The Media and Public Acceptance of Conspiracy Theories: The Case of 9/11
Conspiracy theories of major sociopolitical events abound. The September 11 tragedy is no exception — indeed, it may be the textbook case. Who believes in conspiracy theories of the September 11 attacks, and where did they get these ideas?
Those are the questions that motivated Carl Stempel, Thomas Hargrove, and Guido Stempel III’s study of “Media Use, Social Structure, and Belief in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” (Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Summer 2007).
The study drew on two theoretical perspectives. According to the “paranoid style” theory, “conspiratorial thinking is more prevalent among members of marginalized … or declining groups for reasons of insularity, status insecurities or declining status, powerlessness, and weak communal ties.” Moreover, “less legitimate and less regulated media sources, such as tabloids, Internet blogs [Now hold on a minute! “The Monkey Cage” is an extremely legitimate source!], and radio talk shows” play a major role in creating and spreading conspiracy beliefs,but “establishment’ media have no such impact.
The “cultural sociology” theory places greater emphasis on the rational aspects of conspiracy thinking. “In this view the media do not promote conspiracy theories so much by circulating particular rumors and conspiracies, as by raising people’s awareness and cynicism about how much goes on in the backstages of governmental and corporate power.” This perspective implies that belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories shouldn’t be restricted to a small group of social and cultural isolates; rather, it should be “aligned with mainstream political divisons and the discourses built up around those divisions.” Thus, for example, Democrats might be more accepting of 9/11 conspiracy theories “because they fit their view that influential members of the Bush administration were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq.”
Overall, 36% of the members of the national sample for his study considered it at least somewhat likely that “People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.” 12% went so far as to consider it somewhat or very likely that “The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner but instead was hit by a cruise missile fired by the millitary.” And 16% thought it somewhat or very likely that “The collapse of the Twin Towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planed in the two buildings.”
Whereas readers of daily newspapers were less likely to consider the first of those three scenarios likely, getting news from blogs and tabloids was positively associated with conspiratorial thinking; blogs were the only news source related to believing in that U.S. forces had bombed the Pentagon; and both blog and tabloid readers were more likely to accept the idea that bombs had been planted in the World Trade Center. In terms of social characteristics, believers of all three conspiracy ideas were, as expected, more likely to be members of less powerful social groups or categories.
These findings wee consistent with predictions based on both of the theories from which the authors drew their research hypotheses, suggesting that acceptance of conspiracy theories of September 11 ican be understood in ways that are consistent with two broad perspectives on social structuring and media use.
These results are provocative, but it remains an open question whether Stempel et al. have really isolated a causal relationship in which certain social factors —-> media use patterns —-> acceptance of conspiracy theories. The obvious fly in the ointment is that of self-selection. That is, an assumption underlying the “paranoid style” and “cultural sociology” theories was that reading certain types of material fosters certain types of beliefs. It could well be, though, that holding certain types of beliefs leads people to read certain types of material. Although untangling that causal knot is a task well beyond the capacity of a cross-sectional survey, the findings presented in this study could provide a good starting point for experimental research that can speak more directly to the issue of causality.
Comments
Everything you mention could be explained by the breakdown of the educational system: people who are ignorant have lower socioeconomic prospects and are more likely to read tabloids and are more likely to be gulled by the conspiracy theories despite their obvious logical flaws.
A more interesting theory, to me anyway, is that some of the conspiracy thinking comes from the left's thinking that big government is competent and effective: if you believe this then there are no "intelligence failures" and everything happens on purpose. To these people the fact that the government could theoretically have stopped 9/11 but didn't is proof that the government either allowed or caused 9/11. The study of big government, and of intelligence agencies, is often the study of blundering incompetence but accepting this is difficult for people who propose bigger and more powerful government as the solution to all our problems.
Posted by: Robert L. | April 7, 2008 01:03 PM
I'm afraid that I have to count myself among the 36% who found it at least somewhat likely that "People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East".
The inaction regarding the PDB of Aug 2001, Rice's cocky representation of it, and the Iraq war plans that were underway pre 9/11 do put me in this category.
From a purely conspiratorial reference point, the WTC-7 "pull" still bugs me. Why did Larry Silverstein call for it to be pulled and why did the BBC report that it was down 5 minutes before it fell?
Posted by: Sachem | April 7, 2008 02:51 PM
It is well-known that not only do people largely self- select themselves into professions that fit their psy- chological profile-- but that they hove to those ideological theories that that fit their psyche as well. It is also an established fact taught in intro courses in both Poli-sci and Journalism Depts that most gain their information in a "two-step" process wherin they look to like-minded opinion leaders first before
firming up their own
minds. As such, one should not be too surprised that readers of blogs would be predisposed
to favorably view such theories considering that blogs are the medium by which such conspiracy-minded types publish.
Posted by: virgil xenophon | April 8, 2008 04:42 AM
I think another problem here is that the first question is a really blunt tool: "People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." On the face of it, saying I believe this might categorize me as a conspiracy theorist. On the other hand, it does seem to be true that many people in "the federal government," including in the executive, did nothing to prevent the attacks (the phrasing doesn't go on to suggest that these same people could have done something to prevent the attacks, though it's implied). And many of the same people (in the administration) wanted America to go to war in Iraq. Do I have to be especially paranoid to connect the two thoughts?
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't feel surprised that as many as 36% of people were able to agree with this statement. As for the other two questions, in survey research you can often find those percentages in agreement with statements as outlandish as them. And at least part of the result must be chalked up to noise - to I'm a bored survey respondents answering the questions haphazardly.
The upshot is that the actual lunatic fringe is likely far smaller than suggested by these numbers, so I wonder whether there is actually enough variation in the responses. It would, however, be interesting for researchers to identify those who actually think the Pentagon launched cruise missiles at itself and interview them, to find out what makes them tick.
Posted by: Aldous | April 8, 2008 10:30 AM
I'm afraid that I have to count myself among the 36% who found it at least somewhat likely that "People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East".
The inaction regarding the PDB of Aug 2001, Rice's cocky representation of it, and the Iraq war plans that were underway pre 9/11 do put me in this category.
From a purely conspiratorial reference point, the WTC-7 "pull" still bugs me. Why did Larry Silverstein call for it to be pulled and why did the BBC report that it was down 5 minutes before it fell?
Knowing this is off topic and potentially very diversionary:
a.) Larry Silverstein did not say to pull the building--he was referring to the fire fighters in the building.
More info here.
b.) Your evidence for inaction isn't actually evidence for inaction--or, rather, it is not evidence to believe in inaction. They didn't take action on August 6th--terrible governing there, that's not in debate. But what is missing is a further piece of evidence tying that inaction to pre-knowledge--a piece of evidence no where in sight. The same can be said for all of the "evidence" you provided. It might be sufficient proof to wonder about that possibility, but it isn't sufficient to actually believe in that possibility, is it?
I've had many conversations/arguments with individuals who believe, in some form, 9/11 government conspiracy theories. In so doing, there have been two areas of dispute. The first relates to specific points of data--such as the Silverstein pull quote. Some of this data is decisive, some of it is still up in the air. But, I think the more interesting aspect of my arguments with these individuals is what I would term the epistemology of these conspiracy theories. It just seems to me that these theories are built on a very low threshold of belief or factuality--throw a couple of (sometimes questionable) data points out there, construct a narrative, and believe. NO matter that there are these very wide gaps between the data points. Still gotta believe. A more robust conception of what it takes to believe in something, I think, would put many of these theories into stasis until better evidence develops (although, if more widely applied to other forms of belief in relation to governmental claims might throw a citizen into paralysis).
I hope that wasn't too muddled--Kansas beating Memphis was awesome and I'm glad I didn't miss a minute, despite my resulting lack of sleep.
Posted by: Josh R. | April 8, 2008 11:55 AM
There are two sets of groups of conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks. One group makes the U.S. government or the Bush Administration at least partially responsible for the attacks. The other group makes Iraq at least partially responsible. (AT one time, around 40% of Americans believed that at least one of the hijackers was Iraqi.) The researchers only looked at theories in the first group.
I wonder about the finding that, "believers of all three conspiracy ideas were, as expected, more likely to be members of less powerful social groups or categories." Is it really the case that the relatively powerless are more likely to believe conspiracy theories, or is it that conspiracy theories researchers are more comfortable researching theories believed by the powerless than theories believed by the powerful?
Posted by: Kenneth Almquist | April 10, 2008 01:12 PM
This is an interesting conspiracy. Many people should know about this.
Posted by: Adam | April 12, 2008 12:17 PM
There is something wrong with the research. They considered only one kind of conspiracy theories: the unofficial ones. The official conspiracy theory is forgotten because, strangely, no one calls it a conspiracy. The official theory is that the perpetrators were fundamentalists mostly form Saudi-Arabia and while the master-mind was a guy living in a cage somewhere in Afganistan. Again, strangely, we do not call this a conspiracy theory. But if even they could do it, if even they had the motive, the opportunity and the means, why then should it be absurd to think about conspiracies involving your own government.
Posted by: ivan janssens | April 14, 2008 09:29 AM