Is PR responsible for conspiracy theories?

[Harryprice]

Though I don't agree with conspiracy theorists I can sort of see where they are coming from. Every company, government, celebrity and so on has PR people. If you believed them, everything is always just fine, no matter what bad news there is.

Against the bland reassurance and, in some cases, plain nonsense, that is put out for public consumption, can we really blame some people who look for an alternative version of the truth? Perhaps if all these puiblic bodies didn't try so hard to spin everything, they might have more credibility and the conspiracy theorists might have fewer followers.

Anyone reading a company annual report or government press release will soon get bored with bland management-speak. And some may well suspect they are hiding something.

What is needed is more skepticism!

[Croydon Bob]

It's worth remembering that there are real conspiracies. Watergate being an obvious example often cited by Conspiracy Theory Nuts. Every organisation from the whole USA down to a local resident's association will have people plotting and conspiring against each other, it's human nature.

Just because it is a Conspiracy Theory, that doesn't make it wrong.

However, the ones that turn out to be true, or likely, are the more mundane ones involving corrupt politicians, sex, money and lying. Not the ones involving secret hangers with UFOs in them, shape changing reptiloids, etc, blah.

The big problem seems to be that there's a complete failure in the minds of Troofers, Birthers, etc, to be able to distinguish between evidence and some crap that someone made up. We see this with believers in other areas of woo.

So, I don't entirely agree with you. PR spin makes me, and some other people, cynical and skeptical. The sort of person who thinks that Obama was born in Kenya or that Bush flew magic missiles disguised as aircraft into the WTC is surely actually more likely to believe PR. They are the gullible ones, the real "sheeple".

I do agree that what is needed is more skepticism!

[Harryprice]

It was reading some stuff written in corporate-speak that inspired me to start this thread. I could see how being endlessly fed this rubbish, as we all are these days, could easily make people cynical.

It is just a shame that the popular 'alternative' on offer is no more realistic. It is a version of the world fed by Hollywood thrillers and science fiction.

One of the attractions of conspiracy theories is the idea of being in a cosy 'in group'. Conspiracy theorists are attracted by the idea that they know things that no one else does. They, rightly, are cynical about PR spin but do not apply the same cynicism to the 'alternatives' they are fed. It is just exchanging one 'everything is just fine' PR world for 'everything is wrong' conspiracy world.

In many cases, it is up to individuals to decipher the PR spin to work out what is really going on.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I was thinking about something similar earlier today for some reason.

It is almost like a conspiracy believer is hard-wired to allow their mind to run away with itself when they see some evidence.

The thing is, yes, we are lied to constantly everywhere, by politicans, television, newspapers, PR agencies, etc, nothing can really be taken at face value any more.

Someone always seems to have an agenda and that is being pushed.

A real critical thinker takes things slowly and doesn't jump to conclusions without supporting evidence.

A conpiracy believer sees a small amount of 'evidence' and manages to jump to conclusions, substantially over and above the worth of the evidence in question.

They are people who think they are critical thinkers but they are inexperienced in the power of critical thinking.
It takes them down the wrong path because they don't know how to apply it properly.

I think trying to understand how people come to the wrong conclusions is important, not that I fully understand it yet.

[bryan]

At the same time, we can ask the question: Why do some people deny conspiracies in the face of overwhelming evidence?

I think it's a case of 'horses for courses' and there are many different reasons.

First, there are the people who were involved in the conspiracy and those in their employment. Then there are people receiving bribes and others being blackmailed. These will be at a high level, in government or in the media, for example.

Then we have the people who simply believe they do well out of the system, or at least they believe they might be worse off under a new system. This group would include many professional people but it wouldn't be restricted to the well off. Even those among the worst off can have an attitude of 'better the devil you know'.

Then there are people who are simply unwilling to allow their belief system to be turned upside down, to admit they've been duped big time or to risk being laughed at.

The first group will obviously be aware of what's going on, but many from the lower groups won't have come into contact with the relevant information. Some will actually have convinced themselves there's no evidence even after doing some research.

If we could sum up these reasons in a word, I think it would be: Fear.

Fear of being the odd one out. Fear of losing your livelihood. Fear of an unpredictable future.

[Pebble]

You forgot conspiracy theory fatigue. As far as I can seen for every major event, there is at least one conspiracy theory. The problem seems to be that retrospective collection and analysis of evidence, always leaves room for several possible interpretations. The fundamentals of CTs are the constancy of the central therory whatever new facts are presented, and a stance that collusion is more likely than incompetence. A major problem for a common sense assessment is that official versions are also inherently resistent to change, sometimes implausible, but unlike CTs are capable of change and recognise the role of incompetence.

[Harryprice]

At the same time, we can ask the question: Why do some people deny conspiracies in the face of overwhelming evidence?

Would you agree, as I've heard from others, that there is nothing anyone can do about these conspiracies?

