Getting beyond the hair’s breadth in political distortion
I talk a lot in this column and in public appearances about the differing roles of skepticism and cynicism in determining what to trust in the news.
Skepticism, I argue, describes a healthy form of critical thinking whereby you withhold your trust regarding news reports or claims that may be open to question or may have the potential to be tilted toward one point of view or another. Instead, you examine events from a variety of viewpoints before reaching a conclusion.
Cynicism, though, is an unhealthy assumption that all reports from a given source are unreliable and nothing can be trusted unless it comes from a source inclined toward your way of thinking about politics or social affairs.
I welcome, indeed urge, critical thinking about all news reporting, and encourage you to follow a diverse range of sources, including those exhibiting a point of view you don’t agree with, when analyzing issues or events.
In general, I discourage outright cynicism. It can foster both unreasonable distrust and dangerous gullibility.
But note I said “in general.” There is one venue where the cynical approach may indeed be preferable.
Political advertising.
Election campaign season invariably brings to our mailboxes, our television and radio airwaves and our so-called smart phones an onslaught of political advertising focused not on what the candidate behind it aims to do to make our lives better but on carefully worded misrepresentations of an opponent’s actions, statements or beliefs to disparage the person’s integrity or condemn his or her positions.
These distortions are invariably described in tones of righteous indignation or printed IN HYPERBOLIC ALL-CAPS with lots of EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!! They studiously avoid context, and they are almost always just a hair’s breadth away from being outright lies.
And, worst of all, they seem to work. Ever since George H.W. Bush’s famous “Willie Horton” attack ads cemented the 1988 presidential campaign in his favor, that type of advertising has become a standard staple of almost every candidate’s paid political campaigning, with a general pattern of relentlessly misrepresenting the views of one’s opponents for weeks or months and then as the election actually approaches, finally turning the tone to one’s own attributes.
It is a pattern as annoying as it is disgusting. Readers and viewers complain about it loudly and often — and yet, when voters fill out their ballots, they seem to carry with them the indelible imprints of months and weeks of outrage and condemnation.
I am not sure if there is a practical societal response to this phenomenon. Exacerbated by the “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision that helped assure the dominance of advertising money in politics, it has become a virtually requisite feature of every candidate’s campaign strategy. For those of us who know many of the candidates to be otherwise decent, principled individuals, it is saddening to see them declaring that “I approved this message” disparaging, distorting and misrepresenting their opponents.
Worse, after political primaries in which candidates of the same party who have just spent months describing each other in the vilest terms suddenly show signs of mutual support and dismiss those months as mere “hard campaigning,” voters have their faith shaken and they are pushed ever closer to cynicism — in its unhealthy form — and distrust in all political leaders.
But there is one way in which we can each make some statement against this practice: Become cynics about negative political advertising. Refuse to be swayed by it and insist on examining all candidates — critically, skeptically — through questionnaires, debates and diverse newspaper, broadcast and online reporting.
No single means of getting information to you about the candidates is foolproof or perfect. But one form — political candidates making outrageous claims about their opponents — is almost universally devious. Ignore it, and let your intellect, your reason and your considered judgment guide your votes.
• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on X at @JimSlusher. His book “To Nudge The World” has been named a Book of the Year by the Chicago Writers Association and is available at eckhartzpress.com.