A key quotation from the video shows Obama saying: "ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to all-powerful sovereign." That would be exactly what a New World Order conspiracy theorist would expect Obama to say.
 |
| Barack Obama, WH photo |
"But those ideals have also been tested -- here in Europe and around the world. Those ideals have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. Often, this alternative vision roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or faith or ethnicity, some are inherently superior to others, and that individual identity must be defined by 'us' versus 'them,' or that national greatness must flow not by what a people stand for, but by what they are against."
I italicized the section that the video quoted. The hoax video played some other dirty tricks as well, but this one is enough to make my point. Context makes a difference. Obama was actually attacking the totalitarian view that ordinary people cannot manage their own affairs and that a strong sovereign is necessary. By leaving out the context, the hoax video created the impression that Obama was saying the exact opposite. Also, Obama did not give this speech to the Bilderberg Group, but to a meeting of European youth. Since the Bilderberg Group is a bête noire of conspiracy theorists, deceitfully changing the audience makes the hoax video seem even more sinister. (Note: there are signs that the video's original creators intended it to be a satire/hoax.)
This hoax video has been repeatedly discredited. It nevertheless continues to circulate widely, which is why Coach Leach was able to sign it without a twinge of conscience. Let's talk about what makes such Internet memes persuasive.
1. There are two kinds of argument: inquiry and advocacy. This was the theme of George Ziegelmueller and Jack Kay's excellent textbook, Argumentation: Inquiry and Advocacy. The idea is that we engage in critical inquiry first, and then use the results of the inquiry to advocate our beliefs. That is a wonderful ideal, and I support it wholeheartedly. But inquiry and advocacy are different things. People who spread Internet means are more interested in advocating a position than in learning anything. They begin with a preconceived opinion, usually a ridiculous political opinion, and then dig around for some kind of evidence to support it. That is what happened with this video. Many conservatives want to believe that Barack Obama was a totalitarian, and, since he wasn't, they need to misquote him. This helps them to advocate a viewpoint, even though their viewpoint is not valid.
2. False Internet memes are routinely repeatedly discredited. The fact that they are discredited means, I am sorry to say, very little to people who believe them. People want to believe things like this video will believe the ridiculous Internet meme, and will dismiss fact-checkers as part of the conspiracy against them. I have had several futile discussions on social media in which I pointed out the factual incoherence of various Internet means, only to be faced by ridicule and name-calling. Communication professor Jon Bruschke points out that when a false claim is discredited, people often remember the claim and forget that it is discredited.
Still, the fact that Coach Leach encountered so much resistance shows that truth does have at least some underlying power. That very many people seem to agree with Coach Leach, is, however, disturbing.
3. Conservatives often rely on a speech technique called proof-texting. Sadly, I have never been able to convince my fellow communication specialists that proof-texting is a real issue. Proof-texting occurs when you take a few sentences, or even a few words, out of context, and use them to prove something. This is very common in conservative biblical interpretation. (For example, this is how Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump's press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, were able to misrepresent a passage from Romans 13 in the Bible. I'll write about that later.) The idea is that words have a magical power of their own, independent of context. If Obama really said these words, then, by the doctrine of proof-texting, he must really have meant them. In proof-texting, context means nothing. Only the exact words carry meaning. To a proof-texter, the words reveal the speaker's true intention. According to proof-texting, the speaker's intention does not help us interpret the words; to a proof-texter, it is the words that give us the speaker's intention.
So, according to media pundits, mainstream media reporters, university professors, and, in general, people like me, context means everything. Without context, you cannot interpret what people say. But to someone who practices proof-texting, the context means nothing. Proof-texting is a sincere and common way for people, especially conservative people, to understand texts. So, a motivated listener can listen to a hoax video by former President Obama, notice that the actual words are indeed coming out of his mouth, and therefore conclude that he must really have meant them.
Now, I am sure that what behavioral scientists call "motivated reasoning" is a major factor when people believe videos like this. If someone really hates former President Obama, and truly believes that he is a totalitarian with dictatorial impulses, it becomes very easy to believe a video like this. But it is proof-texting that makes motivated reasoning possible – and that makes it convincing. And for people who believe that words have magical power – and there are many such people – proof-texting seems entirely fair. Proof-texting, many people believe, lets them gaze into people's secret meanings, just as they think that close Bible reading gives them close insight into the Bible's meaning.
Proof-texting is only one of many techniques for creating conspiracy theories. I'll write about others soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment