Emailed political rumors overwhelmingly conservative

No, both sides *don't* do it equally. As the articles note, conservatives are generally faster to adopt communication strategies, and email is not the exception.

Viral e-mails didn’t really come into widespread use until early in the last decade, says David Emery, who tracks urban legends for About.com. The first big target was a Democrat: presidential candidate John Kerry, subjected to wild claims about his wealth, his service in Vietnam and the supposed radical connections of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Nonpartisan debunkers such as FactCheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact.com, Emery and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker have been chasing down these tales and dousing them like three-alarm fires for years. (There’s even a chain e-mail that paints Snopes as a liberal cover-up for the White House.) It’s often difficult for these myth-busters to say with certainty where a falsehood began. But the numbers are clear.

Of the 79 chain e-mails about national politics deemed false by PolitiFact since 2007, only four were aimed at Republicans. Almost all of the rest concern Obama or other Democrats. The claims range from daffy (the White House renaming Christmas trees as “holiday trees”) to serious (the health-care law granting all illegal immigrants free care).

Snopes turned up 46 viral e-mails regarding Bush during his eight years in office. By contrast, in just four years as a candidate and as president, Obama has been the subject of 100 such chain e-mails. The difference is not just in number but in kind: Twenty of the 46 Bush e-mails checked by Snopes turned out to be true, and many of these flattered or praised him. Only 10 e-mails about Obama have been true, and almost every one of them has been negative.

Emery estimates that more than 80 percent of the political e-mails that he’s vetted over the past decade were written from a conservative point of view. “The use of forwarded e-mail to spread [false information] around is overwhelmingly a right-wing phenomenon,” he said.

It's always worth remembering that the last few decades have constituted massive political *change* in the US, rather than a continuation of behaviors that existed in the same way earlier. These kind of assertions just did not exist in anything like this quantity 30 years ago, and certainly not with the same vehemence.

I had to add my grandmother to my spam filter because I got tired of ineffectively replying with a snopes link (and a summary, since I knew she wouldn't be clicking through). It's amazing that people who won't believe a word that comes from a member of the opposing political party are more than willing to believe every single thing they read in an email forward without bothering to look it up. Confirmation bias is incredible.

The reason they stick to email is because conservatives lie a lot. It's harder to detect and challenge lies that spread through non-broadcast services like that.

Rationalists and liberals talk in public, where they can challenge each other and refute things that aren't true. That's because they actually want to know the truth, not things that confirm their biases.

Malor wrote:

The reason they stick to email is because conservatives lie a lot. It's harder to detect and challenge lies that spread through non-broadcast services like that.

Rationalists and liberals talk in public, where they can challenge each other and refute things that aren't true. That's because they actually want to know the truth, not things that confirm their biases.

To be fair, I've met many a liberal who is pretty grounded in party dogma. Confirmation bias knows no political affiliation (though it does tend to lean heavily towards a politically conservative/religious mindset).

Malor wrote:

The reason they stick to email is because conservatives lie a lot. It's harder to detect and challenge lies that spread through non-broadcast services like that.

Rationalists and liberals talk in public, where they can challenge each other and refute things that aren't true. That's because they actually want to know the truth, not things that confirm their biases.

Just like Dan Rather.

Sure, but the truth got out, and the 'liberals' were savage with him for spreading the misinformation, to the point that even now, I know exactly the incident you're talking about. (those forged Bush papers.)

Can you say the same thing about the Swift Boat Veterans? Do you even know who they are? Were they ever punished?

Plus, I don't think anyone really believes that Rather was knowingly lying himself... rather that he didn't do as much analysis as he should have, that he was successfully hoaxed. He was fooled by a lie, but because it was a public lie, it was corrected -- and it was corrected despite the fact that so many liberals (including me) really wanted to believe that it was true.

There are still plenty of people in this country who believe that Obama was not born in the U.S. There was a huge crowd that was knowingly lying about his status for years to seed dissension and unrest. That's the conservative methodology -- lie, often and brazenly. And lies are best spread through e-mail, where annoying problems like fact-checking don't show up.

