at him to “get off my telly!” People did not watch proprietary drug advertising unless they already had a headache or stomach problem and were looking for a quick fix, so most of the time, from the advertiser’s point of view, advertising was like throwing money into a black hole.2

The creative minds at the (Jack) Tinker & Partners advertising think tank solved the problem by coming up with different reasons for people to take Alka-Seltzer and fashioning a series of entertaining commercials around those themes:



[We] created the kickoff commercial that set the style for all the variety of commercials that followed. It was a truly wonderful, iconic commercial, an ovation to stomachs, a sweet-natured montage of big ones, little ones, slim ones, fat ones, all filmed at stomach level. There was a street digger’s jackhammer stomach, a young chick’s bare midriff, two men talking, facing each other, one with a flat stomach and one with a big round one, an array of stomachs presented with self-deprecating humor and sweet humanness to a happy, bouncy tune. “No matter what shape your stomach’s in” was its opening phrase. Self-deprecating humor was new and popular in the sixties and unheard-of in drug commercials, when it appeared it was news.

It was followed by 16 completely different commercials, each entertaining and stylish, each giving you a different reason to take Alka-Seltzer.2

One of these 16 commercials was based on an “Alka-Seltzer on the Rocks” theme, for which Tinker & Partners created “a frothy, luminous commercial composed of nothing but two Alka-Seltzers dropping into a crystal glass of water.” The key phrase here was “two Alka-Seltzers” — up until this series of ads, both the Speedy commercials and Alka-Seltzer’s packaging had promoted the use of but a single tablet at a time:



We met an attractive doctor at Miles [Laboratories], Dorothy Carter, who demonstrated to us that in order for aspirin to break through the pain barrier it often required two aspirins, not one, to do the job. As aspirin is one of the ingredients that make Alka-Seltzer effective, we asked her if two Alka-Seltzers would be better than one. Yes, two would work better than one.

But the directions on the package said to take only one. And all the old Speedy commercials demonstrated only one fizzing in water. [We] did a little dance with Dorothy Carter in the laboratory. What a stroke of good fortune that was! We changed the directions on the packages and began showing two Alka-Seltzers dropping into a glass of water in every commercial. Miles created portable foil packs that held two Alka-Seltzers each and sold them in new places, magazine stands, bars, fast-food restaurants, powder rooms — they became ubiquitous — and, naturally, Miles began selling twice as much Alka-Seltzer.2

Alka-Seltzer’s sales didn’t quite double, and not all of the increase was directly attributable to consumers’ using two tablets instead of one, but Alka-Seltzer did experience a dramatic reversal of fortune due to the Tinker & Partners commercials and

their emphasis on two tablets — an emphasis that was later fortified with the catchy and enduring “Plop, plop; fizz fizz” jingle, which drove from the public consciousness any thought that anyone had ever used anything less than two Alka-Seltzers at a time.

A common bit of trivia claims that Alka-Seltzer’s famous “Plop, plop; fizz, fizz” jingle was written by the father of actress Julianna Margulies (of TV medical drama ER and The Good Wife fame). Although Julianna’s father, Paul Margulies, was an advertising executive who helped create the “Plop-plop, fizz-fizz, oh what a relief it is” campaign for Alka-Seltzer, the jingle was actually composed by musician Tom Dawes, a former member of The Cyrkle, who toured America with the Beatles in 1966 after scoring a #2 hit with a recording of Paul Simon’s “Red Rubber Ball.”

Last updated: 27 October 2013



People get fooled all the time.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
7. Maybe one of those 60 lb bags of "stuff" got thrown over his wall and hit him on the head?
Tue Nov 13, 2018, 10:06 AM
Nov 2018

We need some investigative reporting!

genxlib

(6,096 posts)
5. Misinformation is a manufactured product
Mon Nov 12, 2018, 02:03 PM
Nov 2018

And the advent of talk radio and 24 hour news was its industrial revolution.

It is in mass production now and being churned out around the clock.

ArizonaLib

(1,296 posts)
11. Daily piles of money is used for that right wing infrastructure and the content production
Tue Nov 13, 2018, 10:55 AM
Nov 2018

so it is difficult to fight on the spot. I completely empathize with the encounter described above, bytonius and others. The constant repeating on their side so ingrains into their consciousness that they practically spittle it out like horrible gossips trying to keep a secret. THIS IS DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH ON THE SPOT. First it is shockingly comical until you realize the person is serious. They start rattling off more BS thinking the additional 'information' is proof of what they started with.

