How to suppress the truth, embarrassed government edition


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/04/07/spicer-conway.html


#2

Also:

  • Lie about lying about lying about that time you lied about lying.

#3

Are we sure they already know all 17?

If not, let’s keep this quiet!


#4

Pretty sure Spicy feels the same.


#5

It is interesting in a very unpleasant way how nearly all of these techniques are what the alt-right and talk radio types have been accusing everybody else of for years.

Seems to be a virulent erosion of trust. It started with a deliberate retreat from the general consensus because of “reality’s well-known liberal bias.” But it turns out that irrationality isn’t actually a handicap when it comes to acquiring political power so now they’ve been able to erode the general consensus itself.


#6

I have a hard time believing this government can be embarrassed by its own lies. Weird looking hair, tiny hands, ridicule on television, those seem very embarrassing, but being caught out in a flat falsehood seems not to embarrass these clowns in the least.


#7

" 2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you?” gambit."

This tactic always cracks me up, and no one has used it more than Trump and his underlings (Kelly Anne Conway, especially). The faux shock and appall at the rudeness of our having a contrasting opinion, like an aristocratic Brit stunned at the impudence of one daring to address their better, doesn’t really work on Americans. I’m think it’s a symptom of the Trump admin living too long in their corporate bubble. Americans (on either side) tend to bristle at being spoken down to, much less shamed. I think only the lowliest American, maybe one craving an authoritarian ruler so they won’t have to think, would react well to this.


#8

Dude, they have dozens of tricks. Seventeen is a good start.


#9

I would say that it works quite well with most journalists, especially when they aren’t well supported by their network/paper. When a journalist expresses the most basic level of skepticism in front of blatant lies, this is the response they get. I don’t see live fact-checking becoming mainstream anytime soon, even though the technical means are available: it would shake too many key parts of the established power structure.


#10

This is the first administration I’ve seen that has employed the “bury the horrible scandals with even more horrible scandals so no one can focus on any one scandal” gambit.


#11

5 Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.”

Russian Troll Army


#12

I think it worked for a while with most journalists, but eventually they realized they weren’t getting back the respect they were giving, and in time they saw through the fake outrage. It was a cheap, disrespectful ploy on the hard right’s part. And Trump’s running out of staff who are taken seriously by most media at this point.


#13

Think again on Vince Foster.
DC Dave is right on the money about the cover-up. Read the court ordered Appemdix Ken Starr tried to keep out of his report. http://fbicover-up.com/vincent-foster-report.html


#14

Think again on the moon landing. My Dad’s cousin’s neighbor’s friend’s cat’s landlady’s future son-in-law lived next to the maid of Alan R. Shepphard, and he never went to the moon! LIES ALL LIES!!

Also, hey, no it’s cool, just come over here. Okay, good. So I’ve got this property that’s suh-weet! Oceanfront, too! Just sign this contract here…


#15

Thanks for signing up to the BBS to post that totally-legitimate-sounding information about a terrifying Clinton conspiracy, anonymous internet person!


#16

Matters of “truth” are barking up the wrong tree, since truth is mostly a vague philosophical notion.

The problem here is the lack of accuracy and evidence, the deliberate deception and obfuscation perpetrated by these people. Their job is to relate the facts - it is the job of those who think critically to evaluate their degree of truth, as well as accuracy, transparency, relevance, etc.

An evidence-based society does not depend upon “authorities” being honest (although that would be preferable), it depends upon the public being more skeptical and critical of what they are told.


#17

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.