Malor wrote:

Plus, I don't think anyone really believes that Rather was knowingly lying himself... rather that he didn't do as much analysis as he should have, that he was successfully hoaxed. He was fooled by a lie, but because it was a public lie, it was corrected -- and it was corrected despite the fact that so many liberals (including me) really wanted to believe that it was true.

There are still plenty of people in this country who believe that Obama was not born in the U.S. There was a huge crowd that was knowingly lying about his status for years to seed dissension and unrest. That's the conservative methodology -- lie, often and brazenly. And lies are best spread through e-mail, where annoying problems like fact-checking don't show up.

It should be called the "Rove Doctrine". You can say anything you want and if you say it enough it eventually will be perceived as being true".

It does seem that when people are exposed for some sort of inappropriate Democratic Party bias (such as the Rather thing, or the time an NPR employee was photographed expressing a vaguely liberal political opinion at an OWS protest) they are often forced to resign, whereas the Republican establishment is pretty upfront about tolerating lies, corruption, etc... so long as it supports their ends.

The problem with calling that out, is a lot of people take it as bashing on all conservatives. We're not. There are a lot of honest, open to debate, you know, sane, conservatives.

The problem is the squawking ninnines that claim they represent all conservatives are utter dirtbags. I'm sure, at some point in the past or future, that the pendulum would swing the other way. It's just that, right now, there are a lot of idiotic dirtbags that see "conservatism" as their own personal gravy train.

It's the difference between Ron Paul and Karl Rove or Glenn Beck. Paul may be wrong, but he doesn't visibly lie, and he doesn't tell you what he thinks you want to hear. Rove and Beck will straight up mislead you with deliberate falsehoods to get your support.

Kannon wrote:

The problem with calling that out, is a lot of people take it as bashing on all conservatives. We're not. There are a lot of honest, open to debate, you know, sane, conservatives.

The problem is the squawking ninnines that claim they represent all conservatives are utter dirtbags. I'm sure, at some point in the past or future, that the pendulum would swing the other way. It's just that, right now, there are a lot of idiotic dirtbags that see "conservatism" as their own personal gravy train.

I very carefully make sure I don't use "Republican" and "conservative" interchangeably for this reason. For example, the thread should be titled "Emailed political rumors overwhelmingly Republican". That's really what the article is talking about - party vs party policy/behavior. Not actual conservative/liberal opposition.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Kannon wrote:

The problem with calling that out, is a lot of people take it as bashing on all conservatives. We're not. There are a lot of honest, open to debate, you know, sane, conservatives.

The problem is the squawking ninnines that claim they represent all conservatives are utter dirtbags. I'm sure, at some point in the past or future, that the pendulum would swing the other way. It's just that, right now, there are a lot of idiotic dirtbags that see "conservatism" as their own personal gravy train.

I very carefully make sure I don't use "Republican" and "conservative" interchangeably for this reason. For example, the thread should be titled "Emailed political rumors overwhelmingly Republican". That's really what the article is talking about - party vs party policy/behavior. Not actual conservative/liberal opposition.

Sure, but there's a difference between not using words interchangeably and denying they have an overlap. The rumors look like a mix of both Republican *and* Conservative, at least the ones on the front page (second page is behind a sign-up wall).

Based on my own experience, the same people I tend to get ridiculous conservative e-mails from are the people who also dump junk in my inbox like old jokes and dumb chain letters. I wonder if that factors in: if the demographics of conservatism are such that conservatives just forward a lot of stuff. In my experience conservatives are generally not ashamed of being conservative (and the ones that are tend to be mostly ashamed of the other people calling themselves conservative). I know I as a liberal, I worry about if it's polite to pass along stuff on a political topic, if it's too confrontational, yadda yadda yadda. I just don't see those same worries in the people forwarding me these kinds of e-mails. That could contribute to conservatives just forwarding stuff to their whole address list.

Just in time for the seasonal effluent-tsunami of "Stoke council are banning Christmas!" emails....

CheezePavilion wrote:

Sure, but there's a difference between not using words interchangeably and denying they have an overlap. The rumors look like a mix of both Republican *and* Conservative, at least the ones on the front page (second page is behind a sign-up wall).

