One Thing Obama Could Do About Those Emails

by: Daniel De Groot

Sun May 25, 2008 at 16:16


AFP:

This time, the presumed Republican nominee has a "rapid response squad" to nip scurrilous rumors in the bud.

The African-American Obama has a similar operation, but has been powerless to prevent the spread of emails portraying him as a secret Muslim.

(I don't know why AFP had to qualify Obama as "The African-American"...sheesh)

"As far as you know, what is Barack Obama's religion? Is he a Christian, a Muslim, or something else?"
Newsweek

DatesChristianMuslimSomething ElseUnsure
May 21-22, 20085811922
Apr 24-25, 20085213926

Also see Digby for some information on the new email smear tactic, Obama isn't a Muslim now, but Muslims (who are crazy, of course) believe he was, and because they hate apostates so much, will stop at nothing to hurt America if Obama becomes President.  Or something like that.  It's the kind of too-clever smear that smug Republican apologists will appear on TV sprouting and can't be easily rebutted.  Who the hell knows what a billion Muslims think of Obama?  It will be easy enough to find some few who do think he's an apostate and thus fair game to anecdotally vindicate the smear.  The smear of course, allows Republicans to associate Obama with being a Muslim without actually saying that.  Plausible deniability and so on.  Also, that could account for some of the 9% who say Obama is "something else" as far as his religion goes.

I've written about the problem of memetic email forwards generally as a Gramascian culture war problem for progressives, and a little more specifically with respect to Obama, whom I believe to be the most harmed by this method.  So now a little more specific to Obama, because he's missing out on an invaluable tool in fighting this plague.

Use the Google, Obama

I sent myself a few of the most common anti-Obama emails (ironically I had never received them) to my gmail to see what adsense links come up.  I get ads for Obama t-shirts, the NY Times' Obama coverage, a Stephen Harper poll (weird), and Scientology (really weird).  I was hoping Obama's campaign would have a link to Obama's fact-check section.  Unfortunately not.  This is a huge missed opportunity.  Over, I'll make the case that Google ad-words are probably the single cheapest and most effective damage control strategy available for memetic emails.

Daniel De Groot :: One Thing Obama Could Do About Those Emails
The General Situation

Sticking with America, there are 215,088,545 Internet users as of Nov 07 for 71.4% penetration, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.  There are 64,614,000 Internet broadband connections as of Dec 06, per FCC-CTIA.  That's a little confusing, because many of those 64M broadband connections are shared, but from PEW we find that almost 50% of the population has access to a broadband connection and 15% is known to be on dial up (the remaining 6% didn't specify when asked).

I mention the distinction between dial-up and broadband because I think it matters a great deal in terms of what these people do online.  I remember dial-up, and I rarely did much surfing.  I would look up specific things I was interested in, but floating around was too frustrating and slow, and that was in the late 90s, when much more of the web was tuned for dial-up users.  Today, with embedded videos and rich content flash ads in most every site, I imagine it is all the more frustrating for dial-up users.  My routine in the world of dial-up was to connect to the internet, and then hit the button to check my mail on my Netscape mail client and walk away for a bit while my messages downloaded.  

This is a key difference between email and browsing as applications on the internet:  Email is a "push" where content is pushed to users.  Browsing is pull, you choose what to get.  There's a reason spammers love email so much and this is it.  

Email, the Once and Still King of Internet Applications

Even today, the primary use of the internet is still email.  No other single application is as widely used online.

Some e-marketing research:


According to eMarketer, a Pew Internet & American Life Project survey found that 91% of Internet users between the ages of 18 and 64 send or read e-mail, and an even higher number of users ages 65 or older do the same. The only other activity to even approach e-mail's popularity is using a search engine to find information.


In the US alone, 88% of adult Internet users have personal e-mail accounts. Further, 46% of them have e-mail access at work. Added together, eMarketer estimates that 147 million people across the country use e-mail, almost every day.

