[lbo-talk] Chemical Weapons found

[loupaulsen at attbi.com]

> 
> Two interesting conversations with office staffL one with a woman in word 
> processing, probably in her 30s, who was saying, You hear whjat they found? 
> I said, they planted it; I'd like to see if they let Blix and the UN look at 
> it. She sent me a CNN link. [...]
> I think 70% of the public will believe it even if it is retracted. 
> jks

The "hard science" behind all these stories is that no matter what the story 
actually says - suspected weapons were found, were not found, are still being 
looked for, might be there, HERE THEY ARE!, oops, no they aren't, etc etc etc 
etc etc., they all build up a cognitive association between "Iraq / Saddam 
Hussein" and "chemical weapons".  When you think of one, you think of the 
other.  

Even if each story mentioning a supposed 'find' is then followed by another 
story taking the first story back, this association gets built up.  Even if 
the reader reads all these stories, and the net information in the pile of 
stories is that 15 accusations were made but they were all proven to be lies, 
mistakes, unfounded, etc., the reader is left with the association and the 
belief that the weapons are there somewhere.  

There is a whole literature on this sort of thing.  These people are not 
fools.  The beauty part is that the journalists can say, "Well, you see the 
system works, we reported when the claims were made and we reported when they 
were disproved."  And yet the effect is there.  It's not easy to beat this.

LP