Salon Newsreal | The anatomy of a virtual conspiracy

T A B L E+T A L K
Friends and members of much-maligned "trailer trash" lash out at media stereotypes in the Social Issues area of Table Talk

D A I L Y+Q U O T E
Pages 690-732 of "Ulysses": "Unmitigated filth and obscenity"

R E C E N T L Y
A country amok
By Jonathan Broder
Indonesia is past the point of peaceful change
(05/15/98)
"A weapon so powerful, it will destroy the world"
By Sarita Sarvate
The nation of Buddha, the Veddas and Mahatma Gandhi wants to be a nuclear gian
(05/15/98)
Indian roulette
By Jonathan Broder
The world's largest democracy goes nuclear, and gambles that it can survive the sanctions coming down on its head
(05/14/98)
A Starr cannot be extinguished
By David Everett
Salon uncovers a letter written by the independent counsel detailing the progress of his investigation into 93-year-old Hillary Clinton
(05/13/98)
Gloves off
By Jonathan Broder
The fight over the Middle East peace process could get ugly
(05/12/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

The anatomy of a virtual conspiracy
news image
UNABLE TO DEFEAT HIM AT THE POLLS, PRESIDENT CLINTON'S FOES USE THE PRESS TO SPREAD RUMORS, ALLEGATIONS, SPECULATIONS AND LIES.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BY PETER J. OGNIBENE
The first lady is right, as Salon and others have suggested: There is a conspiracy to bring down President Clinton. But this is no ordinary conspiracy. Not a tiny cabal like the one that met in Mary Surratt's boardinghouse to plot the assassination of Abraham Lincoln nor the scenario of a wigged-out novelist or film director. It is something quite different -- indeed, unprecedented in our history -- a "virtual conspiracy."
In a traditional conspiracy, individuals come together one at a time, each carefully testing the others, until all are in accord on tactics and target. Secrecy is essential. When they finally move, they do so swiftly. All is won or lost in a single act. In feudal societies, if the group deposed the king and his barons, his realm and their lands passed to the chief conspirator and his vassals. Conspirators who failed paid with their heads.
A virtual conspiracy has the same objective -- to depose a leader -- but the means are different. A virtual conspiracy starts in the open and requires publicity to flourish and gain adherents. Virtual conspirators test-fly stratagems, tactics and rumors. They do not meet in secret until they have discerned what will advance their undertaking and what will not. Moreover, by making their initial moves in the open, they attract others to their cause and to one another.
Instantaneous communication is critical to a virtual conspiracy. So, too, is freedom of expression. Though there are laws against making false accusations, virtual conspirators who channel charges, allegations and rumors through the press or spread them on the Internet gain the protection of the First Amendment. Most thrusts fail, but some wound, making the hated target more vulnerable the next time around.
Sound far-fetched? Consider:

Did the president or first lady have a hand in the death of Vincent Foster? A virtual conspirator couldn't care less if there's any basis to ask the question. The objective is to get the media to float the idea of the Clintons as murderers, see if it resonates with the public and then hope that someone will come forth with proof. The evidence indicates Foster committed suicide.
Did the president lurk in the back of a limousine and sneak out of the White House for sexual trysts at the local Marriott? There was no reason to believe he did, but that didn't stop an author from scripting the scenario -- and his publisher from promoting it -- to push the book toward bestseller status.
Did the Clinton administration allocate grave sites at Arlington National Cemetery for political supporters? The far right jumped with righteous glee on that one because it sounded too good not to be true. And who knows? A sergeant in Graves Registration might have stepped forward with a treasure trove of documents and transmuted the brass of speculation into the gold of truth. No one did.
Did Clinton rape a woman in Arkansas when he was attorney general in his home state? His opponents recently leaked that tale, which the press printed, even though the alleged victim denied such an attack ever took place.

Four provocative questions, each answered in the negative, yet each somehow wormed its way into "the news." How did these fabrications gain such wide dissemination? Who peddled them to the press? Of course, the reporters in the best position to answer have sources to protect.
Here, then, is the wonderful thing about being a virtual conspirator: You can spread rumors, speculation and lies against your enemy and not be called to account. The reporter you conned into retailing a falsehood may cuss you out, but that reporter is not going to expose you. The president you've maligned won't sue because he's already so heavily in debt to his lawyers. Moreover, as a public figure, he would need to demonstrate actual malice to win a judgment -- assuming his attorneys could determine who to sue in the first place. Besides, an angry denial generates yet more coverage of the charge itself.
N E X T+P A G E+| When all else fails, bring out the "money and sex strategy"

