Labeling is not there just to make things more organized. When you put a label on something, let’s say you call it “a conspiracy theory” automatically you are giving that thing a certain value (in this case you are lowering the impact and trustworthiness).
The information can have sources and it can be backed by facts, however, until it is publicly proven it remains a theory. And when something is a “theory” there is a space for skepticism. This, of course, is completely alright.
However, adding an adjective to the term “theory” like “conspiracy” or a “scientific” makes a whole lot of difference even if the information inside is all the same. What differs is the place people approach the information from.
With so much information all around us we don’t have time to research everything. So, we subconsciously sort out information based exactly on the value these labels give. So whenever we come across terms like “nutty”, “paranoid”, “pseudo” or “conspiracy” we immediately position ourselves to think we are “too smart to fall for it” without even giving it a little research.
What people call as research is visiting “Snopes” and looking for myths if they are debunked or true. “But what if the whole notion of the myth is itself a myth and you and “Snopes” have fell for it?” – Sharyl Attkisson
Watch the video below for more inside knowledge about astroturfing and manipulation of media messages funded by political, corporate, or other special interests spoken by veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson:
This website uses cookies.