The Atlantic Ghost Boat and Donald Trump
Last week, The Atlantic posted a story claiming Donald Trump called soldiers killed in action “losers” and “suckers.”
The story referenced four unnamed sources who wanted to remain anonymous to avoid online harassment from Trump supporters.
Maybe the story is true. Maybe the story is false. The substance of the story is less important, however, then how the story functions in the election cycle.
The piece marked a turning point in politics from the age of the “Swift Boat” attack to the era of the “Ghost Boat.” In the Swift Boat era, PACs with undisclosed funders paid for attack ads using sourced information or testimony.
In the Ghost Boat era, national media corporations with “arms-length” ownership (who are generally major political donors) run unsourced stories that act as content for future attack ads.
The political gamesmanship is no longer about who can dig up the most scandalous opposition research but who can run the best PsyOp by telling the best lie.
Ghost Boat narratives will attack a candidate’s strength, sound believable, and invoke powerful imagery. The best Ghost Boat narratives will produce such a strong cognitive response when heard by voters that they act as if under a sort of spell. The mere thought of the story acts to lower support for a candidate, even if the attack is not believed.
The rise of AI-enabled message development is going to make the creation of such attacks easier and more potent as each year passes.
The Ghost Boat tactic is not new and does not stand alone. Political rumors are as old as politics, but for a century, a “neutral” media kept rumors from running elections.
The national media incentive structure, however, is now perverted.
First, “truth” or “accuracy” are no longer value propositions as they cannot be monetized outside of the trade or specialty media. Attention is the marquee value, and the heavy hitters focus mostly on what generates clicks and views.
Second, national news media is fast becoming a monoculture of urban progressivism where “activism” is a prized value. Many see Donald Trump as an existential threat to the country where any action is justified if it leads to his defeat or removal.
If you believe Donald Trump is a mad dictator capable of violent atrocities and ruinous incompetence, what actions should be left off the table? In such a Flight 93 situation, publishing and promoting a hearsay story about insulting remarks by Trump is an easy Rubicon to cross.
The problem for America in 2020 is that both sides have bought into their own radical rhetoric. Both sides have embraced the Flight 93 ethos. Millions of Americans now actually believe their lives and livelihoods hang in the outcome of the election, including many of those in the media.
In such an environment, there is no incentive for truth. Only the deepest incentive of doing whatever it takes to survive.
