See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318102669

Character assassination.

Chapter · January 2018

CITATION READS

1 1,052

1 author:

Sergei A Samoilenko
George Mason University
12 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ISBN: 978-1-118-51676-8 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sergei A Samoilenko on 17 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

441

image both of the West and of the Russian opposition (Gatov 2015:
12–​4; Yakovlev 2015).
It is not easy to analyse chernukha merely by tracing the sources
of negative campaigning. Since its production usually breaches some
legislative norms and violates others, the producers of chernukha will
in most instances either deny their authorship of it or claim that they
were framed. Even so, it is possible to research chernukha by means of
in-​depth interviews with experts and political technologists. In addi-
tion, opinion polls held before and after a defamation campaign make it
possible to assess what impact chernukha has had on the general public.
Opinion polls with specifically tailored questions may help to identify the
key stereotypes used in the production of chernukha and how they have
changed over time.
Chernukha is closely intertwined with a number of informal prac-
tices such as krugovaia poruka (joint responsibility, see 3.10 Volume 1)
and the use of kompromat, both of which are integral to the workings
of informal networks in contemporary Russia. In competitive elections,
negative campaigning has the potential to affect the balance between
parties and candidates. In societies with the rule of law and independent
media, it may be helpful for voters to learn in detail about the political
agenda of a vilified candidate (Fernandes 2013: 286). In the context of
the abuse of law and media manipulation, however, chernukha practices
are more likely to create popular distrust in the media, public institutions
and the electoral process and to lead to a state of cynicism that will make
it increasingly hard for public figures to win the trust of the electorate or
to persuade voters to take an active interest in politics (Ansolabehere and
Iyenger 1996).

8.6  Character assassination (general)

Sergei Samoilenko and Eric Shiraev
George Mason University, USA
Jennifer Keohane
University of Baltimore, USA
and
Martijn Icks
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
‘Character assassination’ is a practice in which a deliberate and sustained
effort is made to damage the reputation or credibility of an individual.
Social groups or institutions can also be the target (Icks and Shiraev
2014). Character assassination refers to both the process (e.g. a smear

8.6 Character a ss a ssination (general) 441

442

campaign), and to the outcome of this process (e.g. a damaged reputa-

tion). It may involve various kinds of defamatory attacks, which are simi-
lar to the abusive and circumstantial attacks (argumentum ad hominem)
used in adversarial contexts to steer attention away from the debated
issue to the opponent’s personal traits or reputation (Walton 1998).
However, unlike ad hominem attacks, character assassination does not
have to take place in the context of a debate. It consists of a variety of
possible attacks in the form of verbal and non-​verbal assaults including
spoken insults, rumours, campaign ads, pamphlets, cartoons and tweets.
As a result of such campaigns, individuals may be rejected by their pro-
fessional community, or by members of their social or cultural environ-
ment. Damage sustained in the process of character assassination can
last a lifetime and has been likened to annihilation.
Character assassination is a cross-​cultural phenomenon that reveals
itself in a variety of forms and methods in every political and social envi-
ronment. The issues of character assassination have been addressed in
psychology, political science, history and communication studies (Icks,
Keohane, Samoilenko, and Shiraev 2017). As a field of scholarly inquiry,
it is often explained by the organising concepts of rationality and inten-
tionality, source credibility, political and societal image, public opinion,
social norms and cultural values. The phenomenon of character assassi-
nation should be addressed from four different perspectives: the attacker,
the victim, the media and the public. Character assassination should also
be addressed in relation to studies of public opinion, reputation manage-
ment and image restoration.
In 2014 Icks and Shiraev introduced a classification of seven
character assassination methods, which they defined as ‘anonymous
lies’, ‘misquoting’, ‘silencing’, ‘acts of vandalism’, ‘name-​calling’, ‘men-
tal illness’ and ‘sexual deviance’. The authors identified the website of
Wikipedia as a common context for ‘anonymous lies’. Examples of ‘con-
tributions’ found here include falsifications of a person’s early biogra-
phy, suggestions of inappropriate sexual behaviour or sexual deviance
and forged evidence about an individual’s inappropriate social ties or
political associations. The second method, which the authors defined as
‘misquoting’, is an amalgam of two practices: omitting significant details
from a quote and/​or quoting out of context. This method can also refer
to manipulatively selecting unfortunate or poor photographs taken in
awkward situations, which then promulgate ridicule. A common aim for
journalists or bloggers is to show a politician in a poor light: for example,
a politician holding a crying baby is a deliberate use of an inopportune
photograph.

