Misplaced Pages

#536463

61-401: A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character . Like negative campaigning , most often smear campaigns target government officials, politicians, political candidates, and other public figures. However, private persons or groups may also become targets of smear campaigns perpetrated in companies, institutions,

122-486: A Dorothy Dixer is a rehearsed or planted question asked of a government Minister by a backbencher of their own political party during Parliamentary Question Time . While intended to enable a Minister to discuss or address concerns about the subject asked of him, a Dixer will often conclude with "Is the Minister aware of any alternative policies?" This addition allows the Minister to launch into often aggressive attacks on

183-468: A conviction is more than 10 years old, the probative value of admitting the conviction must substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice under FRE 609(b). A party may impeach a witness for character by cross-examining the witness but not by introducing extrinsic evidence, about specific instances of prior misconduct, often called "prior bad acts," as long as the questions relate to the witness's own character for truthfulness (or untruthfulness) or to

244-502: A desirable action. They also facilitate the repositioning of originally favorable supporters to the ranks of the "undecided" or "uncommitted" voters. According to Thomas, character assassination is an intentional attempt, usually by a narcissist or their codependents , to influence the portrayal or reputation of someone in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative or unappealing perception of them. It typically involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts,

305-412: A limited purpose". Even more unlikely is the prospect that a juror who understands the instruction will be psychologically capable of obeying it. The only practical impact of this limited admissibility is that the evidence cannot be used to prop up a weak case that would otherwise be dismissed by the court for insufficient evidence, as it was admitted only for the impeachment of a witness. The general rule

366-462: A safe driver (no objection was made to the question), the opponent can now contradict by eliciting on cross-examination that the driver was involved in several accidents. Had contradiction impeachment not been permitted, the unsafe character of the witness would have been barred by the rules of evidence. Another example is more extreme. Suppose the defendant is on trial for possession of heroin . The defendant's testimony will naturally deny possessing

427-521: A specific individual or group. The target of the smear typically must focus on correcting the false information rather than on the original issue. Deflection has been described as a wrap-up smear : "You make up something. Then you have the press write about it. And then you say, everybody is writing about this charge". Political debate often abuses public confidence by one candidate attempting to sway voters, not by logical argument on given issues, but by personal diatribe that does not directly bear on

488-436: A subject of scholarly study, was originally introduced by Davis (1950) in a collection of essays revealing the dangers of political smear campaigns. Six decades later Icks and Shiraev (2014) rejuvenated the term and revived academic interest by addressing and comparing a variety of historical character assassination events. Icks and Shiraev (2014) address several political science models to explain character assassination from

549-405: A trivial ("collateral") fact like the color of the hat worn on the day she witnessed the accident, but on more important matters normally excluded by the rules of relevance, contradiction may be allowed. Thus, a witness might not normally be permitted to testify being a safe driver and the opponent cannot normally prove that the driver is unsafe, but if the witness nonetheless happens to testify being

610-449: A witness in order to impeach that witness based on demonstration of bias . Witness bias may be catalyzed by any number of circumstances, ranging from the witness's blood relationship to a party to his financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. Most US jurisdictions require a cross-examiner to lay a foundation before extrinsic evidence can be used to demonstrate bias for impeachment purposes. Although Rule 610 provides that evidence of

671-454: A witness's "religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness's credibility," an inquiry into the witness's religious beliefs or opinions for the purpose of showing interest or bias because of them is not within the rule's prohibition. If a witness is accused of bias, and there is an opportunity to cross-examine during the current trial, any statements made at a previous trial/hearing and which are consistent with

SECTION 10

#1733086307537

732-489: A witness. The witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (such as he could not see from where he was), or he lacked the requisite mental capacity. Older common law would exclude an incompetent witness from testifying. Modern rules, such as the Federal Rules of Evidence , allow the witness on the stand (in most cases) to consider competence as one of many factors that juries are to consider to determine credibility of

793-468: Is a type of journalism that presents little well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines, scandal-mongering and sensationalism . For example, during Gary Hart 's 1988 presidential campaign (see below), the New York Post reported on its front page big, black block letters: "GARY: I'M NO WOMANIZER." Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question and onto