This is even higher than usage of search as an internet application (though I've seen varying figures for search as low as the high 60s).  On a day-to-day basis email is the hands down winner in terms of what people do online.

Gmail's Share

Gmail is a late comer to the webmail game, and at 91M subscribers is far behind the big players, Microsoft and Yahoo, each with over 200M subscribers according to various industry reports.  Still, I think 91M is "good enough" as long as gmail users are evenly distributed enough.

The idea is to create enough "Chain Breakers" who will investigate the truth of the claims, and hopefully hit "reply to all" and kill the infection in hundreds or thousands of different locations independently.  91M Gmail users (not all American of course) represents a substantial percentage of the total "live" set of email addresses.  It's also the only set of email users one can reach with advertisements sensitive to the content of their email messages.  So if say, 1 in 6 or even 1 in 10 email addresses is a gmail, then it means the odds are pretty good that for any person choosing to forward a memetic email, one of their recipients will be on gmail.

It looks like this:

So the ads are pretty prominent.  If the ad said "learn why this email is false" or something direct, it would have a fairly good chance of getting the user's attention.  If Obama's camp bought multiple ads, he could push all the others off the page (but that costs more).  

Ad-Words Works In Searches Too

There is a steady hum of searching on Obama and topics related to the stuff in the email forwards going around.  For comparison, see "Obama madrassa" which has the one spike of traffic when Fox News first ran the story, but drops off the chart thereafter.  The emails keep flowing around though, and the searches ebb and flow.

If you search on "Obama muslim" the results are not great.  Of the 10 links on the front page, currently 8 of them are pushing the lie.  A sponsored link here would be a great help, and a lot more effective than any effort we could make to search engine optimize, given the great attention already paid to this subject we'd have a hard time doing much.  

It's targeted, and cost-effective

Google ads only appear when relevant search terms are entered, and Obama's campaign would only pay when users actually click on the links.  Further, this would give some kind of indication of how effective the tactic is.  

So that's my case.  For pennies a person, Obama would be able to roll back much of the harm this is doing him.  This doesn't solve the general problem, in that many of the emails attacking liberal ideals don't have a named target who would want to pay for gmail ads to rebut the contents, but it might help on that front.  These emails spread because people aren't too suspicious of them, and they trust the people who send them.  If you learn that Bob forwarded you a pile of crap, you will be less trusting of the other things he forwards you and less inclined to think "it must be true, Bob knows this politics stuff!"

Use the Google, Barack.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Useless. Some peole simply never pay attention. (0.00 / 0)
Good ideas, but probably useless in reaching the diehard ignorants. See, the Wright story was all across the media, and everybody who paid any attention must have noticed that Wright is the pastor of the CHRISTIAN church that Obama regularly attended. Those fools who managed to get through all this media brouhaha without consciously memorizing this fact very probably can't be reached by any google ad, either.

attention to what? (4.00 / 2)
Paying attention to the news is very very different from paying attention to what's on your screen as you're reading your email.

Now, granted, there are other reasons why people wouldn't notice these ads.  In particular, people who are used to the web have trained their eyes to ignore sections of a web site that look like ads.  Google sometimes breaks through this because they make their ads relevant, and over time people might learn that in Google contexts, ads may be worth noticing.

Regardless, the point is that a lot of the people in question just don't watch the news or follow politics at all.  But they are reading email.  Whether or not they pay attention to click-through ads with relevant text on their email screen, has nothing to do with whether or not they'd pay attention to news coverage of the campaign.


[ Parent ]
Hmm, I'm sceptical... (0.00 / 0)
"But they are reading email."
Those people who think Obama is a muslim? Where do you get that idea? I agree that using different channels helps in spreading information, ok. But, remember, there's still lots of people who don't use email, some of them even haven't got internet yet. Still, many of them will get polled nontheless. Imho these are the diehard ignorants, and you won't change their minds by sending emails they'll never see. Besides, remember all the reports recently about those scientific studies that found people distregard informations that doesn't fir into their world view?  

