Looking for studies on the Big Lie, there was a 2025 study published in Political Science and Politics where they surveyed 130 Trump voters over three years, and looked at how the belief that the election was stolen spread. It found there was a vicious circle of "identity fusion" where those that already supported Trump were more likely to believe the Big Lie, and that the Big Lie made them even more fused with Trump, and repeat.

This coincides with what you are saying about "accumulated emotion" and rationalisation, invention and false recall to support their feelings induced stance.

Ultimately, even if there is an overwhelming amount of information, we should temper out beliefs to the amount of evidence. An overwhelming amount of information should not mean we are believing untruths.

We should find time to research the things that are important to us.

What do you think—does this mechanism still hold today? Have you noticed how emotions from news shape your opinions? And is it even possible to resist this influence in an era of information overload? — Astorre

I don’t follow the news closely. In my circle, news stopped being taken seriously in the 1990s. These days, most of us just read up on issues that interest us and occasionally check news sites like the BBC or Al Jazeera. Do you think it's more likely that social media is the bigger issue?

People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one. This aligns with their nature. They know they might lie about trivial things, but a massive lie? They’d hesitate to go that far. A big lie doesn’t even occur to them, so they can’t imagine someone else being capable of such shameless distortion of facts — Astorre

Hitler obviously said something like this, but is it accurate? What is an example of a “big lie” today that people widely believe? There are certainly narratives manufactured for certain stakeholders. Is society too atomized these days for a 'big lie' to be feasible?

Do you think it's more likely that social media is the bigger issue? — Tom Storm

We should find time to research the things that are important to us. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The transition from traditional media to social media is not a way out of a vicious circle, but simply a change of players.

The essence of the problem is that we find ourselves between two evils:
On the one hand, there are large media that create and support metanarratives, often driven by financial or political interests.
On the other hand, bloggers who do not create these narratives, but only relay them, selecting facts to confirm their sincere beliefs.

None of these sources are neutral. We simply change who we trust, but do not solve the problem of engagement.

I propose a thought experiment that allows you to see this mechanism in action:
1. Take any news.
2. "Clean" all emotions from it, leaving only a naked fact.
3. Compare how the same fact is presented in different sources: in the official media, among independent bloggers, in the opposition media.

You will see that the fact itself will be the same, but its emotional superstructure - context, intonation, accents - will be radically different. It is this superstructure that shapes our attitude and consolidates opinion. This will confirm or refute the idea that emotions from news are more important than the facts themselves.


P.S. With your permission, I will not refer to specific facts in specific sources, because I can very easily hurt someone's feelings. I propose a focus on the idea itself, leaving the experienced approach to its own discretion

The transition from traditional media to social media is not a way out of a vicious circle, but simply a change of players. — Astorre

I wasn't saying it was a way out, only that it was a new dimension. I don't know what vicious circle you're referring to.

I propose a thought experiment that allows you to see this mechanism in action:
1. Take any news.
2. "Clean" all emotions from it, leaving only a naked fact.
3. Compare how the same fact is presented in different sources: in the official media, among independent bloggers, in the opposition media. — Astorre

I'm not sure what this establishes. It's well known that different people and outlets cover things differently, even journalists from the same publication might take different angles. Audiences tend to select the outlets that match their values. Which is why old, scared people tend to watch Murdoch's stuff.

I will not refer to specific facts in specific sources, because I can very easily hurt someone's feelings. I propose a focus on the idea itself, leaving the experienced approach to its own discretion — Astorre

I can't really see what you mean unless you provide an example. What is a big lie? I can see lots of little lies - a web of intersecting nonsense and propaganda, but that's kind of how yellow journalism has often functioned throughout its history from Lord Beaverbrook to Hearst to Pulitzer to Murdoch.

It's well known that different people and outlets cover things differently, even journalists from the same publication might take different angles. Audiences tend to select the outlets that match their values. Which is why old, scared people tend to watch Murdoch's stuff. — Tom Storm

I agree that different publications and people cover events in different ways, and the audience often chooses sources that correspond to their values. This confirms my thought: perception is formed not so much by facts as by the emotional context that these facts accompany. You mentioned "a network of intertwined nonsense and propaganda" - this is a good way to describe how the modern information environment works. But I would argue that the "big lie" doesn't have to be one grand fiction. It can be a sustained narrative that is formed through the repetition of emotionally charged interpretations of facts, gradually creating a belief in people that they accept without deep analysis.

