Boston and Waco conspiracy theories are inevitable | Karen Douglas | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
In today's digital world, any gap in official information on violent events is filled by online theorists proffering a 'big explanation'
Confusion still surrounds the events of the Boston marathon attack that has claimed the lives of three people and injured over 150 others. As information about the suspects and their reasoning is still emerging, this uncertainty opens the door for a variety of explanations that can spread rapidly over the internet and online social networks.
Although officials are still piecing together the facts surrounding the events, several theories have emerged proposing that the bombings were the result of some kind of conspiracy. The most prominent of these suggests that the US government set it up as a "false flag" operation an attack whereby a government stages a secret operation and acts as the victim while attacking its own people. In this case, the false flag attack was supposedly executed to scare citizens into handing over more control to authorities. Arguments such as this are often described as "conspiracy theories" that explain significant events as the malevolent actions of governments or other powerful and secretive groups.
Explanations for the Boston marathon attack are not unique in this respect. Over the years, accusations of conspiracy have surrounded many significant political and social events, and recent examples include the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings, and the explosion of the fertilizer plant in Waco, Texas. The bottom line is that the official account of events if one exists should always be questioned because governments in general cannot be trusted to tell people the truth.
Researchers are beginning to understand more about the psychological factors that attract people to these alternative theories. For example, people who are less trusting of others, or those who feel less powerful, tend to show greater support for conspiracy theories. Such theories are said to help people to come to terms with events in their lives that they cannot control.
Generally too, people tend to prefer "big explanations" for "big events", where simple or mundane explanations do not seem adequate. Many people are also likely to believe in conspiracy theories that contradict each other, as long as they cohere with the general idea that some sort of conspiracy took place, or that important facts were being covered up. This explains why a plethora of mutually inconsistent conspiracy theories emerge for the same event, and appear to live together in cheerful harmony in the blogosphere.
For example, for many people, believing that Osama bin Laden was already dead at the time of the raid in Abbottabad is no barrier to believing that he is still alive somewhere. Even when official accounts are available, conspiracy theories have a unique appeal for some, since they appeal to particular psychological needs.
Another reason for their popularity and endurance is undoubtedly the emergence of digital communication media. Recent events highlight how the internet and online social networks shape people's understanding of events like the Boston marathon attack. Within an hour of the bombings, cyberspace was buzzing with suspicion and speculations of conspiracy.
People posted pictures of sinister-looking individuals in the crowds; others claimed that a memorial website had already been set up for the victims before the bombings had even happened, and that this was "proof" of the false flag attack theory. The emergence of these explanations is itself interesting enough, but the speed with which they have proliferated throughout cyberspace is quite remarkable. At the time of writing this article, a Google search for "Boston marathon conspiracy" revealed 291,000,000 hits.
The internet allows people to express and share ideas quickly, and with relatively little accountability. In the case of important social events, people naturally want explanations straight away, and even though they may not have a preference for conspiracy theories over official accounts, the latter take a longer time to "cook". They are often absent or incomplete for a while, or sometimes forever. Libel laws and editorial control also hold back official explanations. Rapidly available conspiracy theories therefore enjoy the advantage of being immediately visible and open for discussion without delay.
This is not to say that the immediacy of digital communication is always a bad thing in situations such as this. After the Boston marathon attack many people used Twitter to find out what happened and to help them plan what to do next. Sharing information on the internet may also be empowering because it enables people to generate and discuss events rather than having explanations simply handed down by officialdom. However, relying on the internet and social networks for information can become a problem when people are unable to separate fact from fiction and good sources from bad. Research shows that not everyone possesses the digital literacy, or fluency, to differentiate a reliable from an unreliable source.
Some savvy internet users understand the power of digital media in arousing suspicion and mistrust among less digitally literate audiences. One such person purchased the domain name, BostonMarathonConspiracies.com writing the following text for visitors to the site:
I bought this domain to keep some conspiracy theory kook from owning it.
Please keep the victims of this event and their families in your thoughts.
This person seems to suggest that it is irresponsible to frivolously speculate about the causes of events that involve people in tragic circumstances. But on the other hand, advocates of conspiracy theories would argue that this is a blatant attempt to shut down people's democratic right to discuss the causes of events that affect society as a whole. We do not yet know what really happened at this year's Boston marathon or why it happened. Until we do (and probably after we do), various theories will continue to emerge and evolve.
In today's digital world, any gap in official information on violent events is filled by online theorists proffering a 'big explanation'
Confusion still surrounds the events of the Boston marathon attack that has claimed the lives of three people and injured over 150 others. As information about the suspects and their reasoning is still emerging, this uncertainty opens the door for a variety of explanations that can spread rapidly over the internet and online social networks.
Although officials are still piecing together the facts surrounding the events, several theories have emerged proposing that the bombings were the result of some kind of conspiracy. The most prominent of these suggests that the US government set it up as a "false flag" operation an attack whereby a government stages a secret operation and acts as the victim while attacking its own people. In this case, the false flag attack was supposedly executed to scare citizens into handing over more control to authorities. Arguments such as this are often described as "conspiracy theories" that explain significant events as the malevolent actions of governments or other powerful and secretive groups.
Explanations for the Boston marathon attack are not unique in this respect. Over the years, accusations of conspiracy have surrounded many significant political and social events, and recent examples include the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings, and the explosion of the fertilizer plant in Waco, Texas. The bottom line is that the official account of events if one exists should always be questioned because governments in general cannot be trusted to tell people the truth.
Researchers are beginning to understand more about the psychological factors that attract people to these alternative theories. For example, people who are less trusting of others, or those who feel less powerful, tend to show greater support for conspiracy theories. Such theories are said to help people to come to terms with events in their lives that they cannot control.
Generally too, people tend to prefer "big explanations" for "big events", where simple or mundane explanations do not seem adequate. Many people are also likely to believe in conspiracy theories that contradict each other, as long as they cohere with the general idea that some sort of conspiracy took place, or that important facts were being covered up. This explains why a plethora of mutually inconsistent conspiracy theories emerge for the same event, and appear to live together in cheerful harmony in the blogosphere.
For example, for many people, believing that Osama bin Laden was already dead at the time of the raid in Abbottabad is no barrier to believing that he is still alive somewhere. Even when official accounts are available, conspiracy theories have a unique appeal for some, since they appeal to particular psychological needs.
Another reason for their popularity and endurance is undoubtedly the emergence of digital communication media. Recent events highlight how the internet and online social networks shape people's understanding of events like the Boston marathon attack. Within an hour of the bombings, cyberspace was buzzing with suspicion and speculations of conspiracy.
People posted pictures of sinister-looking individuals in the crowds; others claimed that a memorial website had already been set up for the victims before the bombings had even happened, and that this was "proof" of the false flag attack theory. The emergence of these explanations is itself interesting enough, but the speed with which they have proliferated throughout cyberspace is quite remarkable. At the time of writing this article, a Google search for "Boston marathon conspiracy" revealed 291,000,000 hits.
The internet allows people to express and share ideas quickly, and with relatively little accountability. In the case of important social events, people naturally want explanations straight away, and even though they may not have a preference for conspiracy theories over official accounts, the latter take a longer time to "cook". They are often absent or incomplete for a while, or sometimes forever. Libel laws and editorial control also hold back official explanations. Rapidly available conspiracy theories therefore enjoy the advantage of being immediately visible and open for discussion without delay.
This is not to say that the immediacy of digital communication is always a bad thing in situations such as this. After the Boston marathon attack many people used Twitter to find out what happened and to help them plan what to do next. Sharing information on the internet may also be empowering because it enables people to generate and discuss events rather than having explanations simply handed down by officialdom. However, relying on the internet and social networks for information can become a problem when people are unable to separate fact from fiction and good sources from bad. Research shows that not everyone possesses the digital literacy, or fluency, to differentiate a reliable from an unreliable source.
Some savvy internet users understand the power of digital media in arousing suspicion and mistrust among less digitally literate audiences. One such person purchased the domain name, BostonMarathonConspiracies.com writing the following text for visitors to the site:
I bought this domain to keep some conspiracy theory kook from owning it.
Please keep the victims of this event and their families in your thoughts.
This person seems to suggest that it is irresponsible to frivolously speculate about the causes of events that involve people in tragic circumstances. But on the other hand, advocates of conspiracy theories would argue that this is a blatant attempt to shut down people's democratic right to discuss the causes of events that affect society as a whole. We do not yet know what really happened at this year's Boston marathon or why it happened. Until we do (and probably after we do), various theories will continue to emerge and evolve.
