About Smearing:

Smearing is a rhetorical tactic that seeks not just to challenge or discredit, but to vilify the character or motives of a person in the public eye. This is often achieved without providing concrete evidence or rationale for such defamatory statements, relying instead on innuendo, exaggeration or outright falsehoods. The tactic aims to divert attention from the issues at hand, replacing rational debate with character assassination.

Any damage to a public figure’s reputation has a ripple effect, impacting not just them but also their policies, causes, or organizations. Smearing differs from Ad Hominem in that it trashes a person as a way of discrediting a whole group, rather than just denigrating a specific argument or policy position. Smearing is also related to defamation, a legal concept involving the making of false statements that cause material damage to a person’s reputation or character. Defamation is illegal; regardless, it is constantly done on social media.

For the issuer, smearing can offer the immediate gratification of rallying their base and discrediting an opponent, but it also contributes to a toxic political environment where facts and reasoned debate are overshadowed by personal attacks and divisiveness. It drives negative opinion about politics more broadly, discouraging rational debaters from participating.

Even if the smear is later debunked, the initial damage is often hard to undo, given the “sticky” nature of first impressions and the rapid spread of misinformation on social media. Smears sometimes contain elements of truth, and it is often difficult to obtain factual information that would counter them. Third-party fact checkers can play an important role in identifying and debunking smears, although their reach may be limited among those who are already convinced of the smear’s validity.