You asked if this is a new problem or just a continuation of the old yellow press methods. I believe social media adds a new dimension, as you said, not because it's fundamentally different, but because of its speed and scale. The emotions caused by the news spread faster and more widely, intensifying the effect. Unlike the traditional yellow press, where influence was limited to circulation or audience, social networks create echo chambers where emotional narratives circulate endlessly, forming perceptions without the need for one "big" lie - many small, emotionally charged distortions are enough.

It is difficult to resist, but possible if you deliberately slow down and separate emotions from facts, as I suggested in a thought experiment. This does not solve the problem completely, but it helps to realize how our opinion is formed not so much by information as by the feelings that it evokes.

To explain the idea on a neutral topic, consider the urban legend about how the father of Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, allegedly saved the young Winston Churchill from drowning, and in gratitude, Churchill's father paid for Fleming's education. This story, full of drama and incredible coincidences, lives on emotions - a sense of gratitude, fatefulness and admiration. People believe in it and retell it, despite its absurdity and lack of evidence, because the emotional charge overpowers common sense. It's a wilfully neutral example, out of political context, to show how emotional narratives take root and spread. You can read more about this legend on Wikipedia.

What do you think—does this mechanism still hold today? — Astorre

I don't think that it's so much a conscious strategy, as the fact that America twice elected a Big Liar as President. If that hadn't happened, then we wouldn't be discussing it - there would still be plenty of disinformation and false news about, but it wouldn't be emanating from the Oval Office.

"People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one. This aligns with their nature. They know they might lie about trivial things, but a massive lie? They’d hesitate to go that far. A big lie doesn’t even occur to them, so they can’t imagine someone else being capable of such shameless distortion of facts."

(I won’t mention the author to focus on the idea itself.) — Astorre

Reminds me of The Art of War

I propose a thought experiment that allows you to see this mechanism in action:
1. Take any news.
2. "Clean" all emotions from it, leaving only a naked fact.
3. Compare how the same fact is presented in different sources: in the official media, among independent bloggers, in the opposition media.

You will see that the fact itself will be the same, but its emotional superstructure - context, intonation, accents - will be radically different. It is this superstructure that shapes our attitude and consolidates opinion. This will confirm or refute the idea that emotions from news are more important than the facts themselves. — Astorre

We do see this in action. We can just look at different news sources and see how the same facts are being framed to fit each news source's agenda. As long as you read more than the headline, the BBC, Sky News, and many established newspaper in my country have a largely objective coverage.

It is difficult to resist, but possible if you deliberately slow down and separate emotions from facts, as I suggested in a thought experiment. This does not solve the problem completely, but it helps to realize how our opinion is formed not so much by information as by the feelings that it evokes. — Astorre

Doesn’t everyone who takes in any news try to filter out the spin? Watching the news is always an act of interpretation: where are they trying to lead us; where's the bias? The same goes for philosophy or storytelling. It’s generally attempting to lead us somewhere. Most narratives are trying to persuade. :wink:

But I would argue that the "big lie" doesn't have to be one grand fiction. It can be a sustained narrative that is formed through the repetition of emotionally charged interpretations of facts, gradually creating a belief in people that they accept without deep analysis. — Astorre

I’d still need to see this in action to understand your point properly. Is an example of this perhaps something like the idea that people on welfare are lazy? That’s a trope peddled by media for years and is now so common that many accept it as given.

. Unlike the traditional yellow press, where influence was limited to circulation or audience, social networks create echo chambers where emotional narratives circulate endlessly, forming perceptions without the need for one "big" lie - many small, emotionally charged distortions are enough. — Astorre

The issue of social media bubbles is pretty well established. The Fleming story sounds more like a classic urban myth which is a separate phenomenon.

I’d still need to see this in action to understand your point properly. — Tom Storm

As long as you read more than the headline, the BBC, Sky News, and many established newspaper in my country have a largely objective coverage. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Good. I will try to give a practical example of my conclusions. For analysis, I will choose two major American news outlets Fox News and CNN. I'll analyze the news about Trump's tariffs in early 2025 to show how their filing shapes different emotions among readers. To do this, I use my proposed method of "clearing" news of emotions, followed by comparing narratives
Bare facts:
1.Trump announced tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada and China.
2.Tariffs on Mexico and Canada covered by USMCA agreement delayed
3.Tariffs have caused volatility in the stock market, and some experts have expressed concern about a possible recession.