[ Parent ]
By definition, yes (0.00 / 0)
This post is specifically about countering claims that spread by email.  The Muslim thing is an example of that: it spread mainly through right wing email forwards that people sent to their families who don't watch the news.

[ Parent ]
Not exclusively... (0.00 / 0)
"This post is specifically about countering claims that spread by email."
This post is also about the polls showing that still some people think Obama is a muslim (or else, the email problem would be meaningless). All I'm saying is, we don't know if those people can be reached by email. We don't even know how much of an impact those emails have. Countering them is a good idea, but don't expect too much of it. There are some diehard ignorants that you won't reach.  

[ Parent ]
sure (4.00 / 1)
"some" don't.  Some others will.

It's practically free, only costs when people click the links and has no downside.  Clearly the Wright story did not convince people Obama is a Christian.


[ Parent ]
ok... (4.00 / 1)
Every single misperception corrected is a step ahead. However, getting reducing the 11% to 0% is unrealistic. 5% would be a huge success. Actually, even 11% isn't really bad. How many people still believe Saddam had WMDs? Hmm?

[ Parent ]
11% (4.00 / 1)
Is pretty bad.  The WMD story was the result of history's greatest misinformation campaign.  The 11% comes almost solely from these emails.


[ Parent ]
9% think he's "something else," though. (0.00 / 0)
I think some of this may be racism in coded form rather than some ginormously long email list in action, but certainly you're right that Google ads are a no-brainer.  

[ Parent ]
yeah (4.00 / 2)
That 9% is an enigma.  What else could they think he is?  I posited above the "apostate muslim" idea might cover some of it.  

Or maybe it's the more usual thing, that they think he's an atheist or a secular humanist.  I doubt anyone thinks he's a Buddhist or a Hindu.

One good thing, at least the percentage that knows he's a Christian went up 6 points.  


[ Parent ]
They think hes athiest/agnostic. I guarantee you. Even I think hes agnostic and thats part of the reason I'm voting for him. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
You guys are more generous than me. (0.00 / 0)
I tend to think that if that 9% hasn't heard of Wright by now, they're much too stupid and/or uninformed to grasp any of your fancy a-words: agnostic, apostate, atheist, or otherwise.

 But you guys envision a nicer world, and my hat's off to you for that!


[ Parent ]
Source? (0.00 / 0)
"The 11% comes almost solely from these emails."
Where does that information come from? That's a fact, or just guesswork?
:-/

[ Parent ]
bit of both (0.00 / 0)
Process of elimination really.

The sole source of the "Obama is a muslim" story has been the emails.  The one time any MSM outlet tried to play with it, when Fox News did the madrassa thing, they got slapped hard.

A few wingnut websites run with it of course, but in the earlier diary on this I had polling showing 10% of Democrats believe he's a muslim and 8% of independents.  They're not all reading the wingnut sites I imagine.

Check out the google trend on "obama madrassa" and try running "obama muslim" for comparison.

I could be wrong, and evidence is not beyond a doubt I know, but there's no way to know for sure and it seems prudent to act rather than just hope it goes away on its own.


[ Parent ]
But... (0.00 / 0)
..there's also people who take Obama's second name, "Hussein", as a sign that he's muslim. Totally idiotic, of course, but I read about this in a news story just recently. Must thave happened at one of Obama's camapign stops. Sry that I don't rememebr the source.

[ Parent ]
What about a "Flashing" link? (4.00 / 1)
To the extent that there is a concern that people reading an e-mail also noticing a link that debunks the e-mail, how much more would a flashing link cost?

Daniel, one great thing about your suggestion is that its effect is testable. Especially given the huge cash reserve that the Obama campaign has accumulated to complete the primary campaign, the campaign has the luxury of being able to field test or market test just about any suggestion that is supported by a coherent rationale. Your suggestion, of course, is supported by a cogent rationale.

Commenters in this thread who blow off your suggestion are missing your point.

PS  Another thing that the Obama campaign could do with all that extra cash for pre-convention activities would be to provide a large experienced staff to screen incoming suggestions like this. I am sure that many Obama supporters have sent in excellent suggestions like this that have never gotten any response other than a thank you and a fund-raising request!


