Gourt Home::Gourt :: Smear campaign
A smear campaign or smear tactics are deliberate attempts by an individual or group to malign another individual or group's reputation. They are also commonly referred to as "mud slinging". Common targets are public officials, politicians, and political candidates, but to a much lesser degree, the term can apply to the attempts to damage the reputation of private individuals, for example witnesses in the context of a trial. The smear campaign is related to the concepts of propaganda, media bias, yellow journalism, as well as falsehood-related terms such as libel and pejoration. In the extreme, smear campaigns can take on the character of a widespread persecution, as in the case of the Dolchstoßlegende before WWII.
Smear tactics are especially common whenever they may be used to undermine those presenting an effective argument or critique. A famous example in the '60s involved as its victim, Ralph Nader, then a car safety campaigner. General Motors engaged private investigators to attempt to 'dig dirt' on Nader in order to 'smear' him to deflect public attention from his campaign for safer cars which they deemed troublesome. Eventually General Motors was forced to publicly apologize to Nader. American Car safety legislation was considerably bolstered and many car safety features including seat-belts, were introduced and car accident death rates began to fall drastically, despite ever busier roads.
Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to 'rubbish' a group or an individual and to seek to undermine their credibility.
Smears are very often distortions, half-truths or even outright lies, and are commonly unverifiable rumours; that is to smear by gossip spreading. Even when the facts behind a smear are shown to be without proper foundation the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before this is known.
Smears are also effective as a distraction, pulling attention away from the matter in question and onto the individual or group. The target of the smear is typically forced away from addressing the issue at hand into a rearguard action defending their reputation.
Smear tactics are considered by many to be a low, disingenuous form of discourse. Nevertheless, the tactic is very common.
SHAME / SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Shame can be defined as a “painful emotion resulting from an awareness of inadequacy or guilt.” Aside from being brought about by shortcoming, shame can also be instigated overtly and deliberately, so as to bring one to a state of utter dishonor and humiliation.
A shame or smear campaign or smear tactics are intentional, premeditated efforts of an individual or group to tarnish another individual or group's reputation; it is a deliberate attempt to undermine one’s credibility and character. Commonly referred to as "mud slinging" or “negative campaigning,” shame campaigns usually target government officials, politicians, political candidates and other public figures. However, to a much lesser degree, shame campaigns are also carried out by private individuals or groups to malign the reputation of other private individuals or groups. Smear campaigns can and does happen in schools, offices and companies, institutions, familial clans and practically any other social structure.
Smears can start with the spreading of a rumor, a distortion of truth, or the telling of half-truths or even outright lies. Often, shame tactics come as unverifiable gossip, and even when such rumors are found to be false or without proper basis or evidence, the tactic proves effective because the reputation of the target of shame reputation is damaged, sometimes beyond repair.
In a discourse or debate, smears are also effective as a distraction, redirecting attention to the target individual or group and away from the actual matter in question. Likely, the target of the smear is forced to defend his reputation, instead of addressing the issue at hand.
Many consider smear tactics as a low, devious, and highly disagreeable approach. Nevertheless, such dirty tricks are very common and all to often, its effects are irreversible.
EXAMPLES
In the Philippines, smear campaigns are not uncommon; gossip, unconfirmed rumors, and distractions during political discussions are in no shortage. However, shame campaigns are often seen in a different form – that of marking on one’s house or property, or through negative TV advertisements, or worse, wet rags plopped on one’s head.
Such shame campaigns were made popular by Mayor Alfredo Lim. During his term as mayor of the city of Manila, he began a controversial "spray paint shame campaign. On July 1, 1997, as an effort to stop drug use, he and his team sprayed bright red paint on two hundred squatter houses whose residents have been charged for, but not yet convicted of selling prohibited substances. http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2003/06/26/news/spray.campaign.debate.heats.up.html
Officials of other municipalities were emboldened by Lim’s campaign and began conceiving their own anti-crime strategies, based on the notion of shame.
The “spray paint shame campaign” generated much publicity, and many questioned the legality of putting mere suspects to shame. The issue of violation of human rights was also raised.
In a public statement, former Senator Rene A. Saguisag, a member of the lawyers' group Movement for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI) which worked to prohibit Lim's controversial policy, said: "The shame campaign violated presumption of innocence because it transgresses due process,…”
However, in January 2000, the 14th Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled as "invalid and unconstitutional” the spray paint shame campaign against suspected drug pushers.
Many societies covertly or otherwise, utilize shame to gain political or social control. More often than not, shame campaigns involve members of police, government and other law enforcers.
In early January 2005, Metro Manila Development Authority Chair Bayani Fernando announced the launching of a “wet rags shame campaign” targeting commuters who wait for a ride in the middle of the streets. The MMDA traffic enforcers planned to punish undisciplined pedestrians by splashing them with wet rags. The rags are attached to poles fastened to MMDA service vehicles and sound trucks. The sound trucks are meant to warn the defiant commuters that they have arrived and those who refuse to observe traffic and pedestrian regulations will have wet rags dropped on their hard heads.
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/jan/12/yehey/top_stories/20050112top2.html
Sen. Richard Gordon disagrees with the shame tactic and said such a way of disciplining pedestrians is a “return to Grade One.” Gordon said the ‘wet rag campaign’ could work for a time but would eventually end up futile. Rep. Vincent Crisologo of Ilocos Sur, a known critic of Fernando, said the MMDA chief was resorting to martial law tactics. Another party representative, Rozzano Rufino Biazon of Muntinlupa City, criticized Chairman Fernando’s plan: “It only shows that the MMDA looks at people as animals who should be herded like cattle instead of using reason to make them follow the law… it is an admission that its personnel assigned to the thoroughfares are not doing their job,” Biazon said. However, Chairman Fernando was unfazed by criticisms and pushed on with the campaign. He saw no human-rights violation in the MMDA’s shame campaign.
In a more recent display of shame tactics, Hong Kong’s Tony Kwok suggests that the Philippine government should carry out an unremitting shame campaign to get rid of corruption. http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=2347569
A consultant of the Philippines’ Office of the Ombudsman, Kwok said, "This is what you need, a shame campaign. You have to let the politicians know that corruption is a high-risk crime."
Kwok cites Hong Kong’s experience of using TV advertisements to discourage misconduct and unlawful activity in government. "The best way is through enforcement and education," he says.
Such shame campaigns may prove effective, for a short or longer time. Conversely, smear tactics may simply be an outright attempt to damage one’s reputation, without proper validation or proof.
THE LEGAL SIDE
In the Philippines, the law recognizes the value of reputation and credibility. Libel and slander are two different forms of defamation. Libel is a false and damaging statement that is published while slander is the verbal utterance or spreading of a falsehood harmful to another's reputation, business, or means of livelihood. Both can be grounds for a lawsuit and are punishable by law. Slanderous words or libelous acts are separate charges and are liable for imprisonment and compensation for the damages done.
See also
External link
- The US political website Spinsanity specializes in highlighting smear tactics amongst other low forms of political discourse.
"Smear campaign"