This usually leaves the listener dumbfounded because the premise or premises are so outrageous, finding a place to start rebutting or even discussing it is difficult. Then they look at your puzzled expression and assume you are naive, and uninformed. Now they are in a position to disregard anything you have to say in disagreement, and are feeling their 'high ground' to fight off anything conflicting with their emotional investment in their position.

THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WHEN ENCOUNTERING THEM AND THEY ARE IN MANY UNEXPECTED PLACES.

In my experience, I have found the following works for me (maybe not everyone)

First, be prepared with some sort of response to slow down this increasingly common encounter. Decide how you are going to handle these before they surprise you. Know that their side has long abandoned polite discussion and are willing and many times have only been exposed to rude and many times bullying conversational tactics. You are dealing with a 'win at all costs' ideology that gives in only in a 'over my dead body' scenario (think giving up slavery after a bloody civil war, and more recently, stock piles of guns and self justified violence against 'the other side'). They say they stockpile guns to fight the very government they get offended by those not showing 'respect' during the national anthem, etc. Truth is, the hypocrisy lies in that they will only fight the government that does not further their ideology; in other words, Democrats in charge. Remember when guns sales skyrocketed when Democrats retook both houses and the Presidency under Obama?

The most polite way to respond is to ask questions in a manner where they can't tell whether you are interested in obtaining more information AND that you may be skeptical. FORCE THEM to wonder and try to figure out the direction of what is going on now. Keep your poker face and calmly ask questions about what they just asserted. Most of the time they only know the bits and pieces of what they've heard and cannot answer much about what you are asking. The first time I did this, was to an grade school friend I had not seen much for several years. He asserted that the Democrats had caused the banking crisis of 2009 by forcing the banks to make bad transactions. I kept asking about it and finally the question to him of 'why would the banks make such risky transactions if they weren't forced to by law or regulation?" (the actual answer was reckless greed). He looked at me puzzled, and completely baffled - the only thing he came up with was "Don't you listen to Rush Limbaugh?" I told him I try and listen to as many information sources as I can that prove themselves to be provable, and is sourced by facts that go beyond 'personal accounts'. I told him I don't listen much to those easily disproven via fact check sites.

The less polite way is to just laugh like they shared a really clever joke with you. I act like they meant it to be funny. Sometimes it communicates enough, especially if they know I am liberal and informed enough to call BS and prove it.

It does help to keep from getting blindsided by being informed as to what they are doing on their side in general. I remember button pushing through talk stations on my radio when the right wing was echoing and cooking up around the fast and furious charge against Eric Holder. Non right wing media did not deem the false story worth covering, so the day before they censured Eric Holder in the House, non right wing media had to explain to their consumers what was going on. I remember Ed Schultz in particular explaining in one single segment, the entire background.

One last tactic is to use one of their generalized tactics against their stories. The first time I heard this was the last time I saw Rev Al Sharpton on Fox News. They asked him whether or not we should have taken out Saddam Hussein for illegally invading a sovereign nation. He replied that "Any leader of any nation that illegally invades a sovereign nation should be prosecuted". They immediately went right to commercial break, and I never forgot how clever and funny that was. They didn't want to discuss our president illegally invading Iraq or anywhere else. When right wingnuts make assertions toward democrats, many times they back off when you say things like 'everyone on any side should be investigated when allegations arise', etc. Do this with confidence and a little determination and they take it as a dare that they don't want to pursue, because they might need to admit that they are only getting worked up about one side of corruption or controversy. You usually don't need to defend the democrat. Don't try to, whether or not the democrat is innocent or not - that's where that wingnut wants to go in the first place.

Life is too short to be thrown or surprised by lies - the truth is all time awesome in itself.

I am not an expert in this, I am sure many others have much better suggestions than I have found. It would help me to have others post them. Also, anyone else with similar accounts of pushing back against those d-bags would also help.

yonder

(10,248 posts)
12. Thanks for this, AL.
Tue Nov 13, 2018, 11:51 AM
Nov 2018

A good post with some great tactical advice.

on edit: I'd consider turning this into it's own thread.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Weaponized misinformation...