[ Parent ]
Just to let you know... (4.00 / 2)
I sent this post to the Obama campaign. It sure seems like they should have someone on staff that is internet savvy bit maybe they don't.

And since those emails have been so toxic it would seem to me they should do everything they can to refute them.  


Thanks (4.00 / 1)
I had emailed them about a week ago and other than being added to the mailing list, got no reply.  Hopefully they'll get the message.

[ Parent ]
Daniel (4.00 / 1)
I did get a reply this morning thanking me. I think it's a canned reply but we can just hope that someone takes the time to check it out.  

[ Parent ]
You'd think someone here would KNOW someone in the Obama campaign (0.00 / 0)
who might be in a position to forward this to the person who IS in a position to act on it.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Sounds like a Google Bomb is in order (4.00 / 1)
Link up to pages that debunk the myths?

That's what I was thinking (0.00 / 0)
Wasn't there already some site trying to organize a Google bomb of McCain?  Whatever happened to that, anyway?  I haven't heard anything about it for what seems like months.

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
It was Bowers who did the original 2006 googlebomb at Mydd, and started a discussion on it awhile back here.  Not sure where it's at either.

[ Parent ]
In order, but out of scope (4.00 / 1)
We're discussing what to do about people who don't search for information about the subject; they just get an email forward from their friend or parent, etc., and since they're not following politics otherwise, what's in the email is what they see.  Google ads might be a strategy to get some other people on the same email chain to reply to all with a debunking.

[ Parent ]
Googlebomb (0.00 / 0)
I'm willing to try, but I doubt we can impact the google search results for this very much.  It's been a relatively big topic with lots of press.

We were most effective in 2006 because we were mucking with the results for a bunch of congressional candidates who don't get much national attention.  

I think it would be fastest if Obama just bought ads to appear when people search on this, and circumvent the necessity of the SEO effort on our part.  The ads could be there tomorrow, right up top, if Obama's people wanted.


[ Parent ]
This Is Entirely Too Logic (0.00 / 0)
Not to mention with the common sense.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Scientologist are excellent at marketting... (0.00 / 0)
I get ads for Obama t-shirts, the NY Times' Obama coverage, a Stephen Harper poll (weird), and Scientology (really weird).

Scientologist have a knack for marketing. They cleverly figured out that the kinds of people who are stupid enough to believe (or even receive) these emails are also probably stupid enough to fall for Scientology.

Problem with your solution is I doubt many of these morons are using gmail. They are mostly probably using Outlook Express. (I used to work in an office full of them)

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.


not an unexpected problem (4.00 / 1)
The idea is that at least one person they send it to is on Gmail, and replies back to them with accurate information.

I know not everyone will notice the ads, click on them etc even of gmail populace, but there's very few weapons to battle this phenomena directly.  

We have to start somewhere is all.  I don't see a magic bullet, so good old lead will have to do.


[ Parent ]
Number are Optimistic, but good idea. (4.00 / 1)

In you 91M gmail users you seem to ignore the possibility that quite a few of them may not use the gmail web app.  You can use POP (or IMAP I believe) to get your gmail delivered to desktop mail apps like Outlook, Thunderbird, etc.

I still think it's a good idea though.

As for people talking about the 9% that think Obama's religion is "something else", I agree many probably go with the Agnostic/Athiest/Secular Humanist possibility.  I also suspect some people asnwer something else BECAUSE of the Reverend Wright story.  I can definitely see people hearing Wright's sermons and responding "That is not Christian Church".


I think you may be right r.e. the Wright sermons, (0.00 / 0)
but that means people are equating "religion" with identity and obviating thefacts at hand. Which I think goes to the core of the Obama-as-Muslim issue. I'm not sure facts are enough to counteract this stuff that isn't based in reason.
    But you can't lose with Google ad buys. They're so cheap and so easy to do, relatively speaking.  

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox