Rumors, Race and Riots

Terry Ann Knopf

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351492454
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Are race-related rumors rooted in the personality traits of the individual? Are they a kind of "improvised news" for a community? Do they come and go at random or form definite, recognizable patterns? What role do the news media play in spreading rumors? These and other questions are treated in this classic study, now available in paperback with a new introduction by the author, of how and why rumors emerge in connection with racial disorders.

Included is an examination and critique of the three major models of rumor formation: the psychological approach, emphasizing the emotional needs and drives of the individual; the functional approach, which views rumors as a form of "improvised news"; and the conspiratorial approach, which sees rumors as deliberately planted and not spontaneous.

The author's "process model" of rumor formation is based on the premise that rumors cannot "cause" violence and that violence cannot "cause" rumors. Both are viewed as parts of the same process. Rumors are seen as just one of a series of determinants, each of which increases the likelihood of a collective outburst. Among the determinants examined are: conditions of stress; a rigid social structure supported by a racist ideology; and a hostile belief system (or negative set of generalized perceptions) held separately by different groups. Race-related rumors are functionally tied to the latter point and crystallize, confirm, and intensify these beliefs by linking them to actual events.

Hundreds of pertinent rumors are documented from local newspapers and investigative accounts. An exhaustive, systematic inquiry is made into the series of disorders that occurred between 1967 and 1970. The role played by rumors during these disturbing times is examined and compared to earlier periods of unrest. Implications for public policy are explored along with a hard look at rumor-control centers. The influence of the police and other public officials as well as the news media are

1. THE PERVASIVENESS OF RUMOR

Defining Rumor

On March 8, 1970, a woman in Washington, D.C. queried Parade, the Sunday weekly magazine: “I have been told that Mrs. Dean Martin plans to name 240 ‘other women’ in her divorce suit. Is this true?” The woman’s question is a good example of rumor. A proposition is offered for belief (in fact, two propositions are involved here: first, that there were 240 “other women” in the singer’s life; and second, that they were about to be named in Mrs. Martin’s divorce suit), and passed along from one source or person to another (“I have been told that”), without secure standards of evidence. The only evidence was that someone, probably a friend or acquaintance with no direct knowledge of the situation, happened to mention it.¹

Other elements of rumor may be seen in this story itself. First, rumors refer to a particular person, object, event or issue. In this case, the woman’s account is quite specific in detail, referring as it does to Dean Martin, Mrs. Martin and 240 “other women.” Second, the story is of a topical nature and of some interest to the public, since Dean Martin has been a popular television and motion picture personality. Furthermore, the circulation of this rumor coincided with a public announcement that the Martins would shortly be divorced.

Note that nothing has been said about the validity of the woman’s story—in other words, whether or not the rumor was true. Contrary to the popular view, falsehood is not necessarily a feature of rumor. The key factor which sets a rumor apart from information is that the report, account, story or allegation is unverified—but such an inverified report may later turn out to be true or false.

One may ask what constitutes “secure standards of evidence.” To begin with, the origin or source of the evidence should be easily identified and considered reliable. Statements which begin: “Did you hear the latest?” or “Someone told me” or “I have it on good authority,” raise serious questions about the quality of what is being reported. Proximity to the source is another important feature. A report that is based on second- or third-hand evidence may be far less reliable than a report stemming from the original source.

Next, the source should be regarded as objective. The report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General, linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, is likely to be more impartial and credible than the press releases issued by the Tobacco Institute, a lobbyist group for the tobacco industry. Some people would protest that objectivity is a myth and that some sources are merely less biased than others. In that case, the argument can be put another way: know the bias of your source. In September 1973, Chile’s democratically elected government headed by Marxist President Salvador Allende was toppled by a military coup—the first in 46 years. Immediately, many “underground” newspapers in this country charged the CIA and American business interests were involved, while discounting the President’s reported suicide. Perhaps the charges were true. However, the leftist bias of such publications cannot be denied and suggests the need for additional investigation.

Finally, the source should be defined as authoritative. For example, the public has traditionally held the news media in high esteem as a valuable and trusted source of information. Many Americans refused to believe that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had died until the reports were confirmed by the media. As Shibutani points out:

Whether communication occurs through personal contact, writing, print, or some electronic device, if the channel is defined as authoritative, it serves as the standard against which reports attributed to all other sources are checked.²

Of course, any evaluation of evidence requires some judgment on the part of the recipient, since some standards of evidence are more secure than others. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether secure standards are actually present and thus whether the report falls in the realm of information or is simply a rumor. Conflicting reports just before the Senate voted on the nomination of Judge G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court illustrate this point.

Both the New York Times and CBS News are regarded as reasonably objective, reliable and authoritative sources. Both undertook senatorial nose-counts on the eve of the Carswell vote. Yet each of the investigations turned up a different set of conclusions. On April 7, 1970, the Times reported that “confirmation is likely.” Later in the day, on the CBS Evening News, Walter Cronkite more cautiously rated the vote “a toss-up.” It turned out that both reports were off the mark. The Senate defeated the nomination of Judge Carswell by a vote of 51-45—a fairly decisive margin, considering the earlier reports.