Oh, I'm not trying to pretend there's no overlap. My point is just that there is definitely a distinct difference between what is conservative and the goals, tactics, and organization of the Republican party. Sort've like how you can be Christian but not necessarily Baptist (apologies for any perceived direct comparison between the Baptist Church and the Republican Party, it's an analogy, not an association).

Based on my own experience, the same people I tend to get ridiculous conservative e-mails from are the people who also dump junk in my inbox like old jokes and dumb chain letters. I wonder if that factors in: if the demographics of conservatism are such that conservatives just forward a lot of stuff. In my experience conservatives are generally not ashamed of being conservative (and the ones that are tend to be mostly ashamed of the other people calling themselves conservative). I know I as a liberal, I worry about if it's polite to pass along stuff on a political topic, if it's too confrontational, yadda yadda yadda. I just don't see those same worries in the people forwarding me these kinds of e-mails. That could contribute to conservatives just forwarding stuff to their whole address list.

Part of it is the ongoing narrative that conservatism is under attack, so you have people passing along these chain emails with the undertone (as you say) of "I'm conservative and proud, I dare you to say something!" You know, as if it were some trampled minority like people who thought Knights of the Old Republic II was better than the first one, or people who enjoy RIFTS at all.

As far as liberals being more considerate, I'll decline to do an impression of someone getting all huffy about how it's fair to strawman conservatives here and instead just point out that I think that's more of a personality trait than a political one. Consider that many believe the OWS topic to be a political two sided coin, so they probably see forwarding articles and videos about it the equivalent of their emails. I don't want to really debate if the two are equivalent (because I don't think they are), but the point is about perception. People pass those along all the time without considering "oh this is politically volatile, maybe I'll just tuck it back here".

Bloo Driver wrote:

Part of it is the ongoing narrative that conservatism is under attack, so you have people passing along these chain emails with the undertone (as you say) of "I'm conservative and proud, I dare you to say something!

"Now here is a man who has adopted the persona and mindset of a free-thinking rebel and turned it on itself. The Rebel Conservative! That is deviant brilliance."

--Bob Roberts (1992)

Kannon wrote:

The problem with calling that out, is a lot of people take it as bashing on all conservatives. We're not. There are a lot of honest, open to debate, you know, sane, conservatives.

The problem is the squawking ninnines that claim they represent all conservatives are utter dirtbags. I'm sure, at some point in the past or future, that the pendulum would swing the other way. It's just that, right now, there are a lot of idiotic dirtbags that see "conservatism" as their own personal gravy train.

Malor wrote:

The reason they stick to email is because conservatives lie a lot. It's harder to detect and challenge lies that spread through non-broadcast services like that.

Rationalists and liberals talk in public, where they can challenge each other and refute things that aren't true. That's because they actually want to know the truth, not things that confirm their biases.

I stand behind that comment 100%. All you have to do is watch Fox News for proof.

Bloo Driver wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Sure, but there's a difference between not using words interchangeably and denying they have an overlap. The rumors look like a mix of both Republican *and* Conservative, at least the ones on the front page (second page is behind a sign-up wall).

Oh, I'm not trying to pretend there's no overlap. My point is just that there is definitely a distinct difference between what is conservative and the goals, tactics, and organization of the Republican party. Sort've like how you can be Christian but not necessarily Baptist (apologies for any perceived direct comparison between the Baptist Church and the Republican Party, it's an analogy, not an association).

Right, but in the case of these e-mails that distinct difference isn't a factor. These seem to be both Conservative AND Republican.

As far as liberals being more considerate, I'll decline to do an impression of someone getting all huffy about how it's fair to strawman conservatives here

I would hope so as what I did if I was doing something wrong would be stereotyping, not strawman'ing. : D

and instead just point out that I think that's more of a personality trait than a political one.

I think there's an accidental correlation at this point in American history between the two.

