Political Mudslinging and The Liberty Valence Effect

'They' say, "all's fair in love and war." 'They' should have added politics. Unfortunately today's political races have unloosed a barage of inuendo, half-truths and sometimes down-right lies. With accessability to almost instant up-to-the minute information, we are bombarded with so much of the mud slinging we begin to feel like we need a shower.
If only we could go back to the good old days when political races followed honorable, genteel rules. The candidates ran on their merits alone. Of course in reality, the good old days didn't exist. In fact, the United States has a long storied history of mudslinging. In 1800, Jefferson hired a writer to attack President Adams stating, "[he is] a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensability of a woman." In 1876, the opponents of Rutherford B. Hayes spread a rumor that he had shot is mother. In 1836, Davy Crockett accused Martin Van Buren of wearing women's clothing, "He is laced up in corsets." One of the more colorful slings was by Harry Truman while campaigning for Kennedy in 1960, "If you vote for Nixon, you ought to go to hell!"
Of course the difference in past political races and today is the mass media: internet, facebook, twitter and blogs. The information is so readily available and so in-your-face, you can hardly avoid it. Unfortunately, we've become such a voyueristic society (there are now at least 3 channels devoted entirely to reality tv: Fox Reality in the U.S., Global Reality Channel in Canada, and Zone Reality in the U.K.), we're soaking up all this information without a filter and without verification of the facts. This presents a problem. We end up believing what we read/hear and what's worse, we believe the false information even if we are presented with the truth later.
University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwartz conducted a study published this year in the journal Advances in Experimental Social Psychology that shows the brain will use a "rule of thumb" that will bias itself into thinking false information is true. In an experiment, people were given false information then shortly after given the correct information. While some people would believe the corrected information, some would hold onto the falsehood. As time went by however, fewer and fewer people would believe the corrected information and would hold onto the falsehood as fact. Long-term memories were shown to matter most in political campaigns and were the most susceptible to the bias of thinking that falsehoods were actually true. This is not to say that we're a bunch of blind, gullible dopes, but that our own experiences and belief systems are susceptible to certain information. When that information is repetitively received, it becomes easier to believe.
So, what are we to do? There is no easy answer to this question nor is there a 'fix-it' for our brains. A healthy dose of scepticism when reading or hearing any information seems to be the best course of action especially when we hear the same information repeatedly. We as humans will never be able to escape our want of a good story. Political campaign experts know this and are good at using this to their advantage. Always remember the lesson taught in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence." Jimmy Stewart's character had become famous for ridding the people of Liberty Valence. His fame led him to a successful political career all based on a lie--he hadn't really shot Liberty Valence. When he confesse to his biographer at the end of the movie that John Wayne's character was really the one who did it, the biographer tears up his notes and says, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." So be careful when you believe what you read.