854-460: Is admissible for impeachment purposes regardless of whether the crime was a misdemeanor or a felony . If the witness's prior conviction was for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement, evidence of the conviction is admissible for impeachment only for felonies; misdemeanors are inadmissible. Furthermore, if the cross-examining party seeks to introduce evidence of a felony not involving dishonesty or false statement, its success in impeaching

915-506: Is admissible regardless of whether it satisfies those requirements. The cross-examining attorney need not disclose or show the contents of a prior inconsistent statement to a witness prior to the moment he is questioned. If the witness's attorney asks to see the prior inconsistent statement, however, the questioning attorney must show or disclose its contents. The majority of US jurisdictions permit parties to impeach witnesses by demonstrating their "bad" character regarding truthfulness. Under

976-456: Is held in discredit if the underlying premise is found, "So severely in error that there is cause to remove the argument from the proceedings because of its prejudicial context and application...". Mistrial proceedings in civil and criminal courts do not always require that an argument brought by defense or prosecution be discredited, however appellate courts must consider the context and may discredit testimony as perjurious or prejudicial, even if

1037-410: Is left with two pretrial statements that are inconsistent with each other, but only one is inconsistent with the testimony, and both were made before the witness was allegedly gotten to. Thus, there might be softening of the accusation that the testimony flows from such as a bribe. Also, there is always a case for allowing a prior consistent statement made at any time before trial to help explain away what

1098-402: Is that the proponent of a witness may not attempt to build up the witness's credibility prior to being impeached. The rationale is that the witness is presumed trustworthy. It also speeds proceedings by not spending time bolstering when the other side may not even impeach the witness. To rehabilitate a witness, the proponent is confined to using the same techniques used by the opponent to impeach

1159-548: The University of Amsterdam , the CARP team focuses efforts along three main dimensions: research on historical and contemporary examples of character assassination; education for academic and public audiences about character assassination causes, impacts and prevention; and risk assessment to determine vulnerabilities and mitigation strategies for public figures concerned about their reputations. The Mason CARP website features materials about

1220-514: The law of evidence of the United States , is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial . The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts . Under the common law of England , a party could not impeach its own witness unless one of four special circumstances was met. The Voucher Rule required the proponent of

1281-809: The 1856 presidential election, John C. Frémont was the target of a smear campaign alleging that he was a Catholic . The campaign was designed to undermine support for Fremont from those who were suspicious of Catholics . Ralph Nader was the victim of a smear campaign during the 1960s, when he was campaigning for car safety. In order to smear Nader and deflect public attention from his campaign, General Motors engaged private investigators to search for damaging or embarrassing incidents from his past. In early March 1966, several media outlets, including The New Republic and The New York Times , reported that GM had tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations. Nader sued

SECTION 20

#1733086307537

1342-516: The 1988 US presidential campaign. The New York Post once reported on its front page big, black block letters: "GARY: I'M NO WOMANIZER." In 2011, China launched a smear campaign against Apple , including TV and radio advertisements and articles in state-run papers. The campaign failed to turn the Chinese public against the company and its products. Spiritual leader Sathya Sai Baba was accused of fraud, sexual abuse and other misconduct. Baba described

1403-712: The CARP 2017 conference "Character Assassination in Theory and Practice" can be found on the Mason website. The CARP 2019 conference "Character Assassination and Populism: Challenges and Responses" featured critical input from practitioners in crisis management, journalism, and public relations. The event attracted scholars from twenty countries around the world. In 2019, the CARP Lab published its first handbook titled "Routledge Handbook of Character Assassination and Reputation Management". Witness impeachment Witness impeachment , in

1464-511: The Federal Rules a party may demonstrate that by reputation or opinion testimony. That is, a witness's credibility cannot be bolstered, only impeached. Additionally, a party may impeach a witness for "bad" character by introducing evidence of the witness's prior conviction of a crime, subject to a series of rules laid out in 609(a). If the witness's prior conviction was for a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, evidence of that crime

1525-551: The ISGAP founder Charles A. Small also collaborated with Dr. Ali Al Nuaimi, member of the UAE Federal National Council in an ISGAP-Oxford summer Institute for Curriculum Development. Character assassination Character assassination ( CA ) is a deliberate and sustained effort to damage the reputation or credibility of an individual. The phrase "character assassination" became popular around 1930. This concept, as