Consider that many believe the OWS topic to be a political two sided coin, so they probably see forwarding articles and videos about it the equivalent of their emails. I don't want to really debate if the two are equivalent (because I don't think they are), but the point is about perception. People pass those along all the time without considering "oh this is politically volatile, maybe I'll just tuck it back here".

Do they pass them along without considering that? Or do they make that consideration, and pass it along for whatever reason? There's a difference between "everybody on my address list will agree with me--hit SEND" and "man, this is too important not to send along and it might convince people I am friends with, but I disagree with." You can't glean the difference between the two just from the fact that people are pushing the send button on something politically volatile.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Consider that many believe the OWS topic to be a political two sided coin, so they probably see forwarding articles and videos about it the equivalent of their emails. I don't want to really debate if the two are equivalent (because I don't think they are), but the point is about perception. People pass those along all the time without considering "oh this is politically volatile, maybe I'll just tuck it back here".

Do they pass them along without considering that? Or do they make that consideration, and pass it along for whatever reason? There's a difference between "everybody on my address list will agree with me--hit SEND" and "man, this is too important not to send along and it might convince people I am friends with, but I disagree with." You can't glean the difference between the two just from the fact that people are pushing the send button on something politically volatile.

That speaks to my point, though. Your assertion earlier that conservatives take these emails and send them along for one reason or the other doesn't really hold a lot of water. Maybe these folks who send these along believe they have an important message to be heard, too. It's entirely possible (though it likely doesn't feel like it) that you don't get every single chain email wacky Uncle Ray gets from his militia buddies.

Really, re-reading several posts back, it really just boils down to what you were saying, in brief, was, "Conservatives email anything they get, liberals are thoughtful," like some weird Goofus and Gallant cartoon. It just struck me as a bit silly.

Bloo Driver wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Consider that many believe the OWS topic to be a political two sided coin, so they probably see forwarding articles and videos about it the equivalent of their emails. I don't want to really debate if the two are equivalent (because I don't think they are), but the point is about perception. People pass those along all the time without considering "oh this is politically volatile, maybe I'll just tuck it back here".

Do they pass them along without considering that? Or do they make that consideration, and pass it along for whatever reason? There's a difference between "everybody on my address list will agree with me--hit SEND" and "man, this is too important not to send along and it might convince people I am friends with, but I disagree with." You can't glean the difference between the two just from the fact that people are pushing the send button on something politically volatile.

That speaks to my point, though. Your assertion earlier that conservatives take these emails and send them along for one reason or the other doesn't really hold a lot of water. Maybe these folks who send these along believe they have an important message to be heard, too. It's entirely possible (though it likely doesn't feel like it) that you don't get every single chain email wacky Uncle Ray gets from his militia buddies.

Nah, I know the people sending them. I'm not gleaning the difference just from the contents of my inbox, but from the character of the senders.

Malor wrote:

The reason they stick to email is because conservatives lie a lot. It's harder to detect and challenge lies that spread through non-broadcast services like that.

The easiest way to see if something is a manufactured conservative talking point is to Google the text. When you find the same text repeated over and over on different web sites and forums you know you've found a lie, very likely one made up by a conservative think tank. Oh, it might have a dim kernel of truth, but it was purposefully distorted and its actual source hidden to make fact checking exceptionally difficult. It get's forwarded because people like things that reinforce their worldview, not challenge it.

OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

The reason they stick to email is because conservatives lie a lot. It's harder to detect and challenge lies that spread through non-broadcast services like that.

The easiest way to see if something is a manufactured conservative talking point is to Google the text. When you find the same text repeated over and over on different web sites and forums you know you've found a lie, very likely one made up by a conservative think tank. Oh, it might have a dim kernel of truth, but it was purposefully distorted and its actual source hidden to make fact checking exceptionally difficult. It get's forwarded because people like things that reinforce their worldview, not challenge it.

Wha? The idea that because it shows up multiple times on the Internet, it is a conspiracy seems silly.

obirano wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

The reason they stick to email is because conservatives lie a lot. It's harder to detect and challenge lies that spread through non-broadcast services like that.

