tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/sean-spicer-35181/articlesSean Spicer – The Conversation2020-02-24T13:44:30Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1301642020-02-24T13:44:30Z2020-02-24T13:44:30ZTrump White House goes 300+ days without a press briefing – why that’s unprecedented<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316632/original/file-20200221-92497-1ar3a2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=46%2C39%2C5138%2C3642&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The White House logo is displayed in the press briefing room of the White House in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 31, 2020. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-white-house-logo-is-displayed-in-the-press-briefing-news-photo/1197857412?adppopup=true">Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Journalists learn to adapt to current conditions, be they storms or tantrums, vagaries of nature or whims of officials. White House correspondents these days should be well past their withdrawal symptoms from the daily delirium of the once-regular White House press briefing. </p>
<p>Earlier this year, as <a href="https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/300-days-without-an-official-white-house-press-briefing-audiences-forgive-advertisers-americas-best-sports-writing/">300 days passed without a formal briefing</a>, a bipartisan group of past administration press secretaries called for restoration of the daily briefings. </p>
<p>“Bringing the American people in on the process, early and often, makes for better democracy,” they said in <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/opinions/ex-press-secretaries-open-letter-on-press-briefings/index.html">an open letter on CNN.com</a>. </p>
<p>“The process of preparing for regular briefings makes the government run better. The sharing of information, known as official guidance, among government officials and agencies helps ensure that an administration speaks with one voice,” the former spokespersons said, adding that this is particularly important in foreign and military policy.</p>
<p>Beyond the daily digest of the president’s activities, not all of which is public, reporters look to the briefings for depth and context for their reporting. They expect the White House press secretary and other officials to speak knowledgeably and authoritatively for the president and his administration. </p>
<p>For example, when the coronavirus outbreak was detected in China, reporters wanted to hear government officials explain what the U.S. government was doing to get Americans out of China and to keep the virus out of the U.S. </p>
<p>On another day, the press secretary could provide a corrective along the lines of “What the president meant to say….”</p>
<p>There is no requirement to hold White House press briefings, nor to have them televised. Now, what once was part of the routine of government in Washington is, in the Trump administration, barely seen at the State Department and Pentagon and a fading memory at the White House. The country is left with a singular voice – the president’s – but no idea whether he represents government consensus.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316643/original/file-20200221-92493-1pi3mbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316643/original/file-20200221-92493-1pi3mbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316643/original/file-20200221-92493-1pi3mbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316643/original/file-20200221-92493-1pi3mbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316643/original/file-20200221-92493-1pi3mbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316643/original/file-20200221-92493-1pi3mbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316643/original/file-20200221-92493-1pi3mbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316643/original/file-20200221-92493-1pi3mbk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham (L) and Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley. Grisham has never given a press briefing as press secretary.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/white-house-press-secretary-stephanie-grisham-and-deputy-news-photo/1198272429?adppopup=true">Getty/Chip Somodevilla</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Protecting the president</h2>
<p>The relationship between the president and the press is now <a href="https://apnews.com/fa141b3b08f14921875f7719cd2ec942">more confrontational and more contemptuous</a> than it has been in decades. </p>
<p>But while the press and the presidency have a long relationship, it has <a href="https://www.cjr.org/analysis/the_president_and_the_press.php">not necessarily been a cozy one</a>. When Richard Nixon was president, for example, he had his <a href="https://thehill.com/capital-living/20243-journalist-recalls-the-honor-of-being-on-nixons-enemies-list">“enemies list” that included journalists</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/pundits.prose/bierbauer/index.shtml">I covered the White House for CNN</a> during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Reagan was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/14/magazine/the-president-and-the-press.html">well protected from the media by his staff</a> and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/opinions/nancy-reagan-gergen/index.html">first lady Nancy Reagan</a>. We shouted questions at him over the whir of helicopters. Bush was affable and considerably more accessible.</p>
<p>Donald Trump dominates when he engages with the White House press corps. He chooses when and how, of course, but that’s always the case with presidents.</p>
<p>Regular press conferences had a protocol and, at least, a measure of decorum. The president still decides whose questions he’ll answer. Trump’s preference for impromptu exchanges, commonly on the White House driveway, makes the press look like a shouting mob, which sometimes they are. </p>
<p>Trump, by most assessments, functions as his own press secretary. Those who hold the actual title – <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/">three, so far</a> – learned it’s a foxhole from which one raises his or her head into the president’s verbal line of fire. </p>
<p>The first, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/us/politics/sean-spicer-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary.html">Sean Spicer</a>, was out of sync on day one with <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/24/fact-check-inauguration-crowd-size/96984496/">disputable claims over the size of Trump’s inauguration crowd</a>. The second, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/us/politics/sarah-sanders-arkansas-governor.html">Sarah Huckabee Sanders, regularly battled with the press corps</a> – and the truth – from the podium in the briefing room. Sanders held her last briefing on March 15, 2019. </p>
<p>“I told her not to bother, the word gets out anyway,” <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1087733867614781446?lang=en">Trump said</a>. </p>
<p>Sanders’ successor, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/477815-ex-white-house-press-military-officials-call-on-grisham-to-restart">Stephanie Grisham, has held none</a> as of this writing and shows no inclination to.</p>
<p>“The press has unprecedented access to President Trump, yet they continue to complain because they can’t grandstand on TV,” <a href="https://www.axios.com/press-secretaries-white-house-briefings-8776f868-e14b-462e-bf86-bea299d9c170.html">Grisham told Axios</a>. The most prominent reporters, especially from television, have the most visible front row seats in the compact briefing room and tend to ask the most questions.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316637/original/file-20200221-92558-gg75c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316637/original/file-20200221-92558-gg75c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316637/original/file-20200221-92558-gg75c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316637/original/file-20200221-92558-gg75c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316637/original/file-20200221-92558-gg75c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316637/original/file-20200221-92558-gg75c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316637/original/file-20200221-92558-gg75c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316637/original/file-20200221-92558-gg75c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, surrounded by the media, answers questions Jan. 22, 1998 during the daily press briefing at the White House in Washington, D.C.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/white-house-press-secretary-mike-mccurry-surrounded-by-the-news-photo/51642325?adppopup=true">Getty/Joyce Naltchayan/AFP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Line of the day’</h2>
<p>When I arrived on the White House beat in 1984, the reporters’ pattern was to gather in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/reagan-spokesman-larry-speakes-dies-at-74/2014/01/10/2e113276-7a4f-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html">Press Secretary Larry Speakes’</a> office around 8:15 a.m. for an informal background briefing. It was a useful way to figure out where the day was headed. </p>
<p>By that time, the primary administration offices had decided what “the line of the day” would be. On a good day for the administration, they held the line. When other news broke, the discipline of the line tended to fall apart.</p>
<p>The formal briefing was around midday, on the record, but rarely on camera. TV was allowed to shoot only the start of the briefing just to get brief video for the day’s newscasts. President Clinton’s press secretary, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/july98/mccurry24.htm">Mike McCurry</a>, acceded to media demands for regular live televised briefings. <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-white-house-press-secretaries-advocate-no-live-coverage-of-briefings/">McCurry later thought</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/the-white-house-briefing-has-been-dead-for-six-months">better of it</a> and joined former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer in 2017 in saying the briefings should be taped and shown later, not live. </p>
<p>“Better for the public, the WH & the press,” Fleischer tweeted in what he called a “joint tweet” with McCurry. </p>
<p>Briefings could be chummy or churlish. <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/crossing-larry-speakes">Speakes had a habit of declaring reporters “out of business”</a> if he disagreed with their premise or line of questioning. “Don’t call; don’t hang around my office,” he’d say. It was a badge of honor for reporters. We’d call the chief of staff instead. </p>
<p><a href="https://journalism.ku.edu/marlin-fitzwater">Marlin Fitzwater</a>, who served both Reagan and Bush as press secretary, described us as just scratching at the surface of the iceberg. But he could be helpful by indicating what part of the iceberg to scratch at. </p>
<h2>White House retreat</h2>
<p>Press secretaries wear three hats, serving the public, the press and the president. It’s the president, of course, who has first claim on their attention.</p>
<p>In Trump’s case, it’s the press secretary who has been put out of business, or at least business as usual. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/stephanie-grisham-is-not-the-worst-ever-white-house-press-secretary-heres-why/2020/01/10/405340bc-33be-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html">Grisham unapologetically serves him</a>. She’s not known for being particularly helpful off camera. Sanders had a better relationship with the press outside the combative briefing room.</p>
<p>This is not an issue rising from the First Amendment, which proscribes Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of the press.” </p>
<p>The White House has, instead, retreated from the practice of preceding administrations. It’s a presidential prerogative to decide when and how to communicate to public constituencies. Other administrations have sought ways to circumvent the media filter. </p>
<p><a href="http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/firesi90.html">Franklin Roosevelt broadcast his fireside chats</a>. <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-documents-archive-guidebook/the-presidents-weekly-address-saturday-radio-from">Ronald Reagan began the tradition of delivering a weekly radio address</a>. Donald Trump tweets.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316636/original/file-20200221-92497-1lu7br6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316636/original/file-20200221-92497-1lu7br6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316636/original/file-20200221-92497-1lu7br6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316636/original/file-20200221-92497-1lu7br6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316636/original/file-20200221-92497-1lu7br6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316636/original/file-20200221-92497-1lu7br6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316636/original/file-20200221-92497-1lu7br6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316636/original/file-20200221-92497-1lu7br6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In October, 1982, President Ronald Reagan made a radio address from his ranch in California’s Santa Ynez mountains.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/santa-barbara-calif-president-ronald-reagan-makes-radio-news-photo/515129218?adppopup=true">Getty/Bettman</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When the president himself talks to the media extemporaneously, it’s more difficult to complain that the press secretary won’t. What falls by the wayside, though, is the policy and detail that can be conveyed by officials responsible for either creating or communicating government’s business. </p>
<p>Context and accountability are lost. It’s a temptation for future presidents.</p>
<p>Fitzwater titled his post-White House memoir “<a href="https://www.scribd.com/book/387797866/Call-the-Briefing-A-Memoir-Ten-Years-in-the-White-House-with-Presidents-Reagan-and-Bush">Call the Briefing</a>.” No one on the president’s staff is calling regular briefings these days. There are other briefings that take place at the White House, but not the daily regimen of the press secretary’s briefing.</p>
<p>But there hasn’t been a lack of stories from and about the Trump White House.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklysmart">You can get our highlights each weekend</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130164/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Bierbauer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A longtime White House reporter describes what’s lost when the relationship between the press and the president is bad and once-routine press briefings aren’t held.Charles Bierbauer, Distinguished Professor and Dean Emeritus, University of South CarolinaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/987382018-06-28T14:34:39Z2018-06-28T14:34:39ZFrom alternative facts to tender age shelters – how euphemisms become political weapons of mass distraction<p>The recent images of children in cages provided yet another reason to throw your head into your hands over America’s inhumane treatment of immigrants. So – for most of us – it was a great relief to hear that Donald Trump eventually gave into pressure and signed an executive order to stop enforcing the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/20/babies-and-toddlers-sent-to-tender-age-shelters-under-trump-separations">laws mandating the separation of children</a> from their parents. But there are still many hundreds of young people detained in the euphemistically termed “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2018/jun/20/tender-age-shelters-a-new-way-to-describe-the-kidnapping-of-children">tender age shelters</a>” – in reality, prisons for children and toddlers. </p>
<p>Who comes up with these terms? They are not fooling anyone – especially as “tender” and “shelters” have completely different meanings to what is, in fact, the enforced separation of children who are then held in cages. That’s the trouble with euphemisms – they can enrich language, but in the hands of politicians they can be strategically used to mislead and disguise brutal practices, concepts and ideas. Euphemisms – or what are known in some quarters as “<a href="https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/weasel-words.html">weasel words</a>” – are used to conceal the truth of unpalatable situations or practises so that they are easier for the public to accept. </p>
<p>Who can forget “collateral damage” – or rather the incidental deaths and injuries of unintended and non-combatant victims? The euphemism - from the Latin word <em>collateralis</em>, which means “together with” – was adopted by the US military in the mid-20th century to describe the unintentional deaths that occurred “together with” the targeting of legitimate targets. The term was <a href="https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/97000.html">first used in the 1961 article</a> “Dispersal, Deterrence, and Damage” by Nobel Prize-winning economist D.C. Schelling. He argued that weapons could be designed and deployed in such a way as to avoid collateral damage and thus control the war.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"749665745643053057"}"></div></p>
<h2>Aristotelian ‘logos’</h2>
<p>Historically, euphemisms are part of the rhetorical speech styles (from the Greek <em>rhêtorikê</em>) associated with the oratory skills necessary for political speeches, where persuasion is primarily the intended effect. Rhetoric can be defined as the “art of discourse” or, more precisely, the “art of persuasive discourse”. It is the ability to persuade an audience mostly through linguistic strategies.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bust of Aristotle: Roman copy after a Greek bronze original by Lysippos.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This style of speaking dates back to classical times and to Aristotle and his concept of “logos” or how audiences are persuaded by the reasoning contained in an argument conveyed by the speech. “Logos” represents what Aristotle called one of the three “modes of proof” – along with “ethos” (which relates to the speaker’s personality and the audience believing that the speaker is trustworthy and honest) and “pathos” (where persuasion is evoked through emotions, brought on by engagement and empathy). </p>
<h2>Newspeak</h2>
<p>According to Orwell in <a href="http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit">his 1946 essay</a> “Politics and the English Language”, the use of euphemisms also helps to avoid the mental images that more direct language would conjure up. Take, for example, the ambiguous language of “doublethink” and “newspeak” in Orwell’s dystopian 1948 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called <em>pacification</em> … Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Euphemisms are not just limited to politician-speak, they are very much part of everyday communication and can be found in abundance when dealing with taboo subjects. They help us to politely navigate our way around talk of death, sex, sexual orientation and genitalia. Expressions such as “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1990.tb00566.x">economical with the truth</a> (read "lies”) and “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-2337,00.html">tired and emotional</a>” (read “drunk”) are now so embedded into our vernacular that no-one pauses to think twice about these indirect word choices. But, for politicians, weasel words are an integral part of the rhetorical toolkit – a style of spoken or written language that functions to persuade.</p>
<h2>Alternative facts</h2>
<p>It didn’t take long for the Trump administration to wheel out one of the more ridiculous euphemisms of recent times. The day after Trump’s inauguration, the counsellor to the US president, Kellyanne Conway, came up with the much-derided “alternative facts” to counter accusations that the then White House press secretary Sean Spicer had lied about the crowd size at Trump’s inauguration. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSrEEDQgFc8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Politicians of all stripes quickly come to realise how useful it can be to soften the impact of unpopular actions with some carefully chosen weasel words. Former UK prime minister Tony Blair was a great user of euphemisms in his political discourse. Many examples can be found in his interviews and speeches in 2003 to justify the Second Gulf War on Iraq, for example. He spoke of the “liberation of Iraq” (meaning occupation), “peace-keeping” (meaning war) and these could only be achieved by “removing Saddam” (meaning his death rather than forcing him from a position of power).</p>
<p>A decade earlier, the slaughter, torture and imprisonment of Bosnian Muslims in Serbia was described as “<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnic-cleansing">ethnic cleansing</a>” when there is nothing purifying about these war crimes. </p>
<p>The US government’s “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11723189">enhanced interrogation techniques</a>” is another example of strategic word choices to disguise systematic torture. When he was US president, Barack Obama tended to avoid using the word “war”, preferring to use words such as “effort”, “process”, “fight” and “campaign” to describe the military action against ISIS, Iraq and Syria as it lessens the violence that war connotes.</p>
<p>Euphemisms have become part of political discourse that intentionally obscures, misleads or distracts audiences from unpleasant truths. Unfortunately, this is what politicians do with language and this is how they win support for otherwise unpalatable policies.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98738/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marina Lambrou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Why don’t politicians just say what they mean? Because we might not like it.Marina Lambrou, Associate Professor in English Language and Linguistics, Kingston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/963312018-05-14T10:37:35Z2018-05-14T10:37:35ZWhy bullshit hurts democracy more than lies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218620/original/file-20180511-5968-sj8816.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Why is bullshit so harmful?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/taedc/33902847462/in/photolist-9J32t1-RWF1nm-QA4Pmn-EVRvT4-Cg9Asb-DJqHCS-QRFEvA-RUzwzE-FdEFM1-VuEa84-RUzwSU-S5zCNA-TDSXoN-QPa71B-Rujukz-RujtfD-SJjpeH-SJjnCB-RujstD-RujsEF-KnPHDF-RsjRbr-Rujt2c-SJjp3F-T7B9Gf-HXrCgT-RUzwGU-S5zCCL-LNEZ9A-B8meH3">Ted Eytan</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the inauguration of Donald Trump as president, members of his administration have made many statements best described as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.393e408c5bfd">misleading</a>. During the administration’s first week, then-press secretary Sean Spicer claimed that Trump’s inauguration was <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/transcript-press-secretary-sean-spicer-media-233979">the most well attended ever</a>. More recently, Scott Pruitt claimed falsely to have received <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/385054-dem-inspector-general-disputed-pruitts-claims-of-death-threats">death threats</a> as a result of his tenure at the Environmental Protection Agency. President Trump himself has frequently been accused of telling falsehoods – including, on the campaign trail, the claim that <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-repeats-pants-fire-claim-unemployment/">35 percent of Americans are unemployed</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Trump with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What is extraordinary about these statements is not that that they are false; it is that they are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/category/donald-trump/?utm_term=.9259edc4bfb6">so obviously false</a>. The function of these statements, it seems, is not to describe real events or facts. It is instead to do something more complex: to mark the political identity of the one telling the falsehood, or to express or elicit a particular emotion. The philosopher <a href="https://philosophy.princeton.edu/content/harry-frankfurt">Harry Frankfurt</a> uses the idea of <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html">bullshit</a> as a way of understanding what’s distinctive about this sort of deception. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Mm14TeMAAAAJ&hl=en">political philosopher</a>, whose work involves trying to understand how democratic communities negotiate complex topics, I am dismayed by the extent to which bullshit is <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Post_truth.html?id=0A6mAQAACAAJ">a part of modern life</a>. And what bothers me the most is the fact that the bullshitter may do even more damage than the liar to our ability to reach across the political aisle.</p>