It is not clear why the Times and CBS erred in their reporting. Perhaps the political situation was more fluid than they realized. Perhaps some Senators changed their minds at the last moment. Perhaps, under the pressures of deadline reporting, they were not so thorough in their investigations as they should have been. In any event, individuals reading the New York Times that day or watching Walter Cronkite that night would have found it extremely difficult to judge the quality of the reports—and to tell how secure were the standards of evidence.

Another difficulty arises in situations where the informant is the sole source of evidence. Some time ago, a tourist in South Africa insisted he had seen a pink elephant in Kruger National Park. The man was quite specific in his account: “The brush of the tip of its tail was snow white and its skin was pearly pink.” As described by a newspaper account, the gentleman was “sober” and “firm” in his story. Albino characteristics have been discovered in many animals; elephants might similarly be affected, and an albino elephant could very well appear pink. Nevertheless, given the uniqueness of the situation—there are 7,700 elephants in Kruger Park and this was the first time a pink elephant was reportedly seen by an individual whose credibility had not already been established—additional verification would seem to have been in order.

Rumor in Our Lives

Few of us are completely objective and reliable in seeking, disseminating and verifying information. Nor are we experts on most subjects. To a greater extent than we realize, we are all prone to formulate and circulate rumors. Gossip, whether it be of the back-fence or petty-office variety, constitutes rumor in its simplest form. But rumor exists on other levels as well, permeating and affecting virtually every phase of human activity.

In 1969, for example, rumors swept the country that California would soon fall into the sea. Soothsayers, mystics, and visionaries all prophesied that a cataclysmic earthquake would occur on April 4th of that year. “Earthquake fever” was especially conspicuous in California itself. Popular songs, jokes, books, records and cartoons appeared there, all commenting on the impending disaster. Stores held pre-earthquake sales. Stories circulated that many people were taking April vacations. While these reports were never confirmed, it is a fact that Governor Ronald Reagan, who has long been interested in astrology, happened to be in Arizona on April 4.

Several months later, another rumor circulated on college campuses, that Paul McCartney of the Beatles was dead, prompting the following satirical news story in Time magazine on October 31, 1969:

LONDON (AP)—Paul McCartney vigorously denied today the rumor that he is alive and well. At a resurrection ceremony held at London’s Highgate Cemetery, the 24-year-old Beatle, who would have been 27 had he lived, emerged from his tomb to insist that he was decapitated in a car accident three years ago.

Rumors play an extremely important role in the business world. This is especially true in the stock market, which is based upon the willingness of businessmen to risk buying and selling stock in the expectation of profiting from future market fluctuations. On September 20, 1973, rumors of a possible devaluation of the French franc set off a wave of speculation on world money markets, dragging down the dollar and putting pressure on the French currency. Underscoring the sensitivity of the stock market to rumor, on more than one occasion the New York Stock Exchange has opened an inquiry into the possibility that widespread and erroneous rumors had been spread deliberately as part of a plan to manipulate the market.

Specific details, facts, information and candor are frequently at a premium in politics, making the political arena another fertile breeding-ground for rumor. In 1970, an unfounded rumor spread that the RAND Corporation had been asked by the White House to study what would happen if the presidential election of 1972 were called off. This “scare” rumor originated with the Newhouse News Service and was subsequently picked up by the Village Voice, a Chicago Sun-Times columnist and several underground newspapers.

Throughout the Vietnam War, there were rumors of every variety. Unconfirmed reports of a schism in Hanoi’s leadership over whether or not to continue the war, expectations by U.S. commanders of sharp rises in infiltration by the other side, and allegations that Saigon planned an invasion of North Vietnam, all received widespread circulation at one time or another.

Now that direct U.S. involvement in this tragic war has ended, and with the release of the Pentagon Papers, more secret documents may become available to the public, thus paving the way for a more objective and accurate assessment of the real situation. It will be vitally important for us to see the extent to which the information flowing from a vast complex of sources—the State Department, the Pentagon, the South Vietnamese government, the American embassy in Saigon—wa: defective, and the extent to which crucial decisions were made in Washington on the basis of these faulty date. Even now, certain public statements made in the early stages of our commitment there, concerning Vietcong strength and support, projections of their growth rate, reports that our troops “had turned the corner” and were winning the war, suggest the existence of a serious information gap.

The precarious state of race relations—about which we shall have much to say later—is mirrored in many explosive rumors which have swept through communities across the United States. Ralph E. Featherstone, a prominent black activist, and an unidentified black man were killed on March 9, 1970, when an explosive device shattered the car in which they were driving. Immediately, rumors spread that the unidentified man was Featherstone’s close friend, H. Rap Brown. (The explosion occurred two miles from the courthouse where pretrial hearings were being held for Brown, who had been charged with arson and incitement to riot in Cambridge, Maryland.) Additional rumors swarmed through the black community that the dead men had been victims of an assassination plot. Meanwhile, rumors in the white community suggested that the two men were bringing dynamite to the courthouse area for the purpose of a terrorist raid.

