Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

A mass experiment in altering political memories.

Posted by on May. 24, 2010 at 4:33 PM
  • 0 Replies

To test the effects of photographic editing on memory,Slate altered the content or context of five images. The first was a TV screen shot from President Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial, shown here. The original caption said: "This 12 February image taken from CNN television shows the vote count of the US Senate at the point of acquittal on the second vote of obstruction charges against US President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial." Because Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., had just cast the decisive 34th vote for acquittal, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who was next in the alphabetical roll call, was shown on the screen.


This is the second image we used. It's a photograph from the 2004 Cheney-Edwards debate. It was taken at a moment unrelated to the discussion of Vice President Cheney's daughter. Instead of altering the image, we misrepresented its context. Our false caption read: "During their televised debate, Vice President Dick Cheney rebukes Sen. John Edwards for bringing up the sexual orientation of Cheney's lesbian daughter. Moderator Gwen Ifill intervenes to remind the debaters of the ground rules."

Our corrected caption told the truth: "Ifill brought up Cheney's family connection to the issue of same-sex unions. Edwards then praised Cheney's treatment of his daughter, and Cheney thanked Edwards 'for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.'


This is the third image we used. It's a photograph of President Bush taken three weeks before Hurricane Katrina. The original caption read: "U.S. President George W. Bush (R) drives with [Colombian] President Alvaro Uribe at his ranch August 4, 2005 near Crawford, Texas."


Photograph by Rod Aydelotte/Getty Images.



We removed President Uribe from the Bush photo and substituted this 2005 picture of Roger Clemens …


Photograph by Al Messerschmidt/Getty Images.


 to create this composite image of Bush with Clemens. And we altered the date of the photo so that Bush appeared to be grinning and having a good time in the aftermath of the hurricane. Our false caption read: "Sept. 1, 2005: As parts of New Orleans lie underwater in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush entertains Houston Astros pitcher Roger Clemens at his ranch in Crawford, Texas."

Our corrected caption told the truth: "Bush left Crawford on Aug. 31, 2005, to oversee the Hurricane Katrina aftermath from the White House. He did not host Roger Clemens."







"

Here is the fourth image we used. It's a screen shot of a TV commercial made by the North Carolina Republican Party, shownhere.


Screen shot of ncgop.org commercial courtesy Huffington Post.


 to create this composite image of Obama with Ahmadinejad. Our false caption read: "April 20, 2009: President Obama, greeting heads of state at a United Nations conference, shakes the hand of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. White House aides say the encounter was unplanned and the handshake was a formality."

Our corrected caption told the truth: "Obama did not attend the April 2009 conference and did not shake Ahmadinejad's hand."

In 1984, George Orwell told the story of Winston Smith, an employee in the propaganda office of a totalitarian regime. Smith's job at the fictional Ministry of Truth was to destroy photographs and alter documents, remaking the past to fit the needs of the present. But 1984 came and went, along with Soviet communism. In the age of the Internet, nobody couldn't tamper with the past that way. Could they?

Yes, we can. In fact, last week, Slate did.

We took the Ministry of Truth as our model. Here's how Orwell described its work:

As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs—to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place.

Advertisement

Slate can't erase all records the way Orwell's ministry did. But with digital technology, we can doctor photographs more effectively than ever. And that's what we did in last week'sexperiment. We altered four images from recent political history, took a fifth out of context, and mixed them with three unadulterated scenes. We wanted to test the power of photographic editing to warp people's memories.

We aren't the first to try Orwell's idea on real people.Elizabeth Loftus, an experimental psychologist, has been tampering with memories in her laboratory for nearly 40 years. Photo doctoring is just one of many techniques she has tested. In an experiment published three years ago, she and two colleagues demonstrated that altered images of political protests in Italy and China influenced Italian students' descriptions of those incidents. We wanted to see whether similar tampering could work in the United States.

How Slate Edited History. Click image to launch slide show.We altered or fabricated five events: Sen. Joe Lieberman voting to convict President Clinton at his impeachment trial (Lieberman actually voted for acquittal); Vice President Cheney rebuking Sen. John Edwards in their debate for mentioning Cheney's lesbian daughter (in fact, Cheney thanked him); President Bush relaxing at his ranch with Roger Clemens during Hurricane Katrina (Bush was at the White House that day, and Clemens didn't visit the ranch); Hillary Clinton using Jeremiah Wright in a 2008 TV ad (she never did); and President Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (it never happened).

We mixed these fake incidents with three real ones: the 2000 Florida recount, Colin Powell's prewar assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and the 2005 congressional vote to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. Each reader who participated in the experiment was shown the three true incidents and one randomly selected fake incident. He was told that all four incidents were true and was asked, picture by picture, whether he remembered each one. At the end, he was informed that one of the four incidents was fake and was instructed to guess which one. (All subjects were eventually shown the truth about the fake photos. To see the original photos and how we doctored them, click here.)

So, how did our subjects do?

In the first three days the experiment was posted, 5,279 subjects participated. All of the true incidents outscored the false ones. Our subjects were more likely to remember seeing Powell's Iraq presentation (75 percent), Katherine Harris presiding over the Florida recount (67 percent), or Tom DeLay leading the congressional effort to save Schiavo (50 percent) than any of the five fake scenes.

But the fake images were effective. Through random distribution, each fabricated scene was viewed by a subsample of more than 1,000 people. Fifteen percent of the Bush subsample (those who were shown the composite photo of Bush with Clemens) said they remembered seeing that incident at the time. Fifteen percent of the Lieberman subsample (those who were shown the altered screen shot of his impeachment vote) said they had seen it. For Obama meeting Ahmadinejad, the number who remembered seeing it was 26 percent. For the Hillary Clinton ad, the number was 36 percent. For the Edwards-Cheney confrontation, it was 42 percent, just seven points shy of the percentage who remembered seeing the DeLay/Schiavo episode.

When we pooled these subjects with those who remembered the false events but didn't specifically remember seeing them, the numbers nearly doubled. For Bush, the percentage who remembered the false event was 31. For Lieberman, it was 41. For Obama, it was 47. For Cheney, it was 65. For Hillary Clinton, it was 68.

These figures match previous findings. In memory-implanting experiments, the average rate of false memories is about 30 percent. But when visual images are used to substantiate the bogus memory, the number can increase. Several years ago, researchers using doctored photos persuaded 10 of 20 college students that they hadgone up in hot-air balloons as children. Seeing is believing, even when what you're seeing is fabricated









Photograph by Steve Jaffe/AFP/Getty Images.



Screen shot courtesy CNN/AFP/Getty Images.



 


                


 




                                                         

by on May. 24, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies:
There are no replies to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)