1586-538: The Study of Character Assassination (ISSCA) specializes in the academic study and research of how character attacks and character assassinations have been executed in both history and during contemporary times. In July 2011, scholars from nine countries gathered at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, to debate "the art of smear and defamation in history and today". They formed a group to study character assassination throughout

1647-527: The Supreme Court of the United States , supporters claimed that both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were victims of character assassination. The effect of a character assassination driven by an individual is not equal to that of a state-driven campaign. The state-sponsored destruction of reputations, fostered by political propaganda and cultural mechanisms, can have more far-reaching consequences. One of

1708-509: The ages. The group included historians, political scientists, and political psychologists. Founded in 2016 in cooperation with the ISSCA, the Research Lab for Character Assassination and Reputation Politics (CARP) includes scholars with disciplinary homes in psychology, history, communication and public relations. With investigators from George Mason University , the University of Baltimore , and

1769-534: The allegations as a "smear campaign". He never faced any investigation and the critics were criticized for lacking any proof against him. The allegations against Julian Assange have been labelled by Australian journalist John Pilger as a smear campaign. Chris Bryant , a British parliamentarian, accused Russia in 2012 of orchestrating a smear campaign against him because of his criticism of Vladimir Putin . In 2017 he alleged that other British officials are vulnerable to Russian smear campaigns. In January 2007, it

1830-607: The assertion that Cleveland's party was that of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" (the latter two referring to Roman Catholicism and the American Civil War ). Cleveland's campaign also used the slogan, "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, The Continental Liar from the State of Maine" in reference to Blaine's discredited railroad deals. Discrediting tactics are not just used against each other by opponents for office in democratic countries, but are also used in wartime between countries. In

1891-464: The attacker's point of view. They believe that the attacker's motivation is often based on the intent to destroy the target psychologically, or to reduce their public support or chances to succeed in a political competition. For example, during elections, attacks are often used to sway undecided voters, create uncertainty with tentative voters, or prevent defections of supporters. These attacks therefore become an effective means of manipulating voters toward

Smear campaign - Misplaced Pages Continue

1952-572: The character for untruthfulness of a previous witness that the current witness has testified about before. Under California Evidence Code Section 787, a party may not use either cross-examination or extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness by showing specific instances of prior misconduct in civil cases. Proposition 8 , the Victims Bill of Rights passed by in 1982, permits parties to use both cross-examination and extrinsic evidence about specific instances of prior misconduct in criminal cases to impeach

2013-456: The company for invasion of privacy and settled the case for $ 284,000. Nader's lawsuit against GM was ultimately decided by the New York Court of Appeals , whose opinion in the case expanded tort law to cover "overzealous surveillance." Nader used the proceeds from the lawsuit to start the pro-consumer Center for Study of Responsive Law. Gary Hart was the target of a smear campaign during

2074-438: The confession was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. Harris , in turn, led to a decision allowing similar impeachment by physical evidence that had been suppressed in the same case as having been seized from defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Impeachment by contradiction evidence is admitted solely to impeach: it cannot be used to prove anything about the events being litigated but only to discredit

2135-491: The contradicting evidence because the second attorney already had only one chance to prove the facts of the case as claimed. Since his opponent put on a witness, that "opens the door" to strengthen the case by going again with more proof of what happened: the only legal excuse for the rehash of the claim is impeaching by contradiction his opponent's witness. Another use of impeachment by contradiction can be explained negatively. An attorney cannot contradict an opponent's witness on

2196-428: The defendant, the evidence of the prior felony conviction for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement is admissible unless the party objecting to the evidence succeeds in the more difficult task of proving that the probative value of the felony conviction is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The probative value must substantially outweigh unfair prejudice. Finally, if

2257-404: The earliest signs of a society's compliance to loosening the reins on the perpetration of crimes (and even massacres) with total impunity is when a government favors or directly encourages a campaign aimed at destroying the dignity and reputation of its adversaries, and the public accepts its allegations without question. The mobilisation toward ruining the reputation of adversaries is the prelude to

2318-442: The form of unverifiable rumors and distortions , half-truths , or even outright lies ; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip magazines . Even when the facts behind a smear campaign are demonstrated to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before the truth is known. Smear campaigns can also be used as a campaign tactic associated with tabloid journalism , which

2379-539: The lab and its activities. The CARP Lab additionally publishes a blog and is affiliated with the Global Informality Project, a leading online resource for the world's open secrets, unwritten rules and hidden practices, broadly defined as "ways of getting things done." In 2017 and 2019, CARP hosted two international conferences that welcomed numerous U.S. and international researchers and academics studying different aspects of CA. The proceedings and report of

2440-475: The legal system, and other formal groups. Discrediting tactics are used to discourage people from believing in the figure or supporting their cause, such as the use of damaging quotations . Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual with the aim of undermining their credibility. Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in

2501-685: The matter at hand. Accusations of adultery in America date back to the 19th century. One famous example of this was the 1884 presidential campaign , in which Grover Cleveland 's opponents accused him of having fathered an illegitimate child. A political catchphrase by his opponents was "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" After Cleveland was elected, his supporters mockingly added, "Gone to the White House , ha, ha, ha." Cleveland's defeat of his chief opponent, James G. Blaine , may have been helped by another discrediting tactic used against him which seriously backfired, namely

Smear campaign - Misplaced Pages Continue

2562-405: The middle of the 20th century, Soviet and British propaganda made popular the idea that Adolf Hitler had only one testicle (and was thereby less of a man). American politics draws a line between "mud slinging" and defamation . The key issue is that mud slinging is not a form of perjury or libel . Politics also can include barratry where one opponent files frivolous litigation against

2623-573: The mobilisation of violence in order to annihilate them. Generally, official dehumanisation has preceded the physical assault of the victims. Specific examples include Zersetzung , by the Stasi secret service agency of East Germany , and kompromat in Russia. It was also prevalent during the Red Scare in the United States, being carried out by both the government and the media. The International Society for

2684-411: The opponent shows that the witness made a prior inconsistent statement and implies that after that statement and prior to trial the witness was "gotten to" or otherwise developed a motive to lie in court, rehabilitation can be attempted by showing that the witness made a prior consistent statement (consistent with the testimony) before the alleged events that gave rise to the alleged motive to lie. The jury

2745-506: The opposition, which depending on the leeway offered by the Speaker (who is a member of the ruling party and thus will usually side with the Minister), can include not just attacks on Opposition policy, but attempts to character assassinate opposition members directly. Charging an opponent with character assassination may have political benefits. In the hearings for Clarence Thomas' nomination to

2806-432: The order in which the attorneys present their evidence. When a defense attorney calls a witness who testifies about what happened, or plaintiff's attorney or a prosecutor calls a witness in rebuttal, that gives the opposing attorney the opportunity to present evidence contradicting that witness. Had impeachment by contradiction not been allowed by the rules of evidence, the second attorney would have been barred from presenting

2867-552: The other, specifically to injure the opponent's reputation even though the case is groundless and may later be dismissed. By the time these facts can come to light, the voters have cast their ballots. In the U.S. judicial system, discrediting tactics (called witness impeachment ) are the approved method for attacking the credibility of any witness in court, including a plaintiff or defendant . In cases with significant mass media attention or high-stakes outcomes, those tactics often take place in public as well. Logically, an argument

2928-419: The particular drug. Suppose the defendant foolishly testifies on direct examination, "In fact, I've never possessed heroin in my life." The prosecutor can then, on cross-examination, impeach him with an exhibit of heroin seized on an unrelated occasion even if it was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Walder decision led to a ruling that a defendant can be impeached by his confession even if

2989-542: The spreading of rumours and deliberate misinformation to present an untrue picture of the targeted person, and unwarranted and excessive criticism. The authors of the book Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work describe a five phase model of how a typical workplace psychopath climbs to and maintains power . In phase four (confrontation), the psychopath will use techniques of character assassination to maintain their agenda. In Australian politics ,

3050-623: The state of human rights." In 2023, New Yorker reported that Mohamed bin Zayed was paying millions of euros to a Swiss firm, Alp Services for orchestrating a smear campaign to defame the Emirati targets, including Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. Under the ‘dark PR’, Alp posted false and defamatory Misplaced Pages entries against them. The Emirates also paid the Swiss firm to publish propaganda articles against

