you can't "unbury" someone's head when they've stuck it in the sand.

"Fight the Smears.com" will only help the curious. No those who have made up their minds, and were only looking for support for their view.

(BTW, "Obama is a Muslim because his father was, etc." just cracks me up. It reminds me of the John Kerry smear "Well, he's really Jewish, because his grandfather was, but he changed his name ..." . As if one can not choose a different religion from one's ancestors. When so much of this drivel comes from the "born again" crowd, I find the irony thick enough to serve on crackers).

The first way of addressing false claims is to refute them period. The second way is to ignore them i.e. 'push them under the carpet' and forget them. A third way is to give positive information to flood the negative information. It often depends on the nature of the allegation and its likely impact. The second way applies to very minor allegations. If you talk a lot about them, you may actually give them credence. It is better to ignore them. The best approach in most cases is a combination of the first and third ways. One should state clearly that the allegation is false and then provide a lot of positive information in his favor to show that the allegation is inconsistent with 'reality'. Marketers have taught us that through constant repetition in advertising our perceptions about products can be changed. They may not change immediately but it often happens over time.

A publicity site would do Barack Obama a lot of good. There is a site which has videos of many of his speeches and interviews accessible in one place that could assist. It is located at http://barack-obama-news.info/videos. It will give him a lot of positive publicity for free.

Yes, Obama's new site may backfire in the short term. Still fighting the election with the TRUTH is part of the CHANGE Obama is offering. Now American have a clear choice!

Funny how the author says that Obama has "masterfully" refuted rumors that he's a Muslim but those who believe it has gone from single digits to the teens. The press is still guzzling the koolaid but the topic of the article at least shows baby steps toward some semblance of analysis and diligence.

Good article about how to manage rumours. However, it is interesting that it did not pose or even reference in passing the obvious question: Why is a rumour about a person's religion a smear?

Have things sunk so low that instead of debating a man's ideas people are spending their time denying or accusing a presidential candidate of being a particular faith? He isn’t Muslim—but so what if he was.

joecanada: "Why is a rumour about a person's religion a smear?"

In the context of a political election, any falsehood attributed to a candidate that will likely adversely impact him or her in said election is what I would regard as a smear. That the falsehood is or isn't regarded as a "good" thing in some objective sense is irrelevant.

Seriously...

More than half of this letter section is a waste.

On asking for email passwords: Have none of you every dealt with Facebook or started an account on a social networking site? I was appalled the first time Facebook asked me for the password to my email. I didn't give it, and I think it's a very bad idea, but you guys are reacting like Obama's site is the first one to ever do this. News Flash! It's not... that is common practice on many social networking sites. Not a good practice, but common.

On attacking Farhad for:

1. being anti-Obama and pro McCain - Really? Where did that come from? I took this article as suggesting why the Obama campaign's approach here might not be a good one, not taking issue with the more general idea of fighting internet smear compaigns. For anyone who has dealt with viral communications, and internet PR his points are pretty basic. Given how savvy Obama's campaign has been about using technology to its benefit, the format of this page is definitely a weird misstep.

2. writing about politics instead of technology - While I fully support Farhad's right to blog about political issues, I don't see how writing about why a web page works or not, and how to deal with viral internet rumors DOESN'T fall under the technology heading. What are you people reading?

3. being a microsoft flunkie - Last time I heard, he was being called an Apple fanboy. I really don't see how he can be both, aside from the fact that, oh yea, he writes a blog about techology, which means he's probably into that sort of thing, and thusly easily excited about things electronic and technological. Most of the worthwhile ones, of which, are made by Apple and a few other companies. I actually can't recall him ever raving about a microsoft product though. Again... what are you people reading?

Personally, I think the way to fight these rumors is simple... when you get an email talking about one of these things, be it Obama's beliefs or that Microsoft is giving away checks for $10k, or whatever, just do a reply all to everyone on the list with a link to the relevant snopes.com article. It took about eight or ten of those before my father started looking for himself before he forwarded those emails... these days I don't really get any of them at all.

Yes there will always be a few idiots who refuse to believe the truth, but those people weren't going to vote for anyone I want in office anyway... by educating the ones who are willing to click a link and read a short page of facts, the paranoid minority becomes ever smaller and ever more ridiculous. That won't stop Drudge and Fox News from mining them for material, but it will make the real news sites look ever more foolish when they follow along.