Part of the Politics series
Political campaigning
Finance Grassroots fundraising
Management Opposition research Consultation
Message Advertising Canvassing Retail politics Election promise Get out the vote Gevald campaign Lawn signs Post-truth politics Text messaging
Negative campaigning Attack ad Fearmongering Push poll Smear campaign Voter suppression
Key people Candidate Campaign manager Campaign staff
Politics portal
v t e

A smear campaign, also referred to as a smear tactic or simply a smear, is an effort to damage or call into question someone's reputation, by propounding negative propaganda.^[1] It makes use of discrediting tactics. It can be applied to individuals or groups. Common targets are public officials, politicians, heads of state, political candidates, activists, celebrities (especially those who are involved in politics), and ex-spouses. The term also applies in other contexts, such as the workplace.^[2] The term smear campaign became popular around the year 1936.^[3]

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character. Like negative campaigning, most often smear campaigns target government officials, politicians, political candidates, and other public figures. However, private persons or groups may also become targets of smear campaigns perpetrated in companies, institutions, the legal system, and other formal groups. Discrediting tactics are used to discourage people from believing in the figure or supporting their cause, such as the use of damaging quotations.

Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual with the aim of undermining their credibility.

Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip magazines. Even when the facts behind a smear campaign are demonstrated to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before the truth is known.

Smear campaigns can also be used as a campaign tactic associated with tabloid journalism, which is a type of journalism that presents little well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines, scandal-mongering and sensationalism. For example, during Gary Hart's 1988 presidential campaign (see below), the New York Post reported on its front page big, black block letters: "GARY: I'M NO WOMANIZER."^[4][5]

Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question and onto a specific individual or group. The target of the smear typically must focus on correcting the false information rather than on the original issue.

Deflection has been described as a wrap-up smear: "You make up something. Then you have the press write about it. And then you say, everybody is writing about this charge".^[6]

In the U.S. judicial system, discrediting tactics (called witness impeachment) are the approved method for attacking the credibility of any witness in court, including a plaintiff or defendant. In cases with significant mass media attention or high-stakes outcomes, those tactics often take place in public as well.

Logically, an argument is held in discredit if the underlying premise is found, "So severely in error that there is cause to remove the argument from the proceedings because of its prejudicial context and application...". Mistrial proceedings in civil and criminal courts do not always require that an argument brought by defense or prosecution be discredited, however appellate courts must consider the context and may discredit testimony as perjurious or prejudicial, even if the statement is technically true.

Smear tactics are commonly used to undermine effective arguments or critiques.

During the 1856 presidential election, John C. Frémont was the target of a smear campaign alleging that he was a Catholic. The campaign was designed to undermine support for Fremont from those who were suspicious of Catholics.^{[citation needed]}

Ralph Nader was the victim of a smear campaign during the 1960s, when he was campaigning for car safety. In order to smear Nader and deflect public attention from his campaign, General Motors engaged private investigators to search for damaging or embarrassing incidents from his past. In early March 1966, several media outlets, including The New Republic and The New York Times, reported that GM had tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations.^[7][8] Nader sued the company for invasion of privacy and settled the case for $284,000. Nader's lawsuit against GM was ultimately decided by the New York Court of Appeals, whose opinion in the case expanded tort law to cover "overzealous surveillance."^[9] Nader used the proceeds from the lawsuit to start the pro-consumer Center for Study of Responsive Law.

Gary Hart was the target of a smear campaign during the 1988 US presidential campaign. The New York Post once reported on its front page big, black block letters: "GARY: I'M NO WOMANIZER."^[4][5]

In 2011, China launched a smear campaign against Apple, including TV and radio advertisements and articles in state-run papers. The campaign failed to turn the Chinese public against the company and its products.^[10]

Chris Bryant, a British parliamentarian, accused Russia in 2012 of orchestrating a smear campaign against him because of his criticism of Vladimir Putin.^[11] In 2017 he alleged that other British officials are vulnerable to Russian smear campaigns.^[12][13]

In 2024, The New York Times reported on a smear campaign conducted against actress Blake Lively after she accused Justin Baldoni of misconduct. The smear campaign, which was led by Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace, pushed negative stories about Lively and used social media to boost those stories. Nathan previously worked for clients such as Johnny Depp, Drake and Travis Scott.^[14]

In January 2007, it was revealed that an anonymous website that attacked critics of Overstock.com, including media figures and private citizens on message boards, was operated by an official of Overstock.com.^[15][16]

In 2023, The New Yorker reported that Mohamed bin Zayed was paying millions of euros to a Swiss firm, Alp Services for orchestrating a smear campaign to defame the Emirati targets, including Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. Under the ‘dark PR’, Alp posted false and defamatory Wikipedia entries against them. The Emirates also paid the Swiss firm to publish propaganda articles against the targets. Multiple meetings took place between the Alp Services head Mario Brero and an Emirati official, Matar Humaid al-Neyadi. However, Alp’s bills were sent directly to MbZ. The defamation campaign also targeted an American, Hazim Nada, and his firm, Lord Energy, because his father Youssef Nada had joined the Muslim Brotherhood as a teenager.^[17]