Fox News Feed: Positive Tone: Tariffs are described as part of a "Make America Wealthy Again" strategy to bring jobs back to the U.S. Mentioned is "Liberation Day," an emotionally charged title that evokes a sense of patriotism and liberation. Trump support: Trump's quote that the United States will become "so rich that it will not know where to spend money" underscores optimism and confidence. Risk minimization: Although market volatility is mentioned, the emphasis is on Trump's long-term strategy, compared to China's "100-year perspective," which creates the image of a visionary leader.

Emotional effect: Pride in US economic independence, confidence in the success of Trump's policies, minimizing anxiety about economic risks. Readers are likely to feel supported by Trump's actions and optimistic about the future.

CNN feed Negative tone: Tariffs link to consumer and business "angst," as well as "stock market decline." It is mentioned that the cost of tariffs is "passed on to consumers," emphasizing the negative consequences. Skepticism: It is mentioned that Trump "did not rule out a recession," and his statements about US wealth ("let's become so rich") are presented with irony, without emphasis on success. Criticism: It points to "uncertainty" in trade policy and its potential harm, which increases the feeling of instability.

Emotional effect: Anxiety, uncertainty about the future, doubts about Trump's competence. Readers may feel uneasy about the economic impact and distrust of the administration's policies.

Comparison
Fox News is using a patriotic and optimistic narrative to give readers pride and confidence in Trump as a leader who acts in America's best interests. CNN focuses on risks and uncertainty, causing alarm and skepticism. The facts are the same, but the emotional "superstructure" is radically different: Fox News creates the image of a strong leader, CNN - a potential culprit of economic problems.


Perhaps in the first message I vaguely formulated my position. I will try to clarify the points:
1. The news flow today is overwhelming
2. The reader does not have time to compare each news in different sources
3. The media take advantage of this, adding an emotional color to naked facts
4. The reader simply trusts the preferred source, hoping that they should not lie there
5. The media constantly maintains an emotional background when presenting each news
6. Bare facts from the news gradually erode from memory, but the emotional background is remembered
7. When it comes to a citizen's decision (such as who to vote for), they choose feelings over facts.

In conclusion, I would like to mention the "Big Lie" in a report compiled during the war by the US Office of Strategic Services when describing Hitler's psychological portrait:
"His basic rules were: never let society" cool down "; never admit mistakes; never allow thoughts of the presence of positive sides in the enemy; never leave room for an alternative; never admit guilt; each time concentrate on any one enemy and blame him for all troubles; people would rather believe a big lie than a small one; and if you repeat it often enough, sooner or later people will believe in it "

Fox News is using a patriotic and optimistic narrative to give readers pride and confidence in Trump as a leader who acts in America's best interests. CNN focuses on risks and uncertainty, causing alarm and skepticism. The facts are the same, but the emotional "superstructure" is radically different: Fox News creates the image of a strong leader, CNN - a potential culprit of economic problems. — Astorre

But we already know Fox is aligned with the Right and Trump while CNN is softer centrist/conservative. We would have expected both examples of coverage to look like this.

This is how people have generally chosen their preferred news since the days of papers. Reactionary and progressive are discrete markets.

What’s a current example of a big lie?

That list describes it well. There is also the factor of ‘outrage fatigue’ - norms of truthfulness and decency are broken so often and with so little apparent consequence, that people merely shrug, and it becomes normalized.

What’s a current example of a big lie? — Tom Storm

Tom Storm, yes, the media has always been divided into reactionary and progressive, as in my example with Trump's tariffs. But the "big lie" today is the illusion of pluralism: Narratives seem diverse but distort facts, polarizing people.
People repeat the discourses of the media, almost no one has their own opinion. The dominance of one opinion over another is ensured by the number of invested resources.

All that worries us about politics is the result of reproducing what we are given. There is no real opinion, we just choose which train car to board, but we do not choose the direction of the train itself.

There is also the factor of ‘outrage fatigue’ - norms of truthfulness and decency are broken so often and with so little apparent consequence, that it becomes normalized. — Wayfarer

May I ask you to describe this concept in more detail?

I’ve been reading US media for years, it is common knowledge that Trump had committed numerous acts which lead many observers to predict the end of his political career - only to see him brush it off and carry on regardless. ( Jan 6 2021 being an outstanding example.) So the response of his base becomes that it doesn’t matter what he does, the problem lies with his perceived accusers. He has broken so many standards that to all intents they are no longer recognized in the public square.

