The Make-It-Up, Publish-It, Get-Mad Cycle:

There’s a recurring pattern in parts of today’s conservative media and activism: a narrative is chosen first, evidence is retrofit later, and pushback is treated as persecution rather than engagement. Not all conservatives do this, and the left has mirror-image problems. But this essay focuses on a right-side cycle that has reshaped talk radio, cable shows, newsletters, think tanks, and influencer ecosystems.

The incentives

- Outrage is a business model. Anger and certainty outperform nuance; the attention economy rewards heat over light.

- Identity entrepreneurship. Owning the other side becomes a brand; deviation risks being labeled a traitor.

- Platform dynamics. Algorithms privilege emotive content and simple villains; complex trade-offs get buried.

- Risk asymmetry. In many right-leaning institutions, contradicting a dominant narrative invites donor pressure, primary challenges, or audience loss; amplifying it is safer.

Common moves that manufacture consensus

1) Anecdote-as-data

Striking stories or viral clips are treated as representative, while base rates and broader context are ignored. The memorable overrides the measurable.

2) Motte-and-bailey

Bold claims (“X is a hoax,” “Y is a crisis caused solely by Z”) dominate headlines. When challenged, defenders retreat to a modest, defensible claim ... then return to the bolder line once scrutiny passes.

3) Denominator denial

Graphs and statistics are shared without context: no baselines, no confounders, no time horizons. Relative risks without absolute risks, cherry-picked time windows, selective jurisdictions.

4) Pseudo-expert networks

A small circle of sympathetic figures are elevated as authorities; their quotes seed articles, which other outlets cite, forming circular validation that looks like consensus.

5) Conspiracy laundering

Speculation is framed as “just asking questions,” then repeated often enough to acquire the sheen of plausibility. Contradictory evidence is recast as proof of a cover-up.

6) Euphemism and dysphemism

Friendly policies are framed with soft language; disliked ones with loaded terms. Words do the moral lifting so data doesn’t have to.

7) Whataboutism

Critiques are deflected by pointing to the other side’s flaws. The question “Is this true?” is swapped for “But what about them?” ... a shortcut to avoid conceding error.

8) Fact-check reframing

Accurate corrections are dismissed as biased or part of a hostile “regime media.” The messenger’s alleged motives are used to discredit the message.

9) Meme-ified claims

Complex issues are reduced to punchlines and shareable images. The format inoculates claims from scrutiny while driving mass adoption.

Why anger erupts when challenged

- Brand protection. Narrative entrepreneurs (hosts, influencers, politicians) bind identity to certainty; admitting error threatens the product.

- Audience capture. Followers reward purity and punishment of out-groups; course corrections risk losing the base.

- Loss aversion. Corrections get fewer clicks and feel like losses; doubling down is easier than rebuilding trust.

- Anti-institution reflex. Skepticism of legacy media and academia, sometimes justified, becomes a blanket veto on unwelcome facts.

- Tactical ambiguity. Ambiguous claims let different audiences hear what they want; clarifying them alienates someone, so pushback is framed as hostile.

Where this shows up

- Elections and legitimacy: extraordinary claims offered with ordinary evidence; procedural complexity reduced to innuendo; genuine irregularities conflated with sweeping fraud narratives.

- Public health: early hypotheses treated as certainties; preprints amplified when convenient; risk trade-offs simplified into slogans.

- Crime and immigration: cherry-picked incidents stand in for trends; base rates, demographics, enforcement changes, or economic cycles are omitted.

- Climate and energy: short-term anomalies overgeneralized; uncertainty abused to imply unknowability; costs foregrounded while benefits or adaptation potential ignored.

- Education and culture: curriculum debates become existential panics; specific excesses generalized to entire systems.

The consequences

- Policy by vibes. Laws and executive actions chase headlines more than evidence, generating whiplash and unintended harms.

- Trust erosion. When audiences discover spin, they become cynical ... sometimes about everything, including truths they need.

- Grift susceptibility. If identity outranks verification, opportunists monetize outrage, draining resources from serious work.

- Movement fragility. Purity spirals shrink coalitions; moderates and experts self-censor or exit.

- Strategic myopia. Short-term wins (ratings, fundraisers, viral hits) come at the expense of long-term persuasion and governance.

How to break the cycle without surrendering conservative principles

- Re-center empiricism. Ask the boring questions: What’s the base rate? What’s the counterfactual? Over what time window? How sensitive is this to assumptions?

- Separate values from facts. Values decide ends (order, liberty, family, prosperity); facts inform means. Don’t smuggle values into data cells.

- Track predictions. Treat confident claims as bets. Revisit them. Reward those who update; discount those who never do.

- Demand transparent methods. Prefer preregistered analyses, open data, and clear error bars. Elevate outlets that correct prominently.

- Diversify inputs. Include sources that share your aims but challenge your priors ... methodologically, geographically, and demographically.

- Build internal critics. Every movement needs ombuds, skeptics, and auditors. Make dissent safer than flattery inside your institutions.

- De-escalate performance incentives. Shift rewards from viral combat to measured persuasion: town halls, long-form debates, written testimony.

- Mind the language. Watch for “is” where “might” belongs; avoid moralized euphemisms and scare terms that do the arguing for you.

A note on symmetry

Yes, these dynamics exist on the left. Recognizing that doesn’t negate right-side problems; it simply broadens accountability. If you care about truth, you hold your own side to the highest standard, because that’s where you have influence.

The better path

Conservatism at its best is reality-based: respect for limits, trade-offs, institutions, and incremental reform tested against outcomes. That tradition strengthens when it embraces verification, welcomes debate, and corrects mistakes in public. Making things up can win a news cycle; telling the truth builds a movement that governs well. The choice is between performative certainty and durable credibility. Choose the latter, and the rest ... persuasion, policy, public trust ... gets easier.

Julia O’Hara 2025

THANK YOU for reading my work. I am a global nomad/permanent traveler, or Coddiwombler, if you will, and I move from place to place about every three months. I am currently in Peru and heading to Chile in a few days and from there, who knows? I enjoy writing articles, stories, songs and poems about life, spirituality and my travels. You can find my songs linked below. Feel free to like and subscribe on any of the platforms. And if you are inspired to, tips are always appreciated, but not necessary. I just like sharing.

YouTube Top Song List.

https://www.YouTube.com/results?search_query=julia+o%27hara+top+songs

Amazon PlayList

https://www.amazon.com//music/player/artists/B0D5JP6QYN/julia-o'hara

Spotify PlayList

https://open.spotify.com/artist/2sVdGmG90X3BJVn457VxWA

You can also purchase my books here:

https://www.lulu.com /spotlight/julie-ohara

I am also a member of Buy Me A Coffee – a funding site where you can “buy me a cup of coffee.”

https:www.buymeacoffee.com/JulieOHara