3111-587: The statement is technically true. Smear campaigns are considered by many to be a low, disingenuous form of discourse; they have been identified as a common weapon of psychopaths , borderlines , and narcissists . In many countries, the law recognizes the value of reputation and credibility. Both libel (a false and damaging publication) and slander (a false and damaging oral statement) are often punishable by law and may result in imprisonment or compensation or fees for damages done. Smear tactics are commonly used to undermine effective arguments or critiques. During

SECTION 50

#1733086307537

3172-574: The targets. Multiple meetings took place between the Alp Services head Mario Brero and an Emirati official, Matar Humaid al-Neyadi. However, Alp’s bills were sent directly to MbZ. The defamation campaign also targeted an American, Hazim Nada, and his firm, Lord Energy, because his father Youssef Nada had joined the Muslim Brotherhood as a teenager. Amid the Gaza war, the US-based Jewish think tank ISGAP

3233-501: The testimony at the present trial are admissible, not hearsay. A party may impeach a witness by introducing those of his prior statements that are inconsistent with his current testimony at trial. In a minority of jurisdictions that follow FRE 801, the prior inconsistent statement may be used not only to impeach but also as substantive evidence. A prior inconsistent statement is admissible as substantive evidence if A prior inconsistent statement offered solely for impeachment purposes

3294-515: The witness to "vouch" for the truthfulness of the witness. Here are the special circumstances: The rule has been eliminated in many jurisdictions. Under the US Federal Rules of Evidence , Rule 607 permits any party to attack the credibility of any witness. In the US, a party has the option of discrediting a witness through impeachment by cross-examining the witness about facts that reflect poorly on

3355-402: The witness will depend on whether the witness is the defendant or not. If the witness is defendant, the burden is on the prosecution to show that the probative value of the impeachment (demonstrating the defendant witness's propensity to lie) outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The probative value must merely outweigh unfair prejudice. If the witness is a person other than

3416-449: The witness's credibility or, in some cases, by introducing extrinsic evidence that reflects negatively on the witness's truthfulness or knowledge. In Pennsylvania, the procedure for determining whether a testifying defendant may be impeached is known as a Bighum hearing. A party may impeach a witness in the US by introducing evidence of any of the following (remembered via the mnemonic BICCC ): Courts permit parties to cross-examine

3477-509: The witness's credibility. The theory is that when a witness can be contradicted, it should be taken into account in determining the reliability of the witness so the jury is instructed by the judge not to use the impeachment evidence as proof of any facts but only to consider whether the witness in question should be believed. All experienced courtroom observers, however, agree that jurors will have great difficulty understanding that distinction, known as "limited admissibility" or "admissibility for

3538-405: The witness. The witness is induced to contradict their own testimony during the present proceeding. That differs from inconsistent statements above. Inconsistent statements involve statements made out-of-court ( hearsay ) or in prior proceedings. Contradiction involves the witness saying two different things in the same testimony. Another form of impeachment by contradiction has a subtle effect on

3599-462: The witness. That is, if the opponent impeached via bias, rehabilitation is limited to negating the claim of bias. If the opponent brought in a rebuttal witness who testified to the character of principal witness as that of a liar, rehabilitation is limited to a character witness who testifies principal witness is a truthful person. That is a different consideration from the ever-present right to cross-examine any witness, including character witnesses. If

3660-441: Was noted running a smear campaign against Qatar through, its media campaigns. ISGAP’s links with UAE-based think tank TRENDS Research & Advisory showed that UAE was behind the campaign. Their primary objective was to prove Qatar as a sponsor of terrorism. ISGAP & Trends RA held joint conferences, where ISGAP’s Interim Managing Director Haras Rafiq collaborated with Awadh Al Breiki, Chief Global Officer at TRENDS RA. Furthermore,

3721-612: Was revealed that an anonymous website that attacked critics of Overstock.com , including media figures and private citizens on message boards, was operated by an official of Overstock.com. Countries, particularly those outside the Western hemisphere, have accused Western powers of smear campaigns to bring down their governments. Gambia accused the United States and Britain of backing "so-called Gambians to set up organisations and media facilities to spread nothing but lies against The Gambia by making false, outrageous and unfounded statements about

SECTION 60

#1733086307537
#536463