442 Domination
443

‘Silencing’ is a further long-​term method of character assassination,

which often occurs post-​mortem. The distortion of history is an example
of silencing. ‘Memory erasing’ also refers to the practice of avoiding any
reference to an individual and their work by the attacker, in an attempt
to erase their public record from collective memory. Even in antiquity,
the Egyptians, the Romans, and other cultures applied memory sanctions
against disgraced rulers and public figures, such as Pharaoh Akhenaten
and the Roman Emperors Caligula and Nero. Their images were destroyed
and their names erased from public consciousness. However, the art of
memory erasure and the distortion of history were taken to a new level in
totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. Some of the most notorious
examples of symbolic ‘vandalism’ were in Stalin’s Russia, where Trotsky,
Yezhov and other prominent political and military figures were removed
from pictures and history books. The concept of ‘memory hole’ was intro-
duced by George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, where the Party’s Ministry
of Truth systematically re-​created all potential historical documents, and
in effect, re-​wrote history to match the often-​changing state propaganda.
The character assassination method of ‘name-​ calling’ usually
appears in a form of a quick, short insult, ridicule or in the application
of specific, demonising labels. In politics, ideological labels such as ‘com-
munist’, ‘fascist’, ‘Nazi’, ‘capitalist’, ‘imperialist’ or ‘terrorist’ are quickly
attached to political leaders and officials. Ridicule is a purposeful and
contemptuous exaggeration or distortion in a comical context. Its humor-
ous nature helps attackers portray their victims as weak, stupid, unbal-
anced, irrational or hypocritical. If successful, it puts a negative slant on
a candidate and his/​her policies so they appear less meaningful or impor-
tant than they actually are. Incompetence and ignorance are favourite
themes of ridiculing.
Allegations of an individual experiencing a mental illness in the
past or currently experiencing mental illness is a common character
assassination ploy that is successful because of the strong social stigma
attached to psychological disorders. This label associates the individual
by implication with other negative notions such as lack of rationality and
instability. In 2014, for example, during the tensions between Russia
and Ukraine following the annexation of Crimea, a number of articles
appeared in the press claiming that President Putin was erratic and
unstable. Authors based their reports on rumours that ‘Putin has become
increasingly withdrawn and isolated’ and ‘is appearing live on television
less frequently’ (Hahn 2015).
Finally, with the growing influence of public opinion, moral behav-
iour has emerged as a desirable standard; any deviation, especially with

8.6 Character a ss a ssination (general) 443

444

regard to sexual conduct, leaves an individual open to character attacks.

Short-​term character assassination attempts are frequently based on
alleged inappropriate acts, such as having an extramarital affair. Long-​
term character attacks require allegations about a person’s persistent
pattern of ‘deviant’ behaviour.
Character assassination can be applied in a number of contexts.
In politics, character assassination is usually a part of a political ‘smear
campaign’ that involves intentional, premeditated efforts to under-
mine an individual or group’s reputation and credibility. ‘Negative
campaigning’, also known more colloquially as ‘mudslinging’, is the
process of trying to gain advantage by referring to negative aspects
of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasising one’s own posi-
tive attributes or preferred policies. In US presidential politics a variety
of strategies are employed including ‘cheap shots’, ‘falsification’ and
‘smears’. ‘Cheap shots’ typically allude to a victim’s individual features,
including, but not limited to, his or her credibility, competence and
honesty; ‘falsifications’ are lies, which by the time they are used in
an attack are often difficult to distinguish from facts. Direct attacks
involve strong accusations about a person’s character flaws and tend
to be based on facts.
‘Smears’ often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of distor-
tions, half-​truths or even outright lies. The attackers may involve double-
speak, raising false accusations, spreading innuendo or deliberately
misinforming others about the opponent’s morals, integrity or public
image. It may also involve manipulating and spinning technically true
information, but presenting it in a misleading manner, devoid of neces-
sary context. Even when the facts behind a ‘smear’ campaign have been
demonstrated to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective
because the target’s reputation remains tarnished regardless of the truth.
‘Smears’ are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in
question. Rather than responding to the original issue, the target of the
smear has to correct the false information.
‘Political rumouring’ is not innocuous chatter, but rather a phenom-
enon with important electoral consequences. It may include painting an
opponent as soft on criminals, dishonest, corrupt or as a danger to the
nation. In modern election campaigns, individuals are more willing to
believe the negative rumours about an opposition candidate than nega-
tive rumours about their own party candidates.
In the mid-​1990s, political marketing specialists in Russia intro-
duced a practice known as ‘black PR’ (public relations), which was used
as a potent smear campaign tool. Unlike ‘negative advertising’ used in

