The rapid spread of baseless claims about Haitian immigrants reveals the need for long-term accountability in political reporting.
[...]
Liars must pay a price
Given this landscape of rampant misinformation, journalists have an important role to play — one that goes beyond fact-checking. It's time for the media to make politicians pay a real price for spreading outrageous lies.
When a politician like J.D. Vance amplifies a baseless claim about Haitian immigrants eating pets, or when Trump asserts that schools are secretly performing gender transition surgeries, these lies shouldn't be treated as isolated incidents. They should become part of the narrative about these politicians moving forward.
Journalists have a responsibility to consistently remind the public of these lies in future coverage. Every article about Vance should mention his willingness to spread xenophobic misinformation. Every piece on Trump should reference his history of transgender fearmongering. These lies should color all future coverage of these candidates, becoming an integral part of their political identity.
By doing this, journalists are accomplishing several things at once. It holds politicians accountable for their words, creating a lasting consequence for spreading misinformation. It provides important context for readers, helping them evaluate the credibility of these figures on an ongoing basis. It may deter politicians from spreading future lies, knowing that doing so could tarnish their reputation long-term. Perhaps most importantly, it helps combat the normalization of misinformation in political discourse.
Some may argue that this approach compromises journalistic objectivity. However, consistently reporting on a politician's documented history of spreading lies isn't a form of bias — it's responsible journalism. Facts aren't partisan, and the public deserves to know when their leaders have a track record of dishonesty.
Moreover, this strategy could help break the cycle of misinformation we're currently trapped in. If politicians know that spreading lies will damage their credibility long-term, they may think twice before amplifying unverified claims for short-term political gain.
Of course, this approach requires courage from news organizations. They must be willing to withstand accusations of bias and potential loss of access to these political figures. But the alternative – allowing politicians to spread harmful lies without consequence — is far more damaging to our democratic discourse.
It's not really falling for conspiracies, it's more like conforming to cult beliefs. Conservatives don't really understand the things they say or why they believe what they do.
I spent a good while writing up a reply, but it was long and the main point was: while any group of 100+ people is likely to have a bad actor, you look for credible proof (like Edward Snowden showing evidence rather than Sidney Powell saying she had 'visions'). Side bit: tales of killing/eating/sexually-exploiting babies and pets by a GROUP should always be taken as a manipulative lie because it always is. When some whacko actually tries that crap, the Boys in Blue get up in arms -- even if it means ignoring pressure from their bosses, "He's Illuminati. Let it go." No. That sort of thing gets exposed.
I think you're making a similar mistake that I have made many times, which is to assume that others are putting more thought into their decisions and beliefs than they actually do.
Among the conservatives, there are a handful of bad actors who are aware of the grift and are deliberately lying to promote themselves and their scam enterprises. The rest of the conservatives are using the cultural practice derived from a religious and/or nationalistic upbringing to uncritically have "faith" in whatever the party line is. Regardless of intelligence, if someone is vulnerable to group dynamics like this (also existing in other cults), it is more important to conform and receive validation from the group than it is to pointlessly research whether or not the group's belief is true and risk ostracisation.
You're right. I hear you. Intellectually, I understand that the conservative/fundamentalist mindset gives higher importance to following leaders and is more triggered by moral disgust. I understand that a conservative may feel a liberal is less moral because liberals 'lack' a moral imperative to follow leaders simply because they are leaders. I even accept that agreeing to a premise has utility by getting everyone to work towards a common goal. Unfortunately, I get stuck on the bit where the premise seems illogical to me, or the leader seems to be obviously lying. That's the part where any intellectual understanding of why someone might choose to ignore obvious red flags flies to the wayside and I can't figure out what to do about it.
I'm pretty sure that journalists should continuously report which things are unfounded lies, but I don't think that will sway those who believe those lies. It might, however, convince the continuously emerging crop of newly interested people to be skeptical.
You're onto a very important aspect of fascist rhetoric. The lies have to be absurd. They have to be obviously wrong. They need the kind of people who are looking to belong to something greater than themselves, not people who look for evidence. Lies like these are a great filter to end up with uncritically loyal followers. Same as any cult.
Sartre wrote about the tendencies of anti-semites in 1944 who followed a similar model of "belief" to contemporary conservatives. Here's a breakdown of that essay.