<h2>Bullshit does not need facts</h2>
<p>Democracy requires us to work together, despite our disagreements about values. This is easiest when we agree about a great many other things – including what evidence for and against our chosen policies would look like. </p>
<p>You and I might disagree about a tax, say; we disagree about what that tax would do and about whether it is fair. But we both acknowledge that eventually there will <em>be</em> evidence about what that tax does and that this evidence will be available to both of us. </p>
<p>The case I have made about that tax may well be undermined by some new fact. Biologist <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html">Thomas Huxley</a> noted this in connection with science: A beautiful hypothesis may be <a href="http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/quote-week-thomas-henry-huxley-0">slain by an “ugly fact.”</a> </p>
<p>The same is true, though, for democratic deliberation. I accept that if my predictions about the tax prove wrong, that counts against my argument. Facts matter, even if they are unwelcome ones. </p>
<p>If we are allowed to bullshit without consequence, though, we lose sight of the possibility of unwelcome facts. We can instead rely upon whatever facts offer us the most reassurance.</p>
<h2>Why this hurts society</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In the absence of a shared standard for evidence, bullshit prevents us from engaging with others.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mgifford/32459387985/in/photolist-9J32t1-RWF1nm-QA4Pmn-EVRvT4-Cg9Asb-DJqHCS-QRFEvA-RUzwzE-FdEFM1-VuEa84-RUzwSU-S5zCNA-TDSXoN-QPa71B-Rujukz-RujtfD-SJjpeH-SJjnCB-RujstD-RujsEF-KnPHDF-RsjRbr-Rujt2c-SJjp3F-T7B9Gf-HXrCgT-RUzwGU-S5zCCL-LNEZ9A-B8meH3">Mike Gifford</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This bullshit, in my view, affects democratic disagreement – but it also affects how we understand the people with whom we are disagreeing. </p>
<p>When there is no shared standard for evidence, then people who disagree with us are not really making claims about a shared world of evidence. They are doing something else entirely; they are declaring their political allegiance or moral worldview. </p>
<p>Take, for instance, President Trump’s claim that he witnessed thousands of American Muslims cheering the fall of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. The claim has been <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/?utm_term=.ad7826168eae">thoroughly debunked</a>. President Trump has, nonetheless, frequently repeated the claim – and has relied upon a handful of supporters who also <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=dADxBwgCF5MC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=Celebrating+Arabs+and+Grateful+Terrorists:+Rumor+and+the+Politics+of+Plausibility#v=onepage&q=Celebrating%20Arabs%20and%20Grateful%20Terrorists%3A%20Rumor%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Plausibility&f=false">claim to have witnessed</a> an event that did not, in fact, occur. </p>
<p>The false assertion here serves primarily to indicate a moral worldview, in which Muslims are suspect Americans. President Trump, in defending his comments, begins with the assumption of disloyalty: the question to be asked, he insisted, is <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-9-11-cheering-claims-im-not-going-take-it-n470876">why “wouldn’t” such cheering have taken place?</a></p>
<p>Facts, in short, can be adjusted, until they match up with our chosen view of the world. This has the bad effect, though, of transforming all political disputes into disagreements about moral worldview. This sort of disagreement, though, has historically been the source of <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/SHKTLO.pdf">our most violent and intractable conflicts.</a> </p>
<p>When our disagreements aren’t about facts, but our identities and our moral commitments, it is more difficult for us to come together with the mutual respect required by democratic deliberation. As philosopher <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/rousseau_jean_jacques.shtml">Jean-Jacques Rousseau</a> pithily put it, it is impossible for us to <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_04.htm">live at peace with those we regard as damned</a>.</p>
<p>It is small wonder that we are now more likely to discriminate <a href="https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf">on the basis of party affiliation than on racial identity</a>. Political identity is increasingly starting to take on a tribal element, <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/in-seattle-is-it-now-taboo-to-be-friends-with-a-republican/">in which our opponents have nothing to teach us</a>. </p>
<p>The liar, in knowingly denying the truth, at least acknowledges that the truth is special. The bullshitter denies that fact – and it is a denial that makes the process of democratic deliberation more difficult.</p>
<h2>Speaking back to bullshit</h2>
<p>These thoughts are worrying – and it is reasonable to ask what how we might respond. </p>
<p>One natural response is to learn how to identify bullshit. My colleagues <a href="http://www.jevinwest.org/">Jevin West</a> and <a href="http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/">Carl Bergstrom</a> have developed a class on <a href="http://callingbullshit.org">precisely this topic</a>. The syllabus of this class has now been taught at over <a href="https://ischool.uw.edu/news/2017/10/calling-bullshit-makes-impact-schools-across-country">60 colleges and high schools</a>. </p>
<p>Another natural response is to become mindful of our own complicity with bullshit and to find means by which we might avoid rebroadcasting it in our <a href="https://vitals.lifehacker.com/how-to-deal-with-all-the-bullshit-on-social-media-1803779903">social media use</a>. </p>
<p>Neither of these responses, of course, is entirely adequate, given the insidious and seductive power of bullshit. These small tools, though, may be all we have, and the success of American democracy may depend upon our using them well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96331/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Blake receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities.</span></em></p>The bullshitter may do even more damage than the liar in politics.Michael Blake, Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy, and Governance, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/846922017-10-05T01:31:01Z2017-10-05T01:31:01ZAlternative facts do exist: beliefs, lies and politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187709/original/file-20170927-16428-8ldsd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The status of facts and their use in politics hasn’t changed as a result of Donald Trump’s election.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Joshua Roberts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This piece is republished with permission from <a href="https://griffithreview.com/editions/perils-of-populism/">Perils of Populism</a>, the 57th edition of Griffith Review. Articles are a little longer than most published on The Conversation, presenting an in-depth analysis of the rise of populism across the world.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>It is January 20, 2017, mere hours after Donald Trump has been sworn in as US president. The new White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, has been given a tough assignment for his first-ever press conference in the job: he has to stand before seasoned journalists from the domestic and international press, and lie.</p>
<p>The lie he has to tell isn’t like the usual lies that are told in politics, which use subtle hues of meaning to obfuscate the untruth; there is no built-in buffer that allows for any backpedalling should it be exposed. No, the lie Spicer has to tell is one that is immediately verifiable using various kinds of evidence (pictures, videos, statistics on public transport usage statistics). </p>
<p>Spicer has to tell the press, the TV audience, the world, that Trump’s was the largest presidential inauguration in history.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XXoyk4PDZ4I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sean Spicer’s first press conference as press secretary.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The press conference goes terribly. Spicer aggressively throws every skerrick of evidence that Trump’s team has come up with in the hours since the inauguration. More than half of the press conference is devoted to discussing the numbers at the inauguration, and how this claim is justified. </p>
<p>And once his angry, meandering task is complete, he quits the room without taking questions. The claim is so egregious that Trump advisor and former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway defends her colleague by suggesting that Spicer, far from claiming things that are factually incorrect, was actually providing “alternative facts”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSrEEDQgFc8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Kellyanne Conway coined the term ‘alternative facts’.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Smelling blood, the media attack the phrase “alternative facts” with remarkable vigour. The self-righteous chorus continues for weeks, and swings from disbelief to mockery, from earnest frown to sardonic grin, all while lamenting the state of political discourse in this post-fact age.</p>
<p>But here’s what they missed. In politics, facts are contestable. This has always been the case: the status of facts and their use in politics hasn’t changed as a result of Trump’s election.</p>
<p>In politics, alternative facts exist. And they always have.</p>
<h2>Scientific versus political propositions</h2>
<p>Facts do exist. I am not enough of a postmodernist, nor enough of a nihilist, to claim the opposite. </p>
<p>There are certainly things that are true – that the world is not flat, for instance – whose truth is supported by various kinds of evidence. These might be called “scientific propositions”, because their truth is verified through certain, standardised methods of collecting and interpreting data, and through the reproduction of experimental tests.</p>
<p>“Political propositions”, which are directly relevant to the governance of people, are designed to appeal to emotions and beliefs, and so cannot be held to the same scrutiny as scientific propositions. </p>
<p>Beliefs operate in a similar way to facts, insofar as a belief generally requires some evidence at an individual level. And a belief, like a fact, must still be justified by this evidence. However, where feelings and intuition count as evidence for a belief, these are purposefully scoured from scientific discourse.</p>
<p>Contrary to the way hypotheses are tested and reproduced, beliefs are formed with very little recourse.</p>
<p>While the vehemently “rational” may decry beliefs for this reason, they undeniably exist and affect the way people make decisions. Belief can override evidence obtained by other means precisely because it is more personal and, in a sense, more humanistic than the impartial scientific method.</p>
<p>Indeed, the simple statement of facts doesn’t seem to be a particularly good tool for persuading someone, as anyone who has had an argument with a climate-change sceptic will have found. Perhaps this follows from scientific evidence being divorced from daily experience; most people don’t have experience of evolution by natural selection, for instance, as it generally occurs on a timescale that is inaccessible to humans.</p>
<p>And so, if someone doesn’t subscribe to scientific consensus, wouldn’t it be strange for them to base a belief on it? </p>
<p>But belief is even more complicated than this. For instance, the existence of germs is outside the direct experience of most people, yet germ theory predicts the spread of disease in a way that makes sense given people’s observations. Without having seen a germ, most people believe that they exist, and attribute diseases to their presence – instead of, say, an imbalance in the “humours” (bodily fluids that, until the 19th century, were thought to regulate disease). </p>
<p>It is interesting to note that this earlier belief in humours was widely held by lay people and physicians alike, precisely because it explained illness in a way that was intuitive and metaphorically cogent, and it could produce physical evidence in the form of bile, blood and phlegm.</p>
<p>Despite the similarities they may share, scientific propositions are fundamentally different from political propositions. Beliefs are formed on the basis of some information, but it’s limited compared with the information that is used to inform something taken as fact. </p>
<p>To be clear, I am not dismissing belief by claiming it is based on limited information. Rather, I’m pointing out that this a property of any belief held by any individual – and the belief may relate to anything. </p>
<p>I, for instance, believe all sorts of things that make me suspicious of neoliberal economics, but I suspect that’s because my entire adult life has been marked by recession, negative wage growth, and increasing economic precarity and inequality. </p>
<p>My beliefs are informed by not having lived through the period of mining-driven growth that my parents lived through; they are evidenced by a limited perspective. And while I might acknowledge this, I still firmly hold them to be true.</p>
<h2>Alternatives exist</h2>
<p>The major problem with using the term “fact” is that it’s saturated. </p>
<p>What is meant by fact in everyday speech is a statement that is demonstrably true, that has some evidence to support it. </p>
<p>The evidence that is required differs between politics and science, and what may be considered a fact differs in the same way. While the two sorts of facts are utterly different, they are both referred to as facts by those stating them.</p>
<p>This situation might be tenable if either politics or science occurred in some rarefied isolation that meant the term “fact” was unambiguous; that is, if it could only refer to a scientific fact, and couldn’t be used sensibly in political speech, or vice versa. But this isn’t the case: the scientific and political spheres interact, and the two meanings of “fact” follow suit.</p>
<p>Since alternatives exist for any given political belief, and since these are often called “fact”, alternative facts do exist in the politics. We are confronted with them every day.</p>
<p>Spicer claims it as fact that Trump’s inauguration was the most attended in history. Is this the case scientifically? According to the evidence, probably not. And yet for all the ridicule this statement received, there are people who believe Spicer’s proposition to be true. </p>
<p>Perhaps it is believed because the people who were at the rally had never been in a larger crowd, or maybe because those watching at home had never watched, or didn’t remember another inauguration. The point is that the belief that the crowd at Trump’s inauguration was the biggest in history may be a rational one, informed by a certain amount of evidence. </p>
<p>If someone holds this belief based on information they gathered with their own senses, then of course it seems factually correct. </p>
<p>And so Spicer does, in fact, offer alternative facts.</p>
<h2>Not just a historical anomaly</h2>
<p>We do not live in a post-fact world. Scientific and political statements both behave in precisely the same way they did before Trump announced his presidential campaign. </p>
<p>Indeed, facts have rarely mattered in politics as much as appeals to belief have. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified politically by promoting a belief that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, despite an absence of sufficient evidence to support this claim. </p>
<p>People are detained on Manus Island and Nauru based on the belief that doing so will stop people smugglers, and prevent deaths at sea. This continues, supported by both major parties, despite statistical evidence suggesting that this is <a href="https://theconversation.com/resettling-refugees-in-australia-would-not-resume-the-people-smuggling-trade-60253">not the case</a>. Belief is a powerful thing.</p>
<p>In politics, facts have never been what they are in science.</p>
<p>What has shifted, however, is that the claims of the political class are no longer automatically taken to be true. The data bear this out. The Australian Election Study <a href="http://www.australianelectionstudy.org/index.html;%20http://www.australianelectionstudy.org/trends.html">found that in 2016</a>, a mere 26% of respondents agreed that they trusted politicians, the lowest score for this question since the survey began in 1969. The highest level of trust was 48% in 1996, the year John Howard was elected. </p>
<p>A similar sentiment is found in 2016, when 58% of respondents believed that the government was run for a “few big interests” instead of “all the people”, up from 38 per cent in 2007. Satisfaction in democracy is similarly low at 60%, from a high of 86% in 2007.</p>
<p>Where mainstream politicians generally attempted to paint themselves either as paternalistic protectors or honest servants of the people, populist politicians present themselves as agitators, whose primary mission is to expose the lies of mainstream politicians – apparently without regard for how this is achieved. </p>
<p>For example, Pauline Hanson claims that Australia is now being <a href="https://theconversation.com/suburbs-swamped-by-asians-and-muslims-the-data-show-a-different-story-79250">swamped by Muslims</a>. Her statements suggest this claim is the truth, and that it is being concealed from regular Australians by the politically correct, globalist politicians of the major parties.</p>
<p>Hanson <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-normal-rules-of-political-engagement-dont-apply-how-do-we-handle-pauline-hanson-65473">flouts the norms</a> of political discourse, and uses this to present herself as one of the people – someone who is supposedly apart from the political class. Ironically, since she appeals to the voting public, Hanson’s facts are presented with precisely the same disregard for truth as her mainstream counterparts.</p>
<p>All politicians are aware of the distinctions being made here. Their awareness is evident in the way that they use appeals to belief, and especially in the way that they use lies. </p>
<p>A lie in a political discourse is nothing to flap about on its own, although this is precisely what happens in the media each time a false statement is made by a politician, or on their behalf.</p>
<p>Lies are not the domain only of populist politicians. Far from it. But populists are easier targets because they aren’t so fickle with the plausibility of their assertions. They are more willing to commit to things that are demonstrably false, even things that might seem trivial to disprove. </p>
<p>Spicer claims the inauguration crowd was historic (it wasn’t), and Hanson claims that Australia is being swamped by whatever ethnic or religious group is the boogieman of the day (it isn’t). Each of these is easily refuted by drawing on statistical evidence, or is at least more easily refuted than the subtler untruths of other politicians – such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-uses-south-australian-blackout-to-push-for-uniformity-on-renewables-66275">Malcolm Turnbull’s claim</a> that renewables caused the 2016 blackouts in South Australia. </p>
<p>Yet it’s the populists who are called out, and are portrayed as being fundamentally and irreconcilably different from politicians of mainstream parties. But the lies told by populists are not different in kind to those told by their colleagues; they are different only in degree.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pauline Hanson flouts the norms of political discourse.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Populists are cast differently</h2>
<p>An error that is often committed by political pundits, particularly those associated with the mainstream media, is to treat populists as irrational. </p>
<p>It’s assumed that the reasonable person selects their actions according to the potential benefits, while factoring in the cost that is incurred by performing them. The reasonable person is rational precisely because they don’t do anything where the cost will outweigh the benefits. </p>
<p>In general, politicians are assumed to be reasonable people, at least in this abstract sense. </p>
<p>The alternative – that politicians are utterly irrational and do not consider the consequences of their actions – may be professed by the more cynical among us, but I doubt it’s truly believed: the thought of the men and women governing our country being irrational is perhaps too frightening for most people.</p>
<p>Populists are called politicians of a different sort to the mainstream politicians who are reasonable people. Mainstream politicians certainly tell lies, but they do so strategically – in ways that are difficult to expose – so that the expected cost of uttering them does not outweigh the expected gain.</p>
<p>On the other hand, populists are cast as irrational because they tell lies that are very likely to be uncovered. Knowing full well that an adversarial press will attempt to verify their statements, and will give them flak if they can’t, populists continue to present alternative facts. </p>
<p>For any reasonable person, it would appear that the cost of lying in such a blatant fashion far outweighs any perceivable benefit. These populists must be stupid, or ignorant, or insane.</p>
<p>This is mistaken because it assumes, most optimistically, that the populist is deficient and can’t calculate the loss they incur from making this utterance; or, most pessimistically, that the populist isn’t even aware of the potential for loss to begin with. </p>
<p>In fact, populists are just another breed of politician, and as such weigh their utterances very carefully. </p>
<p>The statements Spicer made about the inauguration crowd are demonstrably false, but they weren’t meant to gain traction with the mainstream of voters. They were carefully calculated to gain enough support from a certain class of elector.</p>
<p>Indeed, it would appear that such claims are designed to draw flak from mainstream political discourse, because this can in fact be an asset. </p>
<p>The careful, strategic, and highly rational deployment of lies in the political context is so effective and damaging because politics has been pronounced as a discourse of truth; a lie is rendered a highly newsworthy event, one that allows voices that would otherwise be ignored to be broadcast nationally.</p>
<h2>Why are lies told?</h2>
<p>Despite earnest proclamations to the contrary, simply crying “lie” every time a lie is told achieves nothing. </p>
<p>What would be more interesting, and arguably more valuable to public discussion, is a clear investigation of why certain lies are told in certain circumstances. That is, the lies are less interesting for their content than for the reasons they are told. This view would allow us to focus on the strategic function of presenting an alternative fact.</p>