The easiest way to see if something is a manufactured conservative talking point is to Google the text. When you find the same text repeated over and over on different web sites and forums you know you've found a lie, very likely one made up by a conservative think tank. Oh, it might have a dim kernel of truth, but it was purposefully distorted and its actual source hidden to make fact checking exceptionally difficult. It get's forwarded because people like things that reinforce their worldview, not challenge it.

Wha? The idea that because it shows up multiple times on the Internet, it is a conspiracy seems silly.

I think what he's saying is that if the same text shows up verbatim on multiple websites, it's likely coming from a single source. I think it's far more likely to be evidence of lazy reporting than evidence of a conspiracy. Although FOX News has been known to manufacture controversy on a subject. First they have their opinion shows rant about it, then their news shows report on the rising tide of fear/anger/confusion the made up subject is generating.

Malor wrote:

I stand behind that comment 100%. All you have to do is watch Fox News for proof.

While that's true about Fox News, it's not true about all conservatives. Jayhawker's point, which I agree with, is that you're whitewashing conservatives with the very same brush you complain that they use.

I'm a socialist commie liberal. I'll show you my pinko card if I have to. So it's not like I disagree with you regularly, I just think you're pushing too far on this point.

obirano wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

The reason they stick to email is because conservatives lie a lot. It's harder to detect and challenge lies that spread through non-broadcast services like that.

The easiest way to see if something is a manufactured conservative talking point is to Google the text. When you find the same text repeated over and over on different web sites and forums you know you've found a lie, very likely one made up by a conservative think tank. Oh, it might have a dim kernel of truth, but it was purposefully distorted and its actual source hidden to make fact checking exceptionally difficult. It get's forwarded because people like things that reinforce their worldview, not challenge it.

Wha? The idea that because it shows up multiple times on the Internet, it is a conspiracy seems silly.

As Stengah clarified certain talking points will show up verbatim on multiple conservative forums or web sites. It's not that different people are saying the generally the same thing, it's that everyone is using the exact same words to talk about something that very likely is barely true to begin with. But because it validates their worldview, they eagerly share it without ever bothering to see if it's actually true or not.

There is no room for real conservatism on the internet or anywhere anymore. True conservatives are gone, we are hiding waiting for the crackpot republican party, and the even more cracked out tea party to go away.

Hell I am not even sure I am a conservative anymore. I find myself agreeing with Libral Commie Pinkos like OG and Farscry way to often. But common sense is dead, and replaced by beating their version of lolcat memes, and attacking anything that might be found rational that they didn't think of.

WiredAsylum wrote:

Hell I am not even sure I am a conservative anymore. I find myself agreeing with Libral Commie Pinkos like OG and Farscry way to often.

Flattery will get you everywhere, Wired.

OG_slinger wrote:
WiredAsylum wrote:

Hell I am not even sure I am a conservative anymore. I find myself agreeing with Libral Commie Pinkos like OG and Farscry way to often.

Flattery will get you everywhere, Wired. ;-)

I will be over around 9 with the wine

WiredAsylum wrote:

Hell I am not even sure I am a conservative anymore. I find myself agreeing with Libral Commie Pinkos like OG and Farscry way to often. But common sense is dead, and replaced by beating their version of lolcat memes, and attacking anything that might be found rational that they didn't think of.

One of my friends, whom I talk political stuff with all the time, is very much a classic conservative. We both find it very interesting how often we are able to find very reasonable compromise solutions for problems that face our nation even though we approach those problems from initially opposing motivations and perspectives.

And that's what's missing from our current political arena. Good representatives in Congress would be able to do precisely that: discuss matters calmly and rationally, and find solid compromise solutions to ultimately serve the nation's citizenry. Sometimes conservatives would need to compromise more, sometimes liberals would -- because sensible people can see that sometimes their perspective's flaws are outweighed by the opposing perspectives positive points. And in the end, we'd all be better off.

We simply cannot expect this to ever happen in our current system. More and more I'm finding the comments that we need a government "reboot" to carry a solid chunk of inescapable truth.

There is nothing conspiratorial about this stuff. Take a look at any of the scores of Daily Show montages featuring different media people repeating the exact same words over and over.