English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

A common tactic in the deliberate spread of misinformation such as is common in chain emails, is to state something true and easily proven in order to gain the reader's trust, then follow it with a lie that the trusting reader will not bother to verify.

An example is the Obamacare/dhimmitude email, which correctly defines the term "dhimmitude" as a Muslim tax on non-muslims, and encourages the reader to "Google it." Then the email claims that the word appears in the Obamacare law, which it doesn't. But the email gets passed around anyway, because people never bother to check.

So my question is, is there a name for this tactic?

share|improve this question

Though not specific to that technique, what's being done there is the use of half-truth, which comes pretty close. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth

share|improve this answer
@njbair oh, Padawan Learner's answer brought to mind that you also have in your OP the term "misinformation." It must be composed with half-truth. The term implies intention - it's a shorten form of misleading information (I think), as opposed to "wrong information," intentional or other wise. – Howard Pautz Sep 14 '13 at 0:32

Disinformation - You are providing information while also knowingly spreading lies.

When I partake in a few adult beverages this is my favorite past time. Any time I can provide insight on something in a conversation, I like to follow it up with a small tidbit of bullshit. The more obscure the better. And if it is really good then they have no chance at googling an answer.

Example #1

Friends were discussing Buffalo burgers and I mentioned their low fat/calorie content, which was then verified. I then went on to talk about how the buffalo became endangered because they would not cross train tracks during their migratory process and soon just died by the tracks.

Example #2

A special was playing about Mark Twain and my kids were watching it. Soon a few guests started watching it, and his name came up and I told the meaning of marking a twain as a riverboat captain. Right after that I mentioned that Mark Twain used the name "Huckleberry" because he was allergic to Huckleberry jam.

Example #3

Friends were talking about the Dish Hopper and the use of kangaroos in their ads. I mentioned that it was interesting because a female kangaroo is a flyer. Then I went on about the name Joey for a baby kangaroo - telling a story of an Englishman convict that had escaped from penal camp and hid with a group kangaroos. And of course his name was Joey. Joey was also the first person to notice that kangaroos cannot walk backwards.

Now that my friends have caught on a bit they tend to not believe anything. But I see them checking their phones secretly a minute or two later and that makes the disinformation even more fun.

Also sharks cannot get cancer.

share|improve this answer

Misdirection? Bait-and-switch? Seeming to do one thing yet really accomplishing another. Getting you angry because of one item (Obamacare in this case) and then slipping in another item (a reference to Islam in this case) to associate the anger. See item 4 under Thesaurus: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misdirection.

share|improve this answer

This kind of deliberate equivocation is also called tergiversation.


  1. to change repeatedly one's attitude or opinions with respect to a cause, subject, etc.; equivocate.

  2. be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead

Another graphic description is card stacking. A detailed description can be found here.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.