Question everything: A call for healthy skepticism in politics and advertising | Opinion

By Ron Humphries | Contributing Columnist

OPINION — Information moves quickly, and sensational claims often command the most attention. It’s easy to assume we can spot manipulation when we see it, but advertising history suggests otherwise. Persuasion often works not by making us believe something outrageous, but by making a sales pitch feel like common sense.

In the 1920s, the Beech-Nut company wanted to sell more bacon. Its public-relations adviser, Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew, asked doctors whether they favored a hearty breakfast, then publicized their responses alongside a campaign promoting bacon and eggs. The campaign helped make that meal seem like a familiar American tradition, not simply a product a company wanted to sell.

The familiar idea that breakfast is “the most important meal of the day” offers a similar lesson. Food companies, including Kellogg’s, helped popularize the importance of breakfast through advertising. Over time, a message that served commercial interests could sound like an unquestionable fact. But in reality, science has proven that what you eat throughout the day matters significantly more than when you eat.

These examples don’t prove bacon or breakfast is bad, or that every health message is false. They show how easily a persuasive campaign can shape what feels normal, necessary, or scientifically settled. If marketing can shape something as ordinary as what we eat for breakfast, political messaging can certainly shape how we see public issues, leaders, and one another.

Similarly, many political ads and statements rely on claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Examples appear across the political spectrum. The important question isn’t which side made a claim, but whether it’s supported by evidence.

People often begin by trusting what they hear. Malcolm Gladwell discusses this tendency, sometimes called the “default to truth,” in his book 'Talking to Strangers.' Trust helps people cooperate, but it can also make misleading claims easier to accept, especially when a speaker offers certainty or reassurance during a time of uncertainty. Some of the ads and comments I've heard recently make me feel like I've fallen through the looking glass with

Tweedledee opining, "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."

Political messaging can also exploit cognitive biases. For example, confirmation bias can lead us to favor information that fits what we already believe. Another common tactic is the straw man: reducing an opposing view to a crude or exaggerated version that’s easier to dismiss. Nazi propaganda used caricatures and scapegoating to turn complex problems into simple stories about enemies and threats.

The Salem witch trials offer another warning about what can happen when fear takes hold and accusations go unquestioned. In the late 17th century, people were convicted and executed based on claims that lacked reliable evidence. This disturbing moment in history shows how suspicion and social pressure can overpower careful judgment.

Emotions are central to persuasive messaging. Fear, anger, and appeals to national identity can make a message feel urgent and discourage us from questioning its claims. The Nazis used fear to portray targeted groups as dangers to the nation. Today, political campaigns can also use emotional language and imagery to shape audience responses.

The delivery matters, too. Images, music, tone, and pacing can influence how we interpret what we hear. A confident voice or repeated slogan can make a claim feel familiar and credible, even when the evidence is thin.

Today, information spreads rapidly through social media and other platforms, amplifying issues.

The visual and auditory elements of advertisements can create strong emotional connections, so we must critically assess the messages being presented. The concept of "seeing with your ears" underscores this point, emphasizing how delivery can shape our perceptions. A message's tone, inflection, and pacing can evoke strong emotional responses, often overshadowing rational evaluation.

A “question everything " approach doesn’t mean assuming every politician is lying or every advertisement is deceptive. It means treating claims as questions to investigate rather than facts to accept immediately. Who benefits from this message? What evidence supports it? What context might be missing?

In a democracy, thoughtful scrutiny is part of being an informed citizen. The Beech-Nut campaign and breakfast advertising show that persuasion can quietly shape everyday assumptions; history shows that political propaganda can do far greater harm. By slowing down, checking evidence, and noticing when a message is appealing to our emotions, we can make more considered judgments about what we hear.

Ron Humphries is a retired NCDOT Division Design Engineer and a Professional Land Surveyor (Retired). He has over 20 years of experience serving on City of Kings Mountain Planning and Zoning Boards and Boards of Adjustment.