Buyer beware: How to spot misinformation tactics

DIANA MAHABIR-WYATT

There is a deepening international media concern over false advertising, which includes marketing tactics, not just selling products and services, but ideas and beliefs as well.

An example, as foreign exchange becomes harder to obtain, efforts to mask the devaluation of a locally manufactured product by using a local substitute, known to be of a lesser quality than the imported one that attracted customers in the first place, hoping that customers will not notice the difference, as the required list of ingredients remains the same.

There are no regulations requiring manufacturers of comestibles to put quality specifications on the label, just the ingredients. Flour is flour. Hence the warning
caveat emptor, or "buyer beware": the onus is on the customer to do their own investigation about the quality of what they buy.

That warning also applies to adopting political, corporate and religious beliefs being sold to users in this complex and ever-changing economy of promises, hopes, ideas, beliefs and politics.

Why do you think little children in kindergarten are exposed to Aesop’s Fables, stories about how people get tricked into believing things that are not true? Remember the tales about Brer Anancy, who deceived everyone and got his way by trickery?

Those tales were written centuries ago to teach children to be cautious before believing what strangers tell them. People have not changed much since, except for the use of technology and AI. Examine how the trickster positions or times his words.

One weekend, a news report pointed out a gap between what the minister in charge of WASA said at a conference in the Hilton, claiming that "between 40 and 50 per cent of water generated was lost between production and end user." Then, less than a week later, a very expensive full-page advertisement in the same newspaper said: "These are the facts. WASA does not lose 50 per cent of its water to leaks and has never released any data to this effect."

That method of manipulation is also used in the corporate world when a senior uses status or position of authority to make an unsupported claim, trusting that no one will dare contradict him.

Saying, for example, that most of those people who oppose property tax own homes abroad is a variation of this method. Most of us? Hello? We do? Are you caught by a statement not supported by facts about who these “people” are? No specifics about who they are and how they got all that foreign exchange to purchase homes abroad?

A classic counter to that claim is the Bustamante method. Back in the 1960s, when Norman Manley and Alexander Bustamante were locking political horns in Jamaica, Manley, an astute and distinguished lawyer, said his political opponent, Bustamante, ran a political organisation that was involved in some questionable financial fundraising practices.

Bustamante responded by bellowing out on a public platform: "He say I does tief? I tell you he is a bigger tief than I ever was!"

He didn’t bother to deny the accusation, just tried to deflect attention of the electorate by using his opponent’s words to build a claim that the opposite was true and his opponent was worse than he was.

He also used the evangelists’ tactic – the assumption that the louder he shouted, the better the chance people would believe him. Sometimes it works.

Political aspirants accuse their competitors of toleration of, if not personal involvement in crime, by referring to accusations of malfeasance made about candidates in the opposing party in previous elections, implying these are the standards of the entire organisation they represent.

Guilt by association, another reputation-damaging tactic, is accomplished by decrying an unethical or illegal practice worrying civic society generally, such as drug-dealing, money laundering or using public funds for private benefit. Then a separate statement is made referring to activities of someone you want to cast aspersions on. No charge is made, but the reader is left to make the connection.

In politics, the simplest way to cast doubt on the integrity or reputation of someone in writing, without getting sued for libel, is to use quotation marks around the word "honourable." For example, an "honourable member" from an unspecified constituency will ensure a non-stop supply of water to the entire community when he/she is elected. Clearly casting doubt on even the possibility of that happening implies that he/she is not honourable, that they are naive and their promises are fictional. This tactic is used when speaking into a microphone on a public platform by drawing quotation marks in the air and smirking.

Finally, two common tactics used in almost any dispute or negotiation. One is called "splitting," used when bargaining without having anything to bargain with. You refer to one word or phrase used by your opponent, quoting it alone, ignoring every other point they had made, claiming that the "split" phrase implies agreement with you and therefore the discussion has been conceded in your favour, not giving them a chance to retaliate.

The other tactic I learned from a senior police officer back in the 1980s, while attending to victims of domestic violence. He said perpetrators of domestic violence, particularly emotional or psychological violence called "gaslighting," destroy your self-confidence by quoting something you never said. When caught out, they shout: "You are always twisting everything I say," repeatedly denying that they ever said something abusive and usually pejorative they had said, with such vehemence that you begin to doubt your own sanity. This is sometimes reinforced by having another person trained to support them. While it is most common in attempts by one person to control another domestically, I have had that tactic used against me in the Industrial Court. It taught me always to be prepared to "take in front before in front took me" when making a statement or having someone make a statement in my absence on my behalf.

There are some of the rhetorical tricks that go back as far as Cicero that we will be witnessing between now and elections. Watch for them.