444 Domination
445

Western politics, ‘black PR’ is best known for using compromising materi-
als (see kompromat, 8.4 in this volume) about politicians and other pub-
lic figures. These ‘black PR’ techniques were used in 2014 during regional
elections in Russia. Examples included compromising material about the
alleged criminal connections or past conviction of candidates, as well as
information about their wealth, property and income. Such materials
were used for a variety of purposes, including creating negative publicity,
blackmailing and ensuring loyalty. The wave of kompromat was gener-
ated not only by the demands of the media owners, but also by the jour-
nalists themselves. Credible falsehoods, transcripts of taped telephone
conversations and pseudo-​events were thrown to the press in the guise
of ‘news’. This questionable practice was able to flourish under Russian
law, as journalists were not obliged to reveal their sources, except when
ordered to do so by a court. Russian news reports showed compromising
materials in a biased or incomplete way. The aim was not only to report
negative news about an individual or an organisation, but the intent was
also to obfuscate and confuse the viewer.
Fundamentally, an attack on one’s image, reputation or brand is
dependent on audience perception. Studies in the field of motivated rea-
soning (Icks and Shiraev 2014) show that consumers are highly selective
regarding what they deem is ‘credible’ information, preferring to accept
what is most congruent with existing attitudes, expectations or actions.
Five strategies of ‘image restoration’ for victims have been identified.
Suggested responses include ‘denial’, ‘evading responsibility’, ‘reducing
offensiveness’, ‘corrective action’, and ‘mortification’ (Benoit 1995). This
image restoration theory is used to mitigate image damage following a
threat to a reputation. As well as the strategies mentioned above, other
tactics might also include attacks on the accuser.
Situational crisis communication theory (Coombs 2007) suggests
that the level of reputation threat is determined by whether the public
believes the organisation caused the crisis, is dependent on the organi-
sation’s crisis history and the organisation’s prior relational reputation
with the public. Unfortunately for the victim, crises serve as an excel-
lent source of news material. Dramatic events often draw the attention
of the media industry whose sole purpose is to shock their audience and
to sensationalise events by showing them in a tragic or politicised con-
text. It is evident that character assassination techniques are increasingly
employed in the news media along with ‘hate speech’ and other methods
of psychological warfare. The surge of hype, hysteria and sensationalism
in the media is particularly evident when events are positioned as major
threats to national security, political stability or foreign policy. The rise of

8.6 Character a ss a ssination (general) 445

446

character assassination techniques in the twenty-​first century proves to

be consistent with many observations that focus on the negative effects of
the media on politics and society, such as simplification, and the negative
representation of politics, which favours conflict and personalisation.

8.7  Psikhushka (USSR)

Robert van Voren
Human Rights in Mental Health-​FGIP, The Netherlands
In most Western European countries, destigmatisation campaigns
have slowly changed the perception of psychiatry. Several decades
ago psychiatric institutions were generally seen as places of horror,
and either euphemistically referred to with their location (‘Santpoort’
in Amsterdam, or ‘Vasaros 5’ in Vilnius) or with names that confirmed
the general perception: madhouse, nuthouse or, in Russian equivalent,
durdom. Psikhushka is a much more benign name and in fact the abbre-
viation of the Russian term for psychiatric hospital, psikhiatricheskaya
bolnitsa. Yet in Soviet times it also acquired a much more ominous mean-
ing because of the many dissidents who wound up in the psikhushka for
political reasons. Among the well-​known victims were poetess Natalya
Gorbanevskaya, biologist Zhores Medvedev, General Pyotr Grigorenko
and the Ukrainian cyberneticist Leonid Plyushch (see Figure 8.7.1).
Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union was widespread.
There were individual cases in the early Soviet period, but during
Stalinist times the psikhushka was mainly used to save people from the
Gulag, and basically to hide individuals from Stalin’s executioners. Life
in psychiatric hospitals was considered better than in the concentration
camps of the Gulag, and thus the chances of survival were higher. The
same happened later in Poland after martial law was declared in 1981
and some Solidarność leaders were hidden in psychiatric institutions to
avoid arrest. Similarly during the last years of the Soviet Union a number
of young men had themselves hospitalised in a psikhushka in order to
avoid being drafted into the army with the risk of being sent to the war
in Afghanistan.
The practice of using psychiatry to hide people from the repres-
sive regime changed in the late 1940s, and even more so after Stalin’s
death when Khrushchev claimed that he had released all political
prisoners and had to explain why people were still arrested for politi-
cal reasons. ‘They are mad’, he claimed, explaining that there was no
objective reason for people to go against the communist system and
that thus the only logical explanation was that they were mentally ill

446 Domination

View publication stats