Can a nation survive half-fact and half-fiction?

You can throw a rock in any direction and hit one of the many fictions that are now woven into our political landscape.

For days, we were inundated with theories — lies — about the whereabouts of Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, who was in bed with the flu. The theories spread widely but then began falling apart from lack of … you know … truth.

In her terrific piece on the mess, Parker Molloy detailed what came next.

By Monday, October 12, mainstream media outlets were all over the story about the conspiracy theories, declaring that they had backfired on the people spreading them. CNN’s Aaron Blake called it “the latest to blow up in MAGA’s face.” The Nation went with “Elon Musk’s James Talarico Smear Blew Up In His Face.” NBC News: “Republican attempts to trip up James Talarico keep backfiring.”

But… did this backfire? Or did it serve its purpose in the current information environment? I think it’s too early to say that this was a net negative for the conspiracy theorists and Republican operatives pushing it. I don’t think the people spreading the rumors cared whether or not they were true. I think they just wanted to spread a lie that people could believe. Yes, these were lies. Yes, the people spreading the lies knew they were spreading something baseless. But because enough big names were spreading it, major media outlets needed to cover it, even if just to debunk it. To no one’s surprise, one of the people spreading the rumors was Elon Musk, owner of X, the richest person in the world, and the top Republican donor. That’s a problem.

It doesn’t matter if mainstream coverage debunks the lies. Mission accomplished: The lies are center stage, Molloy points out:

In September 2024, I wrote about how Trump’s lies shape the news cycle, and I leaned on Jamison Foser’s point that one common way of covering a lie “privileges the lie,” keeping the liar’s preferred subject at the center of the conversation even while calling it false. This is a good example of that in action.

As the dust slowly clears, the political analysts show up. Molloy writes:

The Times, meanwhile, decided the episode “offered a lesson for Democrats: In such an era, it is politically risky for a candidate, even one too ill to campaign, to disappear for nine days.” Fox News drew the same lesson, louder. “The bigger story may be why his campaign sat on the evidence while the conspiracy theory exploded across social media for days,” its politics account posted on Tuesday, to more than 3 million views.

Maybe it’s just me (well, actually not, since Molloy makes the same point), but I think when you suggest the victim of the lie should have been better prepared, you’re focused on the wrong thing.

It’s moments like this when journalists should perhaps consider their culpability in a politics in which lying is a successful strategy. And we all should wonder about a technology foundation in which lying is a successful business strategy.

When we view public lies and hate speech merely as effective political and business strategy — not moral failure — we’ve given up our ability to build communities in which all of us can thrive. In a post-truth world, it’s hard to believe that anyone but the best liars thrive.

The Guardian: Anatomy of a lie: how misinformation is spreading through US midterm campaigns