If this is true, isn't it just spreading unnecessary anxiety to publicise when no one can stop them anyway? Also, isn't it strangely comforting that conspiracy theories let us, and those we elect into power, off the hook. It wasn't us who started wars, allowed famine, messed up the environment, caused the credit crunch, terrorism, disease etc. We are all innocent!

[bryan]

Would you agree, as I've heard from others, that there is nothing anyone can do about these conspiracies?

If this is true, isn't it just spreading unnecessary anxiety to publicise when no one can stop them anyway? Also, isn't it strangely comforting that conspiracy theories let us, and those we elect into power, off the hook. It wasn't us who started wars, allowed famine, messed up the environment, caused the credit crunch, terrorism, disease etc. We are all innocent!

We don't elect anybody into power.

[Matt]

We don't elect anybody into power.

I do, you should try it some time.

[Harryprice]

We don't elect anybody into power.

Any comment on causing people needless anxiety by telling them about conspiracies or the convenience of our not being responsible for anything that goes wrong in the world?

[tolman]

Bryan,

Clearly, from your standpoint of conviction, you have to try and create a list of reasons why people don't take you seriously which doesn't include you possibly being wrong.

However, from a standpoint outside the conspiracy theory, there are all kinds of reasons why people don't take them seriously.

One of the most important is scale.

The scale of suggested conspiracies is often so large that it's not possible to imagine anyone suggesting creating such a conspiracy in advance being taken seriously by The Powers That Be.
Massive conspiracies depend on not encountering any resistant people during their planning, or being able to silence all the resistant (or even possibly reluctant) people to keep the plan safely on the road.
People plotting them need to be fairly sure of the likely reaction of all manner of previously law-abiding people before they attempt to involve them, which is close to impossible.

For example, if someone had suggested killing ex-Princess Diana while involving MI5/6, a good chunk of the Paris police and ambulance service, and all the other assorted people necessary, even if the person they were suggesting it to had been someone with a deal of power who did want her dead, unless the person they suggested the idea to and all the people of similar rank were as clinically insane as the initial suggester, the idea just wouldn't happen.

With something like the WTC conspiracy theories, even had a particualr theory been theoretically practical, the alleged scale of the conspiracy would have made it lunacy even to attempt, when there were obviously vastly simpler ways of creating similar or higher death counts simply by crashing a plane into some national event where great numbers of people were present.

While the buildings might have been iconic, to use as a justification for war, a similar or higher death count from a plane or two crashing into a crowded (televised) stadium would have been entirely adequate, as would a smaller death count of more famous people.

What people are actually suggesting is not merely a conspiracy staged in order to achieve a particular goal, but one done with massive expense, overelaboration, more numerous flaws, and higher risk of failure and risk of exposure than a plan by a person of average intelligence achieving the same goals would have.
They're suggesting a gigantic conspiracy run by insane reckless idiots which still basically works.

The appearance given by many conspiracy theorists is that they actually like their conspiracies to be larger and more comprehensive.
If it involves every arm of the state and big business magically co-operating to tie up any loose end or inconsistency that people might point to, to the conspiracy nut that makes the theory more perfect and robust, whereas from outside it just makes it look more ridiculous.

[bryan]

Any comment on causing people needless anxiety by telling them about conspiracies or the convenience of our not being responsible for anything that goes wrong in the world?

Yes, sorry, I was in a hurry before. I don't know where you've heard that we can't do anything about it. Wanting to put an end to the conspiracies is what motivates 9/11 truthers - that's why they're so insistent. They'd be in hiding if they thought they couldn't change anything. Maybe you've been listening to the exaggerated cliches put out by the disinformationists who claim that conspiracy theorists believe in the all-powerful reptillian illuminati.

The question of who's responsible for the wars and stuff is a bit like the chicken and the egg. I don't believe that politicians have any say in deciding whether to go to war - they are either bribed or blackmailed. (Have you ever wondered why Tony Blair is worth half a million a year to JP Morgan?) If they refused, they'd be replaced by other politicians who are more compliant, although that doesn't mean they bear no responsibility for what happens. It could be argued that it's the people who are ultimately responsible, because they are happy to let it happen while they watch telly and get drunk. So nobody gets let off the hook and it's certainly not comforting to know that wars are manufactured for profit and control and are planned years in advance.

I do, you should try it some time.

No you don't - the people you vote for have no power.

[Pebble]

The question of who's responsible for the wars and stuff is a bit like the chicken and the egg. I don't believe that politicians have any say in deciding whether to go to war - they are either bribed or blackmailed. (Have you ever wondered why Tony Blair is worth half a million a year to JP Morgan?) If they refused, they'd be replaced by other politicians who are more compliant, although that doesn't mean they bear no responsibility for what happens. It could be argued that it's the people who are ultimately responsible, because they are happy to let it happen while they watch telly and get drunk. So nobody gets let off the hook and it's certainly not comforting to know that wars are manufactured for profit and control and are planned years in advance.

Ah! So this is simply an anti-capitalist rant, allied to the anarchists? Captialists profit from war, therefore they must cause war! I would point out that this is a completely unnecessary assumption. Idiots like Blair have a religious conviction in the righteousness of their world view, hence the need to use force to convert others, hence war. If not Blair, there are plenty of others, so there is always a plentiful supply of conflict to feed the machine - not need for conspiracies to achieve this state.

[bryan]

Bryan,

Clearly, from your standpoint of conviction, you have to try and create a list of reasons why people don't take you seriously which doesn't include you possibly being wrong.

However, from a standpoint outside the conspiracy theory, there are all kinds of reasons why people don't take them seriously.

One of the most important is scale.

The scale of suggested conspiracies is often so large that it's not possible to imagine anyone suggesting creating such a conspiracy in advance being taken seriously by The Powers That Be.
Massive conspiracies depend on not encountering any resistant people during their planning, or being able to silence all the resistant (or even possibly reluctant) people to keep the plan safely on the road.
People plotting them need to be fairly sure of the likely reaction of all manner of previously law-abiding people before they attempt to involve them, which is close to impossible.

For example, if someone had suggested killing ex-Princess Diana while involving MI5/6, a good chunk of the Paris police and ambulance service, and all the other assorted people necessary, even if the person they were suggesting it to had been someone with a deal of power who did want her dead, unless the person they suggested the idea to and all the people of similar rank were as clinically insane as the initial suggester, the idea just wouldn't happen.

With something like the WTC conspiracy theories, even had a particualr theory been theoretically practical, the alleged scale of the conspiracy would have made it lunacy even to attempt, when there were obviously vastly simpler ways of creating similar or higher death counts simply by crashing a plane into some national event where great numbers of people were present.

While the buildings might have been iconic, to use as a justification for war, a similar or higher death count from a plane or two crashing into a crowded (televised) stadium would have been entirely adequate, as would a smaller death count of more famous people.

What people are actually suggesting is not merely a conspiracy staged in order to achieve a particular goal, but one done with massive expense, overelaboration, more numerous flaws, and higher risk of failure and risk of exposure than a plan by a person of average intelligence achieving the same goals would have.
They're suggesting a gigantic conspiracy run by insane reckless idiots which still basically works.

The appearance given by many conspiracy theorists is that they actually like their conspiracies to be larger and more comprehensive.
If it involves every arm of the state and big business magically co-operating to tie up any loose end or inconsistency that people might point to, to the conspiracy nut that makes the theory more perfect and robust, whereas from outside it just makes it look more ridiculous.

From your tone and style you seem to be genuine and not just churning out a list of standard debunking arguments. All the same, your criticisms are assumptions based on a particular world view, and you're using these assumptions as if they were based on evidence. If you could explain how 57 steel columns could fail simultaneously without the use of explosives, you'd be dealing a serious blow to the 9/11 inside job theory. But to dismiss the idea just by saying the conspiracy would be too big is the kind of response that provokes 9/11 truthers into being abusive.

I think you imagine that events like the ones you mentioned would be one-offs that happen now and again. If that was the case, then maybe it would appear to be too risky for the planners to even contemplate some of the large-scale operations. The truth is, these things are being planned and carried out all the time and it's been going on for at least a couple of centuries. If you'll pardon the expression, bringing a plane down would be like going for a shit for these people. It's not just a case of somebody in the office suggesting an assasination. Everybody would know what was necessary and when it needed to be done, and they would have done it before.

Have you ever wondered about the liquid bomb plot? According to the government, the police, and the media, it was a clear-cut case, then a jury found them not guilty. So how strong was the evidence against them? Going further back, look at the number of people wrongly convicted for so-called IRA pub bombings. What evidence did they have against them? Why are they not looking for the real bombers? Why did the Greater Manchester Police give up investigating the Manchester bombing? If you can shake off the assumptions you were brought up with, Occam's razor yield's some surprising results.

I'm not sure if you're saying people don't take me personally serious or if you mean me and others like me. They don't here, that's for sure, but nearly everybody I know believes that these things are going on. Apart from on internet forums, I've never met anybody who could deny that WTC7 was a demolition, although some do refuse to join the dots. Many people are aware but prefer not to talk about it, so if you thought that only vociferous 9/11 truthers believe this stuff, you'd be wrong.

[bryan]

Ah! So this is simply an anti-capitalist rant, allied to the anarchists? Captialists profit from war, therefore they must cause war! I would point out that this is a completely unnecessary assumption. Idiots like Blair have a religious conviction in the righteousness of their world view, hence the need to use force to convert others, hence war. If not Blair, there are plenty of others, so there is always a plentiful supply of conflict to feed the machine - not need for conspiracies to achieve this state.

There is no left and no right in politics. It's a myth created in order to divide and rule.