The commentators have been busy talking about Hillary Clinton's Reno speech, in which she accused Trump of building on "dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark reaches of the internet." Indeed, Trump has long dabbled in various conspiracy theories, most notably the idea that Barack Obama faked his birth certificate.
This speech's power came from two sources. First, she was speaking in Nevada, where Trump enjoys substantial support. The same speech, delivered in Massachusetts or California, would have less emotional impact. Second, she gave specifics. For example, she quoted exact headlines from Breitbart.com, headlines that Trump's new campaign manager, Stephen Bannon, presumably approved, such as: "Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?" Specifics help to prove a point, raising the speaker above the exchange of "he said, she said" accusations.
This speech leads me to think about the larger question about how to evaluate conspiracy theories. Some conspiracies are real, so how does the public tell real conspiracies from imaginary ones? I'll discuss that soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment