7
smallwarsjournal.com
intelligence community and the military are likely to be dissuaded by U.S. security requirements
even though they may possess the requisite languages, tradecraft and equipment to intervene.
Polarized opinion, spiral of silence, and ‘backfire’ inhibit direct interventions
From the mechanical, cultural, and professional inhibitors to direct intervention,
we turn to the likely efficacy of individual interventions and examine why „Bob‟s‟ attempt may
not have been entirely successful. As noted in earlier sections, blog readers in particular tend to
gravitate towards blogs that support their extant political beliefs, although more politically-active
readers may read more widely (Lawrence, Sides & Farrell, 2010). Therefore, blog readers
supportive of Wikileaks are less likely to seek out information that runs counter to their beliefs,
and be less likely to come across alternative viewpoints in their general reading. This self-
reinforcing polarization may be one key factor to explain why „Bob‟s‟ intervention garnered
lower traffic before it was pulled down by YouTube. People simply weren‟t out there in the
blogosphere, looking for something to balance what they‟d just seen in the Wikileaks-edited
video.
Next, when an issue attracts mass attention, and a prevailing opinion begins to
form, those exposed to the issue and the prevailing opinion become increasingly unlikely to
publicly express a dissenting opinion, for fear of social ostracization and/or reprisal. Known as
spiral of silence theory, developed by Noelle-Neumann, it is especially important in the context
of this examination to emphasize that people are more likely to publicly express the prevailing
opinion, whatever their private opinion may be (Jeffries, Nuendorf & Atkin, 1999). In the case of
the Wikileaks-edited video, which received global media coverage and a preponderantly anti-
American sentiment expressed therein, the spiral of silence theory suggests that even those with
doubts are unlikely to express them publicly (Jeffries, Nuendorf & Atkin, 1999). Diminishing
returns are likely to result from an individual intervention, in that the competing argument is
unlikely to be picked up, repeated, or supported by others if it is the minority argument. Any
interventionist going against what the public perceives to be as popular opinion will be running
uphill, as their message is less likely to be repeated.
The third human factor to inhibit individual interventions is the old maxim,
“Please don‟t confuse us with the facts.” New research by Nyhan and Reifler shows that people
holding firm opinions do not, in fact, wish to have them refuted (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010). When
refuted, the refutation is likely to result in “backfire,” the strengthening of the original opinion.
“Ideological subgroups failed to update their beliefs when presented with corrective information
that runs counter to their predispositions. Indeed….we find that corrections actually strengthened
misperceptions among the most strongly committed subjects,” Nyhan and Reifler wrote.
The conflation of already-polarized opinion, the spiral of silence, and the
likelihood that direct refutations will backfire create a formidable obstacle to successful direct
intervention by individuals. „Bob‟s‟ intervention, standing alone, may not have had the intended
effect in reaching or influencing the opinions of those who use Wikileaks‟ messaging to support
extremist views. However, the intervention was not a complete failure, as the issues raised in the
intervention seemed to have serendipitously made their way into mass media via The Colbert
Report, which may have introduced the subject of inaccuracies in the “Collateral Murder” video
to portions of the public who were not yet of strong opinion on the subject. Colbert‟s treatment
of Assange may also have introduced the beginnings of doubt about the credibility of Wikileaks
the outfit or Assange its founder.