Spreading lies in a political election

Two political candidates are vying in an election, its a close election and small things could tip it either way to allow one or the other candidate to win. As part of their campaign, one of the candidates deliberately spreads rumours and lies about their opponent. These mistruths appear to be enough to gain victory once the count is done.

So, after the event their opponent goes to the courts to have the ballot overturned as their case says that without the lying they would have won the election.

So the questions are...

1. Should the ballot be held sacred regardless of what was said?

2. Should politicians be kicked out if they deliberately lie about their opponent to gain an advantage. Note, I don't mean the general party line (because we all know manifestos aren't worth the paper they are written on), but actually directly and unjustly attacking their opponents character?

Inspired by the news about Phil Woolas, who was found guilty of deliberately lying about his candidate and stripped of his seat in the Houses of Parliament, followed by being kicked out of the Labour party.

More on the story here.

I take it from the silence that this kind of thing happens all the time in America and everyone is blasé about it?

I don't know about all the time, but when you've got major papers, like the Boston Globe, involved in spreading these lies, it gets a lot harder to imagine how you'd police this sort of shit.


I'll grant this is a 20+ year story, but I find it illustrative, even today, because it's one of the very few times that a libel case was attempted against a major news medium, and which seemed to be successful. Edward J. King was running for the nomination for governor against the Globe's preferred candidate, Michael Dukakis. During the course of the primary campaign the Globe took pains to promote King in the most negative manner possible, even to the point of deliberately and from what I recall of the trial, knowingly printing falsehoods. After losing the election King sued the Globe for libel, seeking damages of $1. He won at trial, several years later. But by then the pudding was very cold, indeed. However, the case was overturned upon appeal, for reasons I've never understood. In the US, it's damned hard to prove libel, which is a very different thing from the UK's laws.

In my opinion this story is not unique for the libeling done by a major new outlet - it's unique for the wronged figure being stubborn enough, and pissed off enough, to actually be willing to pay for the circus that is a libel trial in the US, and that he actually had even a temporary victory.

Shit like that is one reason why so many people flocked to Fox News' claims of being fair and balanced. That I think that Faux News is even more likely to distort and lie to support their political ambitions doesn't change the fact that I trust most of the media about as far as I could throw Io.

For a more recent example I'd love to take you through the newspaper coverage, especially from the NY Times, over the past year and a half about our governor: David Paterson.

You've probably seen me venting about the mess that is my state government. There's a lot that's fucked up, and a lot of people involved in making it so.

Every story from the NY Times, however, would make sure to mention Paterson by name but only mention the rest of the legislature as a body. The implication being that the only person to blame for the budget mess was Paterson. Similarly, the utter humiliation that was Caroline Kennedy's attempt to get nominated to her uncle's former Senate seat was blamed on Paterson, because he did exactly what he said he was going to do, even before Kennedy started making noises about wanting the seat.

The reporting was accurate in what it was passing on, but the effect of the way that the information kept being repeated was designed to foster an inaccurate conclusion on the part of the electorate. And that's perfectly legal. If scummier than a defunct mill pond in July.

In the end Paterson screwed up by the numbers, and had to drop out of the running. (He was marginally involved in interfering with a domestic violence case involving one of his aides.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

I take it from the silence that this kind of thing happens all the time in America and everyone is blasé about it?

---

Not everyone is blasé, but when the media is involved in shilling the lies it gets much more difficult. People will listen to the things the media says that reinforce their preconceptions and disregard the things that challenge them. This is precisely why people talk about "the Ground Zero Mosque" as if it were an actual issue instead of a) not on Ground Zero and b) not a mosque. Coupling that with Loki's point about how hard libel is to prove in court here and the whole situation becomes hopeless.

Expanding on the media thing is the fact that in America, the politicians rarely say the lies themselves. They get some group not officially connected to their campaign to do it for them. That way they can have their cake and eat it, too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

So the questions are...

1. Should the ballot be held sacred regardless of what was said?

2. Should politicians be kicked out if they deliberately lie about their opponent to gain an advantage. Note, I don't mean the general party line (because we all know manifestos aren't worth the paper they are written on), but actually directly and unjustly attacking their opponents character?

---

1. In the US, yes, results should probably stand. Voters are well aware of the shennanigans surrounding electoral politics, and if they buy into some falsehoods and elect someone unscrupulous (which happens), it is their own damn fault. They can vote the creep out of office the next time, if they have misgivings. Plus, if the winner is THAT unethical, s/he will do something while in office that oversteps the bounds of rationality, and can be impeached.

2. A law to that effect would never work. Lies are usually more subtle than "he molests children in his basement while starving widows!" There is always either just enough truth to them that whether or not something is a "lie" is debatable. Also, the politician can say s/he honestly believed information later found to be false. If there is literal slander or libel involved, then it is up to the offended party to bring a civil suit.