LAST TIME, I OUTLINED AN EMAIL that's been going the rounds, ostensibly about ABC's rude response to a letter of complaint.

The story is essentially true, except for the main point, which is that ABC responded inappropriately to Neugent's letter.

This is false on two counts:

1. The author of the rude reply Neugent received did work for ABC, but not in any capacity that included responding to letters about programming on their behalf. He was an employee who worked on the web page, and who got hold of the message by mistake.
   
   His response was rude, and he later regretted it and asked for the opportunity to apologize to Neugent, but ABC fired him instead, for writing the letter.
   
   The email doesn't mention any of this, because that would undermine the propaganda message, but Neugent—and, presumably, the editor who turned the incident into a propaganda email—knew it.
   
   They knew it because of the second misrepresentation in the email.

2. ABC found out about the exchange, and sent the following letter of apology:

Dear Mr. Neugent:

We apologize for the e-mail message that was sent to you with comments that reflect neither the view of ABC nor of its executives. Viewer mail is traditionally handled by our Audience Information department for response. Your message was inappropriately handled by a programmer from ABC.com. I want to assure you that the response that you received does not in any way reflect the views of ABC Television, and most importantly is not at all consistent with the manner in which KATV, our valued partner in Little Rock, would ever treat their audience/community members.

Unfortunately, as in any organization, there are bound to be a few individuals that step out of line. To that end, we completed a comprehensive investigation into the matter earlier this afternoon. While the individual was deeply contrite and wanted to apologize to you, we felt that his actions were reprehensible and terminated him immediately.

Specifically in response to your original concerns regarding the subject of homosexuality in our programming, the ABC programming department has tried to treat such subjects in a sensitive manner. We recognize that we are serving a large, diverse audience with a wide range of attitudes towards all types of entertainment programming. We believe that programs thoughtfully reflecting social issues existing in our present society constitute proper television fare. We appreciate your original comments and take serious note of your thoughts on the potential direction of future story lines.

We are glad that you brought the e-mail incident to our attention. We truly regret that this happened, and we hope you understand by our actions that we will not tolerate this kind of behavior from any member of our staff.

Finally, I would like to once again add that the response that you received should in no way be attributed to our partner in Little Rock, KATV. As you well know, KATV has been the news and public affairs leader in Little Rock for years, and will be for many more. A finer, more committed television station does not exist. I would not want their reputation to suffer in any way due to our mishap.

Please accept our apologies and regrets.

Sincerely,

Daren Benzi
ABC Television Network.

The email omits this part of the story, and consequently gives the impression that ABC was officially rude and even nasty in response to a reader's concerns about its programming.

This would have been a lie, even if it had only been implied by the omission, but in fact there are two points in the email which actually go further:

"How could ABC be soooooooo rude!!"

"Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:"

The second of those last two quotes is a particularly interesting ploy. If a reader who is inclined to be taken in by this email later discovers the truth and re-reads it, he or she can convince themselves that it wasn't really deceptive. They said it was the web master all along!

Of course, the way they said it made it sound like the web master was representing ABC.

The email also manages to imply that there is a clear anti-gay message in the New Testament book of Romans. This, also, is far from the case. There's a tremendous amount of debate, even among evangelical Christians, about exactly what the passage in question means, particularly in light of the overall message of the book as a whole.

But the real power of this email is, like the last one we looked at, the power of conflation.

By leaving out the most important part of the story, by telling half-truths and implying direct falsehoods, the email manages to turn the unfortunate behavior of a single person on a single occasion into an overarching world view.

The overall impression given to the reader can be summed up in two equations:

ABC = Powerful Corporation = Homosexual Supporters = Rude and Insensitive = Satanic

While, on the other hand...

The Reader and the Author = Powerless Little Guys = Moral People = Mistreated = Godly

The idea is to tie homophobia, religious identity, and a sense of persecution together to help cement a political point of view.

And who's behind it?

Put it this way: if a reader buys into those two equations, who will he or she vote for next election?

At least, that's what I think today.