<p>It is instructive that, in each of the cases above, the speaker is sensitive to demonstrating their claim as fact.</p>
<p>Spicer pointed to the fact that the grass in the National Mall was covered by white temporary flooring, so that the contrast between the dark silhouettes of people and the ground was greater than in previous photos of inauguration crowds (therefore it only seemed as if there was more empty space in the crowd).</p>
<p>When questioned on the nation being “swamped by Asian migration”, Hanson points to the Sydney suburb of Hurstville as an example of noticeable Asian migration, where there was a 10% increase in the population of people who identified as Chinese between the 2006 and 2016 censuses. She suggests that we just have to look at Hurstville to see how prevalent Chinese migration is, because Chinese migration is prevalent there. </p>
<p>But the broader numbers do not reflect Hurstville’s migration patterns: in the same period, there was a <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/georges-river/ancestry?BMID=50&EndYear=2006&DataType=EN&WebID=310&StartYear=2011">4.5% increase</a> of people who identify as Chinese in New South Wales, and a 3.4% increase nationally.</p>
<p>While these examples are lies, they still present themselves as facts, grounded in evidence, in an attempt to conform to the (somewhat lax) standard of factuality in politics – not unlike mainstream political statements.</p>
<p>Spicer and Hanson wish for their assertions to be understood as facts, and to be a part of the mainstream political discourse. We shouldn’t ask: “Why did they not tell the truth?”. Rather, we should ask: “why that lie?”; “why at that time?”; and the same question that’s asked of every mainstream politician: “what’s in it for them?”.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>You can read other essays from Griffith Review’s latest edition <a href="https://griffithreview.com/editions/perils-of-populism/">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84692/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lochlan Morrissey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In politics, alternative facts exist. And they always have.Lochlan Morrissey, Research Associate, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/795422017-08-08T15:14:40Z2017-08-08T15:14:40ZDonald Trump, loyalty and the ‘emotional regime’ in the White House<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180904/original/file-20170803-17911-nmsfe2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Emotional times.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hershey-pa-december-15-2016-presidentelect-546595348?src=riXRAWxPqy6c4gnCfAZEJA-1-1">shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Donald Trump demands loyalty from those working close to him. According to former FBI director James Comey, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-comey-loyalty-idUSKBN18Y2QJ">the president told him</a> at a private meeting:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Comey’s response? </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But what exactly is loyalty? And why did Comey put on his poker face when asked for it?</p>
<p>Loyalty is one of a trio of emotional bases of social life, along with trust and confidence. Trust is about relying on others to do what we expect them to do. We trust drivers to stop at red lights and teachers to educate our children. A certain amount of confidence allows people to act – to believe that they can accomplish a certain goal, whether it’s running a marathon or running a country. All three are sentiments which guide us through our daily lives – the glue that binds society together. </p>
<p>Trump gained the trust of American voters when <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-wins-us-election-news">they elected him</a> as their 45th president. And he is not lacking in confidence.</p>
<p>So that leaves loyalty. Loyalty brings expectations of what someone will do in the future. Even after initial strong feelings at the beginning of a new relationship begin to fade, loyalty will remain. It is a complex, long-term, future-oriented emotion.</p>
<p>And this is what Trump appears to demand: an emotional commitment that will live up to his expectations. Loyalty remains even when trust and confidence fade. </p>
<p>Back to Comey’s poker-face. As part of <a href="http://www.soc.lu.se/en/lisa-flower">my research</a> into criminal defence lawyers in Sweden, I have observed how loyalty is displayed in the courtroom. </p>
<p>These lawyers are professionally obliged to loyally defend their client. By focusing on emotions and body language, I have found that the display of loyalty (and the defence of a client) involves the management of a number of feelings including irritation, pride, surprise and sadness.</p>
<p>This is what is known as “emotion management” – managing one’s own facial expressions and body language to show a certain outward countenance. </p>
<h2>House of Cards</h2>
<p>Take former White House press secretary Sean Spicer explaining Trump’s bizarre tweet which included the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/31/what-is-covfefe-donald-trump-baffles-twitter-post">mysterious word “covfefe”</a>. Just like a good lawyer should defend a client’s version of events as credible, even if it seems highly unlikely, in order to show loyalty, Spicer should hide any observable trace of doubt regarding whether “covfefe” is actually a word at all. (It isn’t.) </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AETcckxdxJ4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Trump has created an “emotional regime” in which the display of loyalty is central. An emotional regime determines which emotions should be shown, how they should be shown, and who should show what, with sanctions in place if anyone breaks these rules. </p>
<p>At one Cabinet meeting, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ARgUIpM6f0">members gushed</a> about what an honour it was to serve Trump and his administration. Almost none of the members expressed anything other than devotion, admiration and confidence. </p>
<p>Yet in the past few weeks there has been a flurry of criticisms by Trump from key members of staff, all of whom were once loyal Trump supporters.</p>
<p>The blink-and-you-missed-it <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40806586">hiring and firing of Anthony Scaramucci</a> as Trump’s communications director highlights another interesting aspect of loyalty. It is not inherently or automatically mutual. Trump may demand loyalty of his staff but they cannot expect Trump’s loyalty in return. </p>
<p>Scaramucci reportedly sacrificed family (missing the birth of his son), finance (selling his company) and reputation, all in order to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/scaramucci-trump-white-house-job">serve Trump</a>. But these sacrifices were not enough to gain Trump’s loyalty – and Scaramucci was fired after only ten days. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/89Gw77asW34?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Jeff Sessions, appointed by Trump as attorney general, was the only US senator willing to openly support Trump in the 2016 primaries. Yet his loyalty was repaid by Trump being vocally “very disappointed with the attorney general” after he recused himself from the ongoing <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/26/16028384/trump-sessions-loyalty">investigation into Russian links</a>. “Trumpian loyalty” appears to be a one-way street. </p>
<h2>Fake friends</h2>
<p>If attempts at emotion management fail to produce the appropriate display of loyalty, one should at least attempt to hide inappropriate emotions behind a poker-face like Comey. Poker-face and “loyalty-face” are examples of what sociologist Erving Goffman called <a href="http://portal.research.lu.se/portal/files/13744216/Doing_loyalty_final_draft.pdf">“face work”</a>, where we attempt to give a certain impression of ourselves to others, like a social mask.</p>
<p>That mask was Comey’s response to an explicit demand from the leader of the free world. What Trump was really asking for was a long term emotional commitment that will prevail even when trust is gone – but it’s unclear if he will get this either with Comey’s replacement at the FBI, Christopher Wray, who <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/01/senate-christopher-wray-fbi-director-james-comey">has stated</a>) that “my loyalty is to the constitution and the rule of law”. </p>
<p>It remains to be seen how Trump will handle this open declaration of loyalty to something other than himself. Those who have already openly declared and shown loyalty to Trump have been fired, taunted and publicly criticised. So Wray may have a rocky, or rather, short, road ahead of him. It remains to be seen if he will beat Scaramucci’s 864,000 seconds of employment. The clock is ticking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79542/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Flower does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>But everyone gets fired in the end.Lisa Flower, Phd Candidate in Sociology, Lund UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/758302017-04-24T01:45:10Z2017-04-24T01:45:10ZWhat the Leo Frank case tells us about the dangers of fake news<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166309/original/file-20170421-12650-7qck6o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Leo Frank, 1884-1915.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://lccn.loc.gov/2004672482">Library of Congress Online Catalog, Prints and Photographs Division </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Tuesday, April 11 – the first day of the Jewish holiday of <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/holidays/passover">Passover</a> – White House Press Secretary <a href="https://www.donaldtrumpbuzz.com/biography/sean-spicer-biography-marriage-children/">Sean Spicer</a> asserted that Syrian President Bashar al-Asad was guilty of worse acts than Hitler when <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/world/middleeast/syria-gas-attack.html">he used sarin gas</a> on civilians.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/04/11/the-daily-spicer-holocaust-centers-yes-the-press-secretary-used-that-term/?utm_term=.4119ed37d4f6">Spicer said,</a> “…someone as despicable as Hitler…didn’t even sink to using <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/science/sean-spicer-hitler-sarin-chemical-weapons-world-war-ii.html">chemical weapons”</a> on his people. The Nazis, as facts have shown, used Poison Zyclon B gas <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/04/11/the-daily-spicer-holocaust-centers-yes-the-press-secretary-used-that-term/?utm_term=.4119ed37d4f6">starting in 1939</a> on Germany’s mentally ill and physically disabled populations. Later, gas chambers became part of the Reich’s genocidal program in death camps.</p>
<p>The Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect condemned Spicer’s comments and asserted that he was engaging in Holocaust denial – “the most offensive of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/04/12/what-the-anne-frank-center-thinks-of-sean-spicers-apology-too-little-too-late/?utm_term=.49177c78bb88">fake news imaginable.</a>” </p>
<p>“Fake news” is not a new phenomenon, nor is it always harmless. I am a Jewish studies scholar. My research in the history of anti-Semitism shows
that in 1913, “fake news” was used to feed into people’s fears and prejudices in America. </p>
<p>A particularly poignant story relates to the wrongful conviction of an innocent man named Leo Frank. </p>
<h2>Who was Leo Frank?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.aboutnorthgeorgia.com/ang/Little_Secrets">Leo Frank</a> was a young Jewish-American factory superintendent, who in 1913 was convicted of the rape and murder of a 13-year-old employee named Mary Phagan, whose body was found in the factory basement. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166301/original/file-20170421-24654-hdiluh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166301/original/file-20170421-24654-hdiluh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166301/original/file-20170421-24654-hdiluh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166301/original/file-20170421-24654-hdiluh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166301/original/file-20170421-24654-hdiluh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166301/original/file-20170421-24654-hdiluh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166301/original/file-20170421-24654-hdiluh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this Aug. 3, 2015 photo, Mary Phagan Kean holds a portrait of her great-aunt, Mary Phagan, as she poses for a photo next to her grave, left, in Marietta, Georgia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/David Goldman</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aboutnorthgeorgia.com/ang/Little_Secrets">Frank case</a> was symbolic of many of the South’s fears at that time. Frank was a former New Yorker educated at Columbia University, and was for many southerners representative of the influx of northern businesspeople moving south to profit from the reorganization of a formerly agrarian society. That Frank was Jewish simply exacerbated these feelings. The evidence against Frank was circumstantial, but the jury found him guilty in less than four hours while crowds outside the courthouse shouted, “Hang the Jew.” </p>
<p>Frank was sentenced to death, and his initial appeals were denied. But on the recommendation of the presiding judge and additional new testimony, the governor of Georgia eventually commuted Frank’s sentence to life. </p>
<p>This did not placate the anger of the public, however. The governor attempted to protect Frank from mob violence by moving him to a state facility. But, on August 15, 1915, about 25 men launched an armed attack on the penitentiary. After cutting all the telephone wires leading into the facility, they seized the barracks where Frank was held and took him to Marietta, Georgia, where they <a href="http://www.aboutnorthgeorgia.com/ang/Little_Secrets">hanged him near a crossroads</a>. </p>
<p>Evidence suggests that the “fake news” that frequently appeared in at least one Atlanta area newspaper both before and during Frank’s trial helped keep readers’ emotions high and desirous of revenge for Fagan’s murder. </p>
<p>Approximately one month before Frank’s lynching, Chicago journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winning poet <a href="http://carl-sandburg.com/biography.htm">Carl Sandburg</a> wrote a scathing piece for the ad-free Chicago daily newspaper <a href="http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/">The Day Book</a> entitled <a href="http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/1915-07-17/ed-1/seq-1/">“How Hearst Treated the Leo Frank Case.”</a> <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/william-randolph-hearst">William Randolph Hearst</a> was the owner of media company Hearst Communications and publisher of America’s largest newspaper chain.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166299/original/file-20170421-12658-1hs832r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166299/original/file-20170421-12658-1hs832r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166299/original/file-20170421-12658-1hs832r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166299/original/file-20170421-12658-1hs832r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166299/original/file-20170421-12658-1hs832r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166299/original/file-20170421-12658-1hs832r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166299/original/file-20170421-12658-1hs832r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Photo from April 1915, before Leo Frank exhausted his final appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/leofrankcase/7699468976/in/photolist-cJnMT7-7fCfo4-ftHcQh-7BA6Dk-dcqoZg-dfAhP6-crogY9-eCcLCP-eCdAoJ-7mbPx8-ddZh5e-chGupu-ci3C99-df3wbu-dS5BNs-deDwLv-bFK4KK-g1BVns-ddZ3CY-byyPZN-fD2LYx-cWETh3-btZ66G-7ZDkYa-cfWeb3-7ZGwKf-dS5C5m-ddZgH5-7ZDktF-bV6Quk-aLgm9F-ezU1QH-cfWehu-ezWRkf-bsQcHW-fD2DFg-qejTCq-5PAu5r-c3ZT23-drVLhR-dS5D6u-q1YqbQ-cJnUwN-8DBmBF-8DEtSC-9XGAGF-SHLzGS-rvv2N8-eCao6e-dRZ2m4">Leo Frank</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The following opening passage from Sandburg’s piece expresses the intensity of American response to the Frank case:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“A whole lot of good people in Chicago wondered what all there was behind that Leo Frank case down in Atlanta. When a crowd of people go crazy and want to hang a man on little or no evidence…we don’t like it. This story is about things that happened in Atlanta. Yet it has a straight connection to Chicago. What happened in Atlanta can happen in Chicago.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this passage, Sandburg expressed that he as well as other Americans around the country – including those in the midwestern city of Chicago – were both baffled and frightened by the southern response to the death of Mary Phagan and the overwhelming outcry for Frank’s death as retribution, despite the absence of anything more than circumstantial evidence of his guilt.</p>
<p>Sandburg used evidence collected by another Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/latest-news/article295419/Pulitzer-prizes.html">A.B. McDonald</a>, to “find out what made Atlanta crazy and how.” According to McDonald, the thirst for Frank’s conviction and hanging had been provoked, if not created, by Hearst’s daily newspaper, <a href="http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89053729/">Atlanta Georgian</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.famous-trials.com/leo-frank/52-kcstar">McDonald traced no fewer than six stories</a> about the Frank case appearing shortly after Frank’s arrest that were proven to be “fake news.” Two of those stories warranted official retractions (but that was done in small print, in the back pages of the paper), while another four were proven false in court. </p>
<h2>Fake news and public emotions</h2>
<p>Based on the phenomenal sales of the Atlanta Georgian during the Frank trial, McDonald and Sandburg both concluded that Hearst printed inflammatory and unsupported stories about Frank at least in part to sell more papers. </p>
<p>Both Foster Coates, a managing editor for Hearst, and Arthur Brisbane, editor of the <a href="http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89053729/">Atlanta Georgian,</a> attempted to persuade Hearst that Frank had not received a fair trial, and that it was the <a href="http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89053729/">Atlanta Georgian’s</a>
duty to calm public passions and demand justice for Frank. But <a href="http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/1915-07-17/ed-1/seq-3/">Hearst flatly refused</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166302/original/file-20170421-12658-ee0e9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166302/original/file-20170421-12658-ee0e9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166302/original/file-20170421-12658-ee0e9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166302/original/file-20170421-12658-ee0e9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166302/original/file-20170421-12658-ee0e9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166302/original/file-20170421-12658-ee0e9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166302/original/file-20170421-12658-ee0e9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">William Randolph Hearst is seen working in his suite aboard the S.S. Europa during a transatlantic crossing in 1931.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/1915-07-17/ed-1/seq-1/">Sandburg concluded</a> that Hearst “wanted Leo Frank choked dead by a rope…for a murder not proven in a fair trial.” Frank was murdered by a lynch mob a month later. </p>
<p>The Frank trial had lasting consequences. Mary Phagan’s murder and Frank’s subsequent lynching led to the <a href="http://www.bnaibrith.org">B’nai B’rith Organization’s</a> <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-adl-and-kkk-born-of-the-same-murder-100-years-ago/">creation of the Anti-Defamation League</a>, an <a href="https://www.adl.org/who-we-are/our-mission">organization founded</a> to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all…” This was especially meaningful because Frank was himself the president of B'nai B'rith’s Atlanta chapter before his arrest in 1913.</p>
<p>A dark outcome of the Frank case was the <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-adl-and-kkk-born-of-the-same-murder-100-years-ago/">rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan</a> in 1917. The group’s revival is directly attributed to the Frank trial, which also inspired them to target Jews as well as black Americans with violence, hatred and bigotry.</p>
<h2>Why this matters</h2>
<p>Finally, in 1982, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/08/us/after-69-years-of-silence-lynching-victim-is-cleared.html">Frank was cleared of all charges</a> after an 83-year-old man named Alonzo Mann gave a sworn statement to the newspaper <a href="http://www.tennessean.com">The Tennessean</a> claiming that Jim Conley, who worked in the factory as a janitor at the time of Phagan’s death, was in fact the real murderer. </p>
<p>Mann had even seen Conley lugging Phagan’s body into the factory basement, but was threatened by Conley into silence. Mann passed both a lie detector test and a psychological stress evaluation.</p>
<p>Leo Frank’s plight is a reminder of the toxicity of fake news.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75830/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ingrid Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Fake news has been used in the past to feed into people’s fears and prejudices. A particularly poignant story from 1913 relates to the wrongful conviction of an innocent man named Leo Frank.Ingrid Anderson, Lecturer, Arts & Sciences Writing Program, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/745272017-03-21T20:28:27Z2017-03-21T20:28:27ZTrump’s credibility takes a hit as FBI finds no evidence of Obama ‘wiretap’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161723/original/image-20170321-9140-ae6n08.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">White House press secretary Sean Spicer defends President Trump's accusations against President Obama.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Kevin Lamarque</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers have both <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/intelligence-committee-russia-donald-trump.html?_r=0">testified</a> before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that they do not have any information or evidence to support US President Donald Trump’s claims the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower during the election. The committee is investigating allegations of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/20/fbi-director-comey-confirms-investigation-trump-russia">collusion</a> between Trump associates and Russian operatives to influence the US election.</p>
<p>The wiretapping claim became part of the investigation after Trump tweeted on March 4 that Barack Obama had ordered his phones be tapped prior to the November 2016 election. Two of the three tweets specifically claim that Obama had Trump’s phones tapped and that the former president was a “bad (or sick) guy”.</p>
<p>Comey and James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, categorically denied that Obama ordered any such thing. Comey went so far as to request a formal denial from the Justice Department that would counter Trump’s accusation. </p>
<p>US intelligence officials and some members of Congress <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/white-house-to-ask-congress-for-probe-amid-wiretap-claims/news-story/5d7b953b44368f53fad234be2f11cd3e">criticised</a> the tweets and demanded evidence to support the astonishing claim that Obama, in ordering Trump’s phones to be tapped, may have acted illegally. The calls for Trump to explain how he came by such information attest to how extraordinary his behaviour is in this case.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"837996746236182529"}"></div></p>
<h2>What are we to make of Trump’s tweets?</h2>
<p>In the absence of any evidence to support the accusation, one is left to wonder where Trump came by such information. The logical assumption would usually be that a sitting president would only make such a claim if US intelligence agencies had briefed him. Broadcasting this on Twitter would still be extremely odd. </p>
<p>It seems likely, though, that this is not the case. Trump appears to have based his allegations <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/05/trumps-evidence-for-obama-wiretap-claims-relies-on-sketchy-anonymously-sourced-reports/?utm_term=.6f74100287e4">primarily on an article</a> he read on the right-wing website Breitbart. </p>
<p>If true, this would indicate a disturbing trend in which Trump sees or hears a claim made on cable TV or by Breitbart writers, and immediately launches a Twitterstorm without verifying the information, or thinking through the implications for policy and public diplomacy. </p>
<p>Trump’s use of Twitter has caused concern for his <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-twitter-staffer-235263">staff</a>. Some former campaign staffers have even been offering advice to current occupants of the White House on strategies to keep the president from broadcasting his thoughts inappropriately. </p>
<p>The US president is one of the most powerful individuals in the world and, for this reason, what the person occupying that position says matters. The president’s words can influence public opinion, set the country’s legislative agenda, signal America’s intentions to foreign leaders and influence global financial markets.</p>
<p>When the president accuses his predecessor of engaging in criminal behaviour akin to the Nixon Watergate scandal, it will not be treated lightly. To do so would fundamentally undermine the integrity of, and respect for, the office. </p>
<h2>The White House’s credibility problems</h2>
<p>Over the past few days, White House press secretary Sean Spicer and Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway have both attempted to downplay the seriousness of the accusations. They have claimed the president was referring more broadly to general surveillance of the Trump campaign.</p>
<p>Spicer <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/sean-spicer-donald-trump-wiretapping/">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The president used the word wiretaps in quotes to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Conway went even <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/13/kellyanne-conway-trump-wiretap-surveillance-obama">further</a>, claiming that “there are many ways to surveil each other now, unfortunately”, including “microwaves that turn into cameras etc”.</p>
<p>As criticism has mounted and calls for evidence to support such a claim have intensified, Spicer cited a piece from Fox News that Obama had convinced GCHQ – British intelligence – to carry out the spying to avoid direct American involvement. In an unprecedented public response, GCHQ called the speculation “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/16/gchq-denies-wiretap-claim-trump-obama">utterly ridiculous</a>”. </p>
<p>Putting aside the absurdity of microwaves being remotely turned into cameras, Spicer and Conway are engaging in what has become a familiar pattern: Trump tweets something that causes a public backlash, and the White House then sends out various spokespeople to clarify and explain what the president really meant to say. </p>
<p>It has become standard to caution that Trump tweets shouldn’t be taken literally. This advice is not reasonable, though, particularly when those words accuse a former president of potentially criminal behaviour. </p>
<p>More than just Obama’s reputation and legacy is at stake here. Our ability to trust the White House and the president is necessary for the healthy functioning of America’s democracy, and essential in times of crisis.</p>
<p>This is all unfolding while North Korea engages in increasingly provocative behaviour, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appears to be <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/324527-what-would-war-with-north-korea-really-look-like-trump">bumbling his way</a> through the crisis with little obvious guidance from the White House. The absence of any media travelling with Tillerson has added to unease over Trump’s North Korea policy. </p>
<p>The issue here is whether we will be able to trust what Trump says, particularly when it comes to classified intelligence.</p>
<h2>Democracy and truth</h2>
<p>Trump’s disregard for evidence or facts has prompted many to adopt the view that we now live in a post-truth world. The demand by some in Congress that, unless evidence is produced, Trump should <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/12/mccain-to-trump-retract-wiretapping-claim-or-prove-it/?utm_term=.1749f7ff280c">publicly retract</a> his accusation is a sign that facts do still matter. It also shows that the American political system, for all its flaws, still possesses mechanisms to hold the president to account.</p>
<p>The strength of America’s democracy relies on the checks and balances built into the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Now more than ever, Congress needs to exercise its oversight role. </p>
<p>More is at stake than just Trump’s credibility. The world is watching to understand how the US president will behave when a serious crisis occurs, and whether or not evidence and facts will determine his response.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74527/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kumuda Simpson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The absence of any evidence to support Donald Trump’s claims is more than just about the president’s credibility – it goes to whether we can trust any information from the White House.Kumuda Simpson, Lecturer in International Relations, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/727332017-02-24T02:06:55Z2017-02-24T02:06:55ZSeeking truth among ‘alternative facts’<p>Part of what I do as an archaeologist is judge between competing claims to truth. Indeed, you could say this is the entire purpose of science. Before we make a judgment about what is true, there are facts that have to be examined and weighed against one another.</p>
<p>When Trump’s senior advisor Kellyanne Conway made her now infamous <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/conway-press-secretary-gave-alternative-facts-860142147643">reference</a> to “alternative facts,” many viewers were stunned. But I am a scientist. I spend my days trying to pull “facts” out of the remains of the past. After thinking about what Conway said, I realized that it was not ridiculous at all.</p>
<p>There are always “alternative facts.” What matters is how we decide which of those alternative facts are most likely to be true. </p>
<h2>Science or authority?</h2>
<p>What made Conway’s suggesting “alternative facts” about the size of the crowd at Trump’s inauguration seem so ridiculous was that, from a scientific perspective, it was <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/24/fact-check-inauguration-crowd-size/96984496/">obviously false</a>. In science, we use empirical observations to generate “alternative facts” that we judge against one another using established bodies of method and theory and logical argument. Photos of the relatively small crowd at Trump’s inauguration gave empirical evidence that Conway’s “alternative facts” that the crowd was enormous were unlikely to be true. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neanderthal stone tools, c. 50,000 to 70,000 years old in Landesmuseum Württemberg, Stuttgart, Germany.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Stone_tools%2C_Neanderthal%2C_Bad_Urach%2C_Wittlingen%2C_c._50%2C000_to_70%2C000_years_old_-_Landesmuseum_W%C3%BCrttemberg_-_Stuttgart%2C_Germany_-_DSC02685.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I’m often asked how archaeologists know whether an object is a stone tool rather than a fragmented rock. We don’t always. Looking at the same rock I might see a tool, while another archaeologist might not. Through science we can usually determine what is true.</p>
<p>We look at how the rock was broken, and whether the breaks were more likely from natural or human processes. We look at wear on the stone to see if it matches that of other known tools. In short, we use empirical observations and methods to decide which description best represents reality.</p>
<p>Conway’s statement was not based on a scientific perspective, but rather on a much older tradition of deciding what is true: the argument from authority.</p>
<p>It was the <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/">Enlightenment</a> that gave us science as we know it today. The scientific method was an active creation of men – and a few stalwart women – in the aftermath of the <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/01/economist-explains-5">Thirty Years’ War</a> who were intent on upending what at the time was viewed as a venerable method of judging between competing claims to truth: Whatever the people in power said was true. That an individual saw or thought or reasoned something different did not matter. The men who created science believed argument from authority caused the Thirty Years’ War, and they developed science so it could <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=6bYgQ26xGXMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0226808386&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9haWDwYjSAhUIxVQKHUC9AHQQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">never happen again</a>.</p>
<p>By contrast, Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-spicer-berates-media-over-inauguration-crowd-size-coverage-2017-1">statement</a> on the inauguration shows argument from authority in its clearest form: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period.” His attitude isn’t just anti-fact, it’s anti-science.</p>
<h2>Are we entering a post-Enlightenment world?</h2>
<p>We seem to have raised the argument from authority to a new level of acceptance, culminating in this election’s cascade of “false news” and “alternative facts.” I believe it is the culmination of a <a href="http://www.salon.com/2008/02/15/susan_jacoby/">long retreat</a> from the scientific perspective on truth. </p>
<p>When I was a new professor in the early 1990s teaching human evolution, I found myself pitted against creationists who believed God created humans exactly as we are today, without any process of evolution. Theirs was an argument from authority; specifically, the authority of the first two chapters of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1">Genesis</a>. I did not recognize that argument at the time, and tried to counter it with scientific facts. </p>
<p>I realize now that my approach did not work because we were not arguing about the scientifically accepted facts. We were using different methods of judging what is and what is not a fact. This debate had been active since the Scopes “<a href="http://moses.law.umn.edu/darrow/trials.php?tid=7">Monkey Trial</a>” in 1925, where high school science teacher John Scopes was arrested and tried for teaching human evolution in a public school. But in the 1980s, the debate became a tool in the political arsenal of the religious right. Their growing power in American politics rekindled a longstanding American tradition of <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/09/richard-hofstadter-and-america-s-new-wave-of-anti-intellectualism.html">anti-intellectualism</a> and unease with the scientific perspective. </p>
<p>Empirical data carry little weight against an argument from authority. And the reverse is true too.</p>
<p>In 2010 I became embroiled in a debate within the American Anthropological Association about their revised mission statement, which had thrown into question the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html">role of science in anthropology</a>. All references to “science” had been removed from the mission statement. I argued that anthropology had been led astray by postmodernism and needed to reestablish science as its guide. </p>
<p>Postmodernism arose out of linguistics, but was adopted widely in literary criticism and anthropology. <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-sci/#SSH2cii">Postmodernism</a> argues that empirical reality cannot be separated from the experiences and biases of the observer. For example, if I were in the crowd at Trump’s inauguration I might think it was the largest ever because it was the largest crowd I had ever experienced. But the experience of someone who regularly attends large events might think the crowd was relatively small. Even though we would be observing the same “fact,” our understanding of the “truth” of the inaugural crowd size would differ because of our differing experiences with crowds. In effect, both would be true.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"822548522633400321"}"></div></p>
<p>In a postmodern world, facts are slippery because they are shaped by personal experience. In its extreme form, postmodernism melds into <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/">solipsism</a>, which is the idea that there is nothing real outside one’s own mind. In solipsism the inaugural crowd exists only in one’s mind. The inauguration broke attendance records because it did in Trump’s mind. In this way all argument devolves into an argument from authority – the authority of the self.</p>
<p>Is Trump’s presidency part of a larger movement toward a solipsistic world? Perhaps. And if so, which solipsist gets to say what is fact and what is not? </p>
<p>And where does that leave science?</p>
<p>We must recognize the logic we use to discriminate fact from nonfact. Showing something to be false by “fact checking” has little impact on those whose facts are determined by authority. If we want to undermine the argument from authority we cannot do it through science – we have to do it by undermining the authority itself. And if we want to undermine science – well, we’ve been doing a pretty good job of that already.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Neal Peregrine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How do we determine what is fact? An archaeologist explains how the answer has changed over time and why it matters so much now.Peter Neal Peregrine, Professor of Anthropology and Museum Studies, Lawrence UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/727812017-02-22T02:09:38Z2017-02-22T02:09:38ZThreats of violent Islamist and far-right extremism: What does the research say?<p>On a Tuesday morning in September 2001, the American experience with terrorism was fundamentally altered. Two thousand, nine hundred and ninety-six people were murdered in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Thousands more, including many first responders, lost their lives to <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/16/9-11-death-toll-rising-496214.html">health complications</a> from working at or being near Ground Zero.</p>
<p>The 9/11 attacks were <a href="https://9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf">perpetrated</a> by Islamist extremists, resulting in nearly 18 times more deaths than America’s second most devastating terrorist attack – the Oklahoma City bombing. More than any other terrorist event in U.S. history, 9/11 drives Americans’ perspectives on who and what ideologies are associated with violent extremism.</p>
<p>But focusing solely on Islamist extremism when investigating, researching and developing counterterrorism policies goes against what the numbers tell us. Far-right extremism also poses a significant threat to the lives and well-being of Americans. This risk is often ignored or underestimated because of the devastating impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.</p>
<p>We have spent more than 10 years collecting and analyzing empirical data that show us how these ideologies vary in important ways that can inform policy decisions. Our conclusion is that a “one size fits all” approach to countering violent extremism may not be effective.</p>
<h2>By the numbers</h2>
<p>Historically, the U.S. has been home to adherents of many types of extremist ideologies. The two current most prominent threats are motivated by Islamist extremism and far-right extremism. </p>
<p>To help assess these threats, the Department of Homeland Security and recently the Department of Justice have funded the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2012.713229">Extremist Crime Database</a> to collect data on crimes committed by ideologically motivated extremists in the United States. The results of our analyses are published in peer-reviewed journals and on the website for the <a href="http://start.umd.edu/publications?combine=ECDB&year%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=">National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism & Responses to Terrorism</a>.</p>
<p>The ECDB includes data on ideologically motivated homicides committed by both Islamist extremists and far-right extremists going back more than 25 years. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Ue5ah/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="550"></iframe>
<p>Between 1990 and 2014, the ECDB has identified 38 homicide events motivated by Islamist extremism that killed 62 people. When you include 9/11, those numbers jump dramatically to 39 homicide events and 3,058 killed.</p>
<p>The database also identified 177 homicide events motivated by far-right extremism, with 245 killed. And when you include the Oklahoma City bombing, it rises to 178 homicide events and 413 killed.</p>
<p>Although our data for 2015 through 2017 are still being verified, we counted five homicide events perpetrated by Islamist extremists that resulted in the murders of 74 people. This includes the <a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482322488/orlando-shooting-what-happened-update">Pulse nightclub massacre</a> in Orlando, which killed 49 people. In the same time period, there were eight homicide events committed by far-right extremists that killed 27 people. </p>
<p>These data reveal that far-right extremists tend to be more active in committing homicides, yet Islamist extremists tend to be more deadly.</p>
<p>Our research has also identified violent Islamist extremist plots against 272 targets that were either foiled or failed between 2001 and 2014. We are in the process of compiling similar data on far-right plots. Although data collection is only about 50 percent complete, we have already identified 213 far-right targets from the same time period.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/QDeoQ/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The locations of violent extremist activity also differ by ideology. Our data show that between 1990 and 2014, most Islamist extremist attacks occurred in the South (56.5 percent), and most far-right extremist attacks occurred in the West (34.7 percent). Both forms of violence were least likely to occur in the Midwest, with only three incidents committed by Islamist extremists (4.8 percent) and 33 events committed by far-right extremists (13.5 percent).</p>
<p>Targets of violence also vary across the two ideologies. For example, 63 percent of the Islamist extremism victims were targeted for no apparent reason. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, often visiting symbolic locations or crowded venues such as the World Trade Center or military installations. </p>
<p>In contrast, 53 percent of victims killed by far-right extremists were targeted for their actual or perceived race or ethnicity. Far-right extremists, such as neo-Nazis, skinheads and white supremacists, often target religious, racial and ethnic, and sexual orientation and gender identity minorities.</p>
<h2>Motives and methods</h2>
<p>There are also differences in violent extremists across demographics, motives and methods. For instance, <a href="http://start.umd.edu/publication/twenty-five-years-ideological-homicide-victimization-united-states-america">data show</a> that guns were the weapon of choice in approximately 73 percent of Islamist extremist homicides and in only 63 percent of far-right extremist homicides. We attribute these differences to far-right extremists using more personal forms of violence, such as beating or stabbing victims to death.</p>
<p>We have also found that suicide missions are not unique to Islamist extremists.</p>
<p>From 1990 to 2014, we identified three suicide missions in which at least one person was killed connected to Islamist extremism, including the 9/11 attacks as one event. In contrast, there were 15 suicide missions committed by far-right extremists.</p>
<p>Our analyses found that compared to Islamist extremists, far-right extremists were significantly more likely to be economically deprived, have served in the military and have a higher level of commitment to their ideology. Far-right extremists were also significantly more likely to be less educated, single, young and to have participated in training by a group associated with their extremist ideology.</p>
<h2>Threat to law enforcement and military</h2>
<p>Terrorists associated with Islamist and far-right extremist ideologies do not only attack civilians. They also pose a deadly threat to law enforcement and military personnel. During the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 72 law enforcement officers and 55 military personnel were killed by members of Al-Qaida. On April 19, 1995, 13 law enforcement officers and four military personnel were killed when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed by an anti-government far-right extremist in Oklahoma City.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LPx0s/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>Outside of these two events, Islamist extremists are responsible for the murders of 18 military personnel in three incidents, and seven law enforcement officers were killed in five incidents between 1990 and 2015. Far-right extremists have murdered 57 law enforcement officers in 46 incidents, but have never directly targeted military personnel. </p>
<p>Far-right extremists, who typically harbor anti-government sentiments, have a higher likelihood of escalating routine law enforcement contacts into fatal encounters. These homicides pose unique challenges to local law enforcement officers who are disproportionately targeted by the far right.</p>
<h2>Moving forward</h2>
<p>The events of 9/11 will continue to skew both our real and perceived risks of violent extremism in the United States. To focus solely on Islamist extremism is to ignore the murders perpetrated by the extreme far right and their place in a constantly changing threat environment. </p>
<p>Some have even warned that there is <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2010.514698">potential for collaboration</a> between these extremist movements. Our own <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2010.514698">survey research</a> suggests this is a concern of law enforcement.</p>
<p>Focusing on national counterterrorism efforts against both Islamist and far-right extremism acknowledges that there are differences between these two violent movements. Focusing solely on one, while ignoring the other, will increase the risk of domestic terrorism and future acts of violence.</p>
<p>Both ideologies continue to pose real, unique threats to all Americans. Evidence shows far-right violent extremism poses a particular threat to law enforcement and racial, ethnic, religious and other minorities. Islamist violent extremism is a specific danger to military members, law enforcement, certain minorities and society at large. It remains imperative to support policies, programs and research aimed at countering all forms of violent extremism.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Parkin receives funding from the Department of Homeland Security. He