Do you agree with the core premise? I’ve noticed that this theory has taken on new dimensions today due to the nature of our information environment.

I don’t agree with it.

We should recall that in the mouths of Nazis and their critics, the claim of The Big Lie is used to smear their enemies as cheats and liars. Hitler claimed the Jews employed the Big Lie, Goebbels claimed the Brits did, and the Allies and their historians claimed the Nazis did (and sooner or later, the Soviets).

It doesn’t look like it was used as an actual propaganda technique as is often accused, at least according to what I’ve read. I could be wrong.

So, if looked at in this way, it doesn’t look like the idea has taken on new dimensions, since it is still commonly used today as a smear tactic and argument for censorship. Beware those who use it.

while CNN is softer centrist/conservative — Tom Storm

From an American perspective, regarding American politics, CNN is very liberal.

What’s a current example of a big lie? — Tom Storm

The 2020 election was stolen.

From an American perspective, regarding American politics, CNN is very liberal. — RogueAI

Interesting. I have only seen it intermittanly and I qalwasy found it conser ative Btu then I cosnider your Democrats to be failty conservative too.

What’s a current example of a big lie?
— Tom Storm

The 2020 election was stolen. — RogueAI

I was going to ask that myself, but how many people actually believed it? Is it still a big lie if only a small percentage of the country believes everything one con artist says?

But the "big lie" today is the illusion of pluralism: Narratives seem diverse but distort facts, polarizing people. — Astorre

So I wonder if one of the big lies is the popular notion that 'politics doesn’t matter because they’re all corrupt.' It seems to me that this idea disempowers voters by lowering their expectations and participation and ends up empowering the baser opportunists to gain more control.

The 2020 election was stolen.
— RogueAI

I was going to ask that myself, but how many people actually believed it? — Tom Storm

According to this story, two years ago 70% of Republican Voters thought that Biden’s election was illegitimate https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate

Incidentally while it has been mentioned, it hasn’t been made explicit in this thread that the expression ‘The Big Lie’, capitalized, refers almost exclusively to Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, in which he persists to this day.

Yes, but I guess this group was ready to accept any tale that was anti-Biden or anti-Democrat, right? Any story. It didn’t need to be particularly big or require any skill in its dissemination. But did they really believe it or just agree that Biden and the status quo was shit so almost any smear was useful.

Fixed my wording.

Maybe, but this lie is a torpedo aimed at the Ship of State.

fixed my wording

In any case - the main point is the context - that the specific expression became associated with Trump's election denial, as distinct from it being a general term for political mendacity.

I don't deny the point. But I'm trying to work out whether a big lie actually matters, or if it's just reflecting what the public already believes. The lie comes afterwards, more like a garnish, than a key motivator for action.

Republicans believe all sorts of crazy stuff. They're primed to swallow some really kooky bullshit. When I was a kid, they fought tooth and nail to deny smoking was dangerous. Then it was Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. Followed by Iraq and WMD's (although this was kind of a mainstream lie that a lot of Democrats bought into). Then it was climate change denialism, birtherism, Qanon, pizzagate, a conspiracy to overcount Covid deaths, stolen elections, vaccine denialism, etc.

But then my party, Democrats, get stumped when someone asks them "what is a woman?", so people in glass houses.

So I wonder if one of the big lies is the popular notion that 'politics doesn’t matter because they’re all corrupt.' It seems to me that this idea disempowers voters by lowering their expectations and participation and ends up empowering the baser opportunists to gain more control. — Tom Storm

From here we get:
Train. You can choose one of the cars, but this will not change the direction of the train. You can also choose not to board the train (denying the performance), but the easier it will be for the driver.

I'm trying to work out whether a big lie actually matters, or if it's just reflecting what the public already believes. — Tom Storm

I think it’s cause more than consequence. Sure there was a ready audience but they had to be fed, and lead.

What is a big lie? — Tom Storm

Things go better with coke.

Wealth in the hands of the wealthy trickles down to the poor.

Poverty is caused by immigrants.

Hatred is the best cure for suffering.

A big lie is a comfortable or comforting lie. It proffers an easy solution to a hard problem; it typically puts the blame for one's suffering on someone else and suggests doing something unpleasant to them as remedy. It misdirects one's emotion as the conjurer misdirects one's attention. Meanwhile, the other hand picks your pocket.