An Antiviral Cocktail

We have all seen again this year, as in past campaign years, a variety of email missives purporting to provide information about Democratic candidates.

These are generally known as viral emails because they spread from one uneducated person to another in the same way that a virus spreads, with no accountability to the original source. These range from doctored photos to quotes taken out of context to outright fabrications. Trying to combat this tactic seems at times like the arcade game "Whack-a-Mole". Or maybe it's "Whack-a-Troll". But having seen several different messages and their impact, and having had some time to mull the proper response, here is my strong suggestion.

1. ALWAYS respond to them, but do it in a specific way. Ask those who are proliferating the messages to find the ORIGINAL references that demonstrate that their attack is true. Indicate that you might be prepared to believe the mail (note this is a tactic, but not a lie--we should be prepared to believe if given genuine evidence and reasoning), but ONLY if the ORIGINAL references are produced. This accomplishes several things. First, it forces the individual to actually think about how they know the attack to be true. Second, it makes them question other mail they may receive that is unsubstantiated. Third, it gets them to do your research for you. While it is very difficult to find the context of unreferenced material, in their zeal to prove it to you, they may do your leg work. Lastly, one way for them to find what you ask for is to ask the person who sent it to THEM, and that could start a chain of questioning that is sort of an anti-virus. Frequently, when responding, you can aide that chain by using "Reply All".

2. Check internet myth sites such as http://www.snopes.com/. While the most recent attacks may not be found there because it takes time to do the research, the myths do tend to recirculate, so if you come across one that is not brand new, you can refer the individual to the site. Of course, they may not trust the site that says it ain't so, but if they do, then their source for the mail becomes suspect for them.

3. Forward the mail message to the DNC or TDP and candidate web sites. The presidential campaigns have staff devoted to tracking these things down and providing counter-information. Candidates who don't have such resources still want to know what is being said about them.

4. If possible, write a letter to the editor showing the attack as demonstrably false. This is not a good option if you don't have the facts available, because then it is just seen as whining.

Whatever you do, don't blow them off. Sure, they are produced by propagandists and distributed through networks of the ignorant, but it is an unfortunate part of politics. It is under-the-radar swift boating, and as we learned in '04, no attack can go unanswered. The public needs to perceive us as fighting back, and needs to perceive the other side as sleazy. Again, this is a battle of perception, but we can take comfort in the reality that we are promoting perceptions that are true. A lot of this effort is up to ordinary folks like us.