欲蓋彌彰的史翠珊效應& 公憤管理

欲蓋彌彰的 Streisand Effect(史翠珊效應)& Outrage Management(公憤管理)

Original 心理探尋 Psychology心理探尋 1 week ago

欲蓋彌彰的史翠珊效應& 公憤管理

The rich and powerful bullies of the world — governments, corporations, celebrities, etc。 — have lots of creative ways to control the public‘s access to information, especially when that information makes them look bad: intimidation, bans, bribery or straight-up censorship。 But every once in a while, an especially clumsy censorship effort backfires and the situation goes from bad to much, much worse。

世界上有錢有權的那些壞蛋——政府、企業、名人等,有許許多多控制大眾資訊獲取渠道的方法,尤其當這些資訊對他們不利時。這些方法包括:恐嚇、禁令、賄賂,或審查。但時不時,某個比較拙劣的審查行為會適得其反,讓情形愈加惡化。

Take the case of Barbra Streisand, award-winning actress, singer and owner of a sprawling mega-mansion near the wealthy coastal enclave of Malibu, California。 Back in 2003, Streisand sued a photographer named Kenneth Adelman because he refused to delete a photo of her Malibu mansion from an online project that tracked erosion on the California coastline。 Adelman wasn’t a paparazzo trying to snag a shot of Babs in her bathing suit。 He was documenting an important environmental issue。

比如芭芭拉·史翠珊。她是一位曾榮獲獎項的演員和歌手,同時也在加利福尼亞馬里布富豪區擁有一棟超大豪華別墅。2003年,史翠珊起訴了一位名為 Kenneth Adelman 的攝影師,因為在這位攝影師在一項追蹤加利福尼亞海岸線秦時情況的網上專案中拍攝到了史翠珊的豪宅,而且拒絕刪除。Adelman 並非是一個試圖偷拍芭芭拉身穿泳裝照的狗仔記者,他不過是在記錄一項重要的環境問題。

Streisand obviously felt that her privacy had been violated, so she took Adelman to court for $50 million in damages。 The irony was that before Streisand took Adelman to court, the online image of her house had been downloaded a grand total of six times, twice by her own lawyers。 But after the media caught wind of Babs‘ outrageous $50 million lawsuit, the image was downloaded 420,000 times in just a month and publicized around the world。 (For an added kick in the teeth, the judge dismissed the case。)

史翠珊明顯感到她的隱私被侵犯了,所以她起訴 Adelman,要求5000萬美元賠償。而諷刺之處在於,在史翠珊起訴 Adelman之前,網上這張她豪宅的照片只有6次下載量,其中兩次是她自己的律師下載的。但自從媒體獲知她這場索賠額高達5000萬美元的訴訟後,圖片下載量在一個月內就飆升到42萬次,而且在全球範圍內得以傳播。(更糟糕的是,法官還拒絕受理了該案件。)

Streisand wasn’t the first would-be censor to get burned by her own attempt to repress information, but her name became indelibly attached to the phenomena when the TechDirt blogger Mike Masnick jokingly labeled the backfire the “Streisand effect。”

史翠珊並不是首個因想要壓制資訊,卻適得其反、引火上身之人,但在 TechDirt 博主 Mike Masnick 戲謔地將這一後果稱為“史翠珊效應”後,她的名字就牢牢地和這一現象關聯在了一起。

“Nobody had paid much attention to the whole thing until the lawsuit, which I‘m sure Streisand wishes she had never undertaken,” says Sue Curry Jansen, professor emeritus of media and communications at Muhlenberg College, who co-authored a 2015 paper about the curious dynamics of the Streisand effect。

“在這個訴訟之前,沒有人對這整件事情給予很大關注。我相信史翠珊現在會但願當初自己沒提起這場訴訟。”穆倫堡學院媒體與通訊專業榮譽退休教授 Sue Curry Jansen說道。他曾在2015年與他人合著了一篇關於史翠珊效應獨特運作原理的論文。

The Streisand effect is a product of public outrage and blowback over perceived censorship or any attempt by someone with power to repress free speech。 As Streisand’s lawsuit shows, a lot of supposedly “dangerous” information wouldn‘t likely draw much attention if left uncensored, but the very act of trying to repress it creates public outrage, which ends up shining a far brighter light on the information in the process。 Not to mention that people are naturally curious about anything that is being covered-up or attempted to be suppressed。 “Why is this information being hidden?” we wonder。

史翠珊效應的產生原因,是對於所察覺到的審查行為,或者任何有權力之人試圖壓制自由言論的行為,公眾所產生的民憤(公眾憤怒)以及反抗。正如史翠珊的訴訟事件所顯示的,一些被視為“危險”的資訊,如果不去審查監管,可能並不會吸引多少關注,但恰恰是“試圖壓制它”這一行為本身,創造了民憤,這就導致在這一過程中為這一資訊帶來了更大的曝光度。更不要說人們天生就對被掩蓋或試圖被壓制的東西感興趣。“為什麼這一資訊要被掩蓋?”我們會好奇。

It’s also been shown that banning books or blocking access to certain websites only serves to increase public demand for the censored information。 One study from 2018 found that China‘s attempts to block access to sites like Twitter and Facebook prompted millions of otherwise apolitical citizens to download VPN software to evade the censors and access the sites。

另外也有證據顯示,禁止一些書籍,或者阻止對一些網站的訪問,只會推升公眾對所禁資訊的需求。2018年的一項研究發現,中國對諸如 Twitter 和 Facebook的禁止,促使數百萬本來不關心政治的中國公民開始下載VPN軟體,打破封鎖,訪問這些網站。

Poetic Justice in Action

那些“報應終不爽”的“詩性正義”例項

In their paper, Jansen and her co-author Brian Martin of the University of Wollongong in Australia highlight some truly shining examples of the Streisand effect at work, from global corporations to grade-school cafeterias:

在他們的論文中,澳大利亞伍倫貢大學Jansen 和 Brian martin提到了一些關於史翠珊效應的典型例子,這些例子涵蓋範圍從全球企業到小學餐廳不等。

The fast food giant McDonald’s made a huge mistake in the 1990s when it sued two volunteers with the activist organization London Greenpeace for a street pamphlet they wrote called, “What‘s Wrong with McDonald’s?” The trial, which the British press dubbed “McLibel,” became the longest-running civil trial in British history and handed critics of McDonald‘s a media bullhorn for publicizing the chain’s exploitative advertising, low pay and unhealthy food。 And just like Streisand, McDonald‘s ended up losing the lawsuit。

快餐巨頭麥當勞曾在上世紀90年代犯下一個巨大錯誤。當時,他們起訴了London Greenpeace這一活動人士組織中的兩位志願者,因為他們寫了一篇名為《麥當勞怎麼了》文章印在冊子上在街頭分發。這一訴訟被英國媒體稱為“McLibel”,而且該訴訟稱為英國曆史上持續時間最長的一場民事訴訟。這場訴訟幾乎像是為麥當勞的批評者們親手遞上了媒體這一大喇叭,將該連鎖品牌的剝削式廣告、低薪酬和不健康食品廣泛傳播。而且像史翠珊一樣,麥當勞最後輸掉了這場訴訟。

Fox News also fell victim to the Streisand effect the same year that Streisand shot herself in the proverbial foot。 In 2003, the cable news network sued Al Franken — then a comedian and actor, not yet a senator — for copyright infringement over his anti-conservative book, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right。” Fox News alleged that the phrase “Fair and Balanced” was its intellectual property, but a judge disagreed。 Not only did Fox News lose the case, but the free publicity shot Franken’s book to the top of the bestseller list。

就在史翠珊搬起石頭砸自己的腳的同年,Fox 新聞也受到了史翠珊效應的影響。2003年,這一有線電視新聞公司起訴 當時只是一名喜劇演員和演員,尚未成為參議院的 Al Franken,起訴原因是認為 Al Franken的反保守主義著作《謊言與撒謊的撒謊者:對右派的公平平衡解讀》侵犯了其版權。Fox新聞訴稱,“公平平衡”是其知識版權,但一位法官並不認可。Fox 新聞不僅輸掉了這場官司,這一免費推廣還將 Franken的書推到了最暢銷書單榜首。

One of the funniest/saddest examples of the Streisand effect took place in Scotland in 2012, when a 9-year-old schoolgirl Martha Payne began taking pictures of her school cafeteria lunches and writing about them on her personal blog。 When the chef and TV personality Jamie Oliver tweeted about Payne’s blog, the site received 3 million hits in just two months。 The local town council, fearing that the grade-schooler was making them look stupid, did something even stupider and banned her from taking photos at school。 Of course, Payne blogged about the ban, too, which made international news。 The town council publicly apologized and removed the ban。

史翠珊效應的其中一個最搞笑,也是最悲傷的例子發生在2012年的蘇格蘭。當時,一位9歲的女生 Martha Payne 開始拍攝學校餐廳午飯,並在個人部落格上寫文章記錄。當廚師和電視名人 Jamie Oliver 發推特講述了 Payne的部落格,其部落格在兩個月內就受到了300萬次點選。當地政府擔心這一小學生會讓他們看起來很愚蠢,就做了一件更愚蠢的事:禁止她在學校拍攝照片。當然,Payne也在部落格上提到了這一禁令,這一禁令也成為了國際新聞。最終當地政府公開致歉,撤銷了該禁令。

"Outrage Management"

“公憤管理”

As amusing as these examples are, Jansen laments that most censorship efforts are successful。 They work precisely because we never hear about them。

儘管這些例子很有趣,但Jansen 卻哀嘆表示,大部分審查行為都是成功的。之所以它們成功,恰恰是因為我們從未聽說過它們。

“That‘s the way power works,” says Jansen。 “For example, the non-disclosure agreements that employees have to sign to work at many corporations。 You can know something really bad is going on, but you can’t tell anyone。 Not only will you be fired, but you‘ll be sued。”

“這就是權力運作的方式,”Jansen說道,“例如,員工在很多公司入職時必須簽署的保密協議。你可以知道一些很不好的事情,但你不能告訴任何人,否則你不僅會被開除,而且還會被起訴。”

Even if a powerful person or entity is caught trying to silence a critic or hide a dirty secret, there’s a whole crisis management playbook to diffuse public outcry。 Jansen and Martin call it “outrage management。”

即使當一位有權力之人或組織被發現試圖噤聲批評者或掩蓋一個骯髒的秘密,也會有一套完整的危機管理策略,來消除公眾呼聲。Jansen 和 Martin將其稱為“公憤管理”。

In their paper, they list five techniques that censors use to discredit and silence critics:

在其論文中,他們列出了審查者們用於攻擊和噤聲批評者的五種策略:

Covering up the action

Devaluing the target

Reinterpreting events by lying, minimizing consequences, blaming others and using favorable framing

Using official channels to give an appearance of justice

Intimidating or rewarding people involved

掩蓋行動

貶低所要攻擊的目標

以撒謊、儘可能輕描淡寫後果、指責他人、以有利視角解讀的方式重新解讀事件;

使用官方渠道,傳遞公平假象。

恐嚇或獎勵所涉及之人。

Jansen and Martin also gave an example about the Nazis。 In their Euthanasia program which was meant to kill people with disabilities, they used all five methods of that。

They hid the program from the public, that’s number 1。

They stigmatize people with disabilities as a burden for the society。 That’s devaluing the target。

They lied about the events, so that’s reinterpreting it。 To anyone who had a question, like the parent of the victims, they would just say, oh, they died of this other disease or from natural causes or something。

They also intimidated parents who would not back down, saying: hey, do you wanna lose the rest of your kids? No? then be quiet。

They also allowed for formal complaints to be levied, but of course they never went anywhere, so they gave an appearance of using official channels for justice。

Jason 和 Martin 還給提到了納粹的“安樂死”計劃。該專案旨在殺掉殘障人士。納粹分子在這一計劃中使用了上述全部五種策略。

他們向大眾掩蓋了這一計劃。這是第一條。

他們他們羞辱殘障人士,將他們定義為社會負擔,這是貶低所攻擊目標的價值;

他們對這一事件撒謊,這屬於對事件重新解讀。對於有質疑之人,比如受害者父母,他們會說,他們死於其他某種疾病,或自然原因,或其他原因等。

對於不肯退讓的父母,他們會採取恐嚇策略:你是不是還想失去其他孩子?不想?那就閉嘴!

他們還允許人們提出投訴,但這些投訴根本就不會被處理。這屬於透過官方渠道做出正義公平假象。

“There are PR people who are very good at doing this kind of thing,” says Jansen。 “They set up listening sessions with people who are objecting to something, then single out one or two people and put them on a ‘committee。’ Sometimes they even overtly bribe people with some kind of honorific and then proceed with whatever they intended to do in the first place。”

“有很多公關專業人員非常擅於做這類事情,”Jansen說道,“他們與某件事的反對者們開展傾聽談話,之後選擇其中一到兩位,讓他們參與到一個‘委員會’中”。有時,他們甚至公然用某種榮譽來賄賂別人,然後繼續開展自己原來的計劃。

The Streisand Effect Depends on Free Speech and Press

史翠珊效應取決於自由言論與媒體

The Streisand effect can be an effective check on censorship and the misuse of power to bully critics into silence, but only if the act of censorship is dragged into the light by a free and unfettered press。 None of the examples we cited above, including Streisand‘s, would have happened if not for journalists picking up the stories and bringing them to the public’s attention。

Unfortunately, the effectiveness of the media as a check on censorship has taken a hit during the “fake news” era。 If politicians and other people in power can dismiss news stories that make them look bad as biased or false, then the power of the Streisand effect dries up。

不幸的是,媒體作為資訊審查行為的有效抑制工具,在這個“虛假新聞”時代,其有效性遭受重創。如果政治家和其他有權力之人將對自己不利的新聞故事直接定性為有偏見或虛假新聞,那麼“史翠珊效應”的力量就會枯竭。

原文連結:

https://people。howstuffworks。com/streisand-effect。htm

或收聽與本文相關播客(Apple Podcast):

Short Stuff: Streisand Effect

by Stuff You should Know

https://podcasts。apple。com/cn/podcast/stuff-you-should-know/id278981407?l=en#episodeGuid=ab97a908-3620-11ea-924d-a7148763217c

Read more