T A B L E+T A L K Friends and members of much-maligned "trailer trash" lash out at media stereotypes in the Social Issues area of Table Talk D A I L Y+Q U O T E Pages 690-732 of "Ulysses": "Unmitigated filth and obscenity" R E C E N T L Y A country amok By Jonathan Broder Indonesia is past the point of peaceful change (05/15/98) "A weapon so powerful, it will destroy the world" By Sarita Sarvate The nation of Buddha, the Veddas and Mahatma Gandhi wants to be a nuclear gian (05/15/98) Indian roulette By Jonathan Broder The world's largest democracy goes nuclear, and gambles that it can survive the sanctions coming down on its head (05/14/98) A Starr cannot be extinguished By David Everett Salon uncovers a letter written by the independent counsel detailing the progress of his investigation into 93-year-old Hillary Clinton (05/13/98) Gloves off By Jonathan Broder The fight over the Middle East peace process could get ugly (05/12/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		The anatomy of a virtual conspiracy UNABLE TO DEFEAT HIM AT THE POLLS, PRESIDENT CLINTON'S FOES USE THE PRESS TO SPREAD RUMORS, ALLEGATIONS, SPECULATIONS AND LIES. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BY PETER J. OGNIBENE The first lady is right, as Salon and others have suggested: There is a conspiracy to bring down President Clinton. But this is no ordinary conspiracy. Not a tiny cabal like the one that met in Mary Surratt's boardinghouse to plot the assassination of Abraham Lincoln nor the scenario of a wigged-out novelist or film director. It is something quite different -- indeed, unprecedented in our history -- a "virtual conspiracy." In a traditional conspiracy, individuals come together one at a time, each carefully testing the others, until all are in accord on tactics and target. Secrecy is essential. When they finally move, they do so swiftly. All is won or lost in a single act. In feudal societies, if the group deposed the king and his barons, his realm and their lands passed to the chief conspirator and his vassals. Conspirators who failed paid with their heads. A virtual conspiracy has the same objective -- to depose a leader -- but the means are different. A virtual conspiracy starts in the open and requires publicity to flourish and gain adherents. Virtual conspirators test-fly stratagems, tactics and rumors. They do not meet in secret until they have discerned what will advance their undertaking and what will not. Moreover, by making their initial moves in the open, they attract others to their cause and to one another. Instantaneous communication is critical to a virtual conspiracy. So, too, is freedom of expression. Though there are laws against making false accusations, virtual conspirators who channel charges, allegations and rumors through the press or spread them on the Internet gain the protection of the First Amendment. Most thrusts fail, but some wound, making the hated target more vulnerable the next time around. Sound far-fetched? Consider: Did the president or first lady have a hand in the death of Vincent Foster? A virtual conspirator couldn't care less if there's any basis to ask the question. The objective is to get the media to float the idea of the Clintons as murderers, see if it resonates with the public and then hope that someone will come forth with proof. The evidence indicates Foster committed suicide. Did the president lurk in the back of a limousine and sneak out of the White House for sexual trysts at the local Marriott? There was no reason to believe he did, but that didn't stop an author from scripting the scenario -- and his publisher from promoting it -- to push the book toward bestseller status. Did the Clinton administration allocate grave sites at Arlington National Cemetery for political supporters? The far right jumped with righteous glee on that one because it sounded too good not to be true. And who knows? A sergeant in Graves Registration might have stepped forward with a treasure trove of documents and transmuted the brass of speculation into the gold of truth. No one did. Did Clinton rape a woman in Arkansas when he was attorney general in his home state? His opponents recently leaked that tale, which the press printed, even though the alleged victim denied such an attack ever took place. Four provocative questions, each answered in the negative, yet each somehow wormed its way into "the news." How did these fabrications gain such wide dissemination? Who peddled them to the press? Of course, the reporters in the best position to answer have sources to protect. Here, then, is the wonderful thing about being a virtual conspirator: You can spread rumors, speculation and lies against your enemy and not be called to account. The reporter you conned into retailing a falsehood may cuss you out, but that reporter is not going to expose you. The president you've maligned won't sue because he's already so heavily in debt to his lawyers. Moreover, as a public figure, he would need to demonstrate actual malice to win a judgment -- assuming his attorneys could determine who to sue in the first place. Besides, an angry denial generates yet more coverage of the charge itself. N E X T+P A G E+\| When all else fails, bring out the "money and sex strategy"