A series of police raids on the Black Panthers, notably in Chicago and Los Angeles in late 1969, precipitated charges of a national conspiracy directed from Washington. In particular, the Department of Justice, under the conservative leadership of John Mitchell, was said to be “out to destroy” the Panther organization. In a similar vein, stories still persist that the federal government plans to establish concentration camps for blacks.³

Rumor Throughout History

Thus far, we have seen that rumors encompass an extremely broad range of human endeavor: personal relationships, business, race, politics, international affairs and the like. But the importance of rumor goes far beyond its pervasiveness in our lives. The point is not simply that we are all so susceptible to rumor—that we are willing to listen to, formulate and circulate unverified reports—but that we are frequently willing to act on the basis of rumor. Indeed, history abounds in examples where men and women have created, miscalculated, explored, exploited, even killed—at least partly in response to rumor.

In Athens, stories that Socrates was corrupting the youth and inciting them to violence helped send the philosopher to his death. During the Age of Expansion, explorers managed to voyage all around the world, motivated partly by sketchy reports of gold and other treasures, fountains of eternal youth and gigantic sea monsters. An episode in history known as La Grande Peur (The Great Fear) provides a clear-cut, if not classic, case of people responding to rumor.⁴ Contrary to popular belief, the fall of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, did not trigger the French Revolution—for the provinces were already in flames before such news reached the peasantry. Earlier in July, a panic had seized large parts of the country, affecting even Paris itself. From village to village, word spread that the nobles were sending “brigands” into rural districts to massacre the peasants; that royalists were planning to starve them by raising the price of grain; and that city-dwellers were about to march upon the fields to cut down the harvest. Acting upon these rumors, landless farmhands, unemployed workers from neighboring towns, vagrants and desperate criminals banded together. Thus, even before the news of the Bastille arrived, several provinces were in full rebellion against their feudal masters. Rural police were unable to restore order, while the king could not count upon the troops of the regular army. The Great Fear really signalled the end of the old order in France.

The first World War provides another means of demonstrating the rumor-response phenomenon. Take, for example, the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand which, as every schoolchild knows, was the immediate cause of the war. On July 28, 1914, the Archduke (heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary) and his wife were assassinated in the streets of Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, which Austria had annexed in 1908. The assassin, Princip, was a Serbian nationalist, and Bosnia had long been desired by the Serbs. Alarmed by the ambitions of the Serbian nationalists, the Austro-Hungarian government sent a strongly worded ultimatum to Serbia. Following Serbia’s refusal to accept the ultimatum in its entirety, Austria declared war on Serbia. Within a week, all the great nations of Europe were at war.

Austria’s actions were based on reports that the Serbian government had some previous knowledge of the assassination plot and therefore should have given her warning. In fact, these reports were true, but positive proof was lacking at the time.⁵ Nevertheless, because of the reports, and also because she wished to check Serbian agitation, Austria prepared the ultimatum and later declared war.

Rumors continued to play a significant role as the war continued. Frightening stories of German atrocities based upon seemingly irrefutable evidence, as well as unconfirmed reports that the “Potsdam gang” had planned the war step by step, helped consolidate public opinion in neutral countries (such as the United States) in favor of the Allies. These reports were not only undocumented but also were largely untrue. Nevertheless, they did create a climate more favorable to the Allied cause—a climate which foreshadowed the eventual involvement of the United States on the Allies’ side, beginning in 1917.

The history of our own country is replete with illustrations of a similar sort. For example, in Boston on March 5, 1770, a street fight broke out between a crowd of about 50 men and boys and a small band of British soldiers. Several civilians were killed and several more wounded. The citizens were at least as much to blame for this as the soldiers. During the fracas, seven soldiers under the command of a Captain Preston were surrounded by a large and hostile crowd which tossed insults at the soldiers and, according to some of the evidence, threw snowballs at them, attacking one soldier with a club.⁶ Unfortunately, distorted accounts spread through the colonies claiming that peaceful citizens had been wantonly assaulted by bloodthirsty murderers and that the captain had ordered his men to fire on the crowd—an accusation that was never proved at the ensuing trial. Misrepresentation of the incident served to inflame passions and further polarize relations between the colonies and England. This episode stands as a small but significant prelude to the final break with the mother country.⁷

At times during our history, the state has legitimized the use of violenc...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Dedication
• Introduction to the Paperback Edition
• Preface
• 1 The Pervasiveness of Rumor
• 2 Race and Rumor: A Historical Overview
• 3 The Formation of Rumor: Theoretical Perspectives
• 4 Rumorsand Racial Disorders: The Process Model
• 5 Racial Disorder in the 1960s: The Process Model Tested
• 6 The Role of Formal Groups: Implications for Public Policy
• Appendices
• Notes
• Index