Challenging those who disseminate misleading or outright false information ought to be one of the easiest parts of our jobs, but actually it’s one of the hardest. The bottom line is that many of our efforts backfire, inadvertently legitimizing the myth or lie and even increasing the number of people who remember it at all. Coincidentally, a relevant example and new research landed in my inbox this morning, so today’s blog topic has been decided.

Here’s the example: Some of your Iowa peers are up in arms about a TV spot the Iowa Farm Bureau is running, which makes the outrageous claim that, “Due to modern livestock techniques, Iowa’s waters are cleaner than ever before.” It’s hogwash, quite literally. The clean water listserv is buzzing like an angry beehive.

“PLEASE HELP US FIGHT BACK – please send a donation to help get the truth to the voters of Iowa,” wrote one activist, who went on to detail false and misleading claims in the ad.

And that’s partially the right instinct — as the public will interpret silence as acquiescence.

But here’s the research: It concludes that detailing the falsehoods and misleading statements before debunking them is usually counterproductive. “Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it,” according to Shankar Vedantam in his Washington Post story “Persistence of Myths Could Alter Public Policy Approach” (Note: You may have to create an account to read this story, and yes, it’s worth it). Another scientist who studies how human brains respond to competing claims found “”it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no mention to the original myth.”

So here’s a sample script I whipped up that challenges the Farm Bureau — without repeating their claims.

Trick or Treat!
The Iowa Farm Bureau must think it’s Halloween. They’ve helped a bunch of corporate polluters dress up like family farmers — and now they’re knocking on doors at the Iowa statehouse asking for loopholes in the clean water laws that protect your family.

And to get that treat, they’ve got a trick: misleading TV ads that hide their true record: Using more and more chemicals and drugs. Employing fewer and fewer Iowa workers each year.

Don’t let our elected officials fall for the Farm Bureau’s exaggerations. Tell your senator that you want responsible laws and fair enforcement to keep Iowa’s water clean.

This Halloween, let’s hand out candy to our kids. Not loopholes to corporate polluters.

Fundamentally, this is all a reminder that the best defense is a good offense: Place your own provocative (but true, always true, completely true) ads out there and let the corporate polluters and developers be the ones who tie themselves in knots trying to respond to you.

Good luck out there!

Researchers have often found that everyday Americans have only faint awareness about what happens to the rain once it hits the ground. So should you use the words “stormwater” or “nonpoint source pollution” because they are literally correct, or should you call it something else that people understand and respond to?

Source: Delaware Residents’ Attitudes Toward and Behaviors That Affect Water Quality

Also in this episode, a lesson in leadership from Stephen Colbert. Not!

Citations for this Episode
Download this episode to your computer or video iPod

Americans’ supportive attitudes towards nature protection and pollution control are offset by low levels of knowledge. Plus, why you shouldn’t deny the accusations people make about you.

Citations for today’s episode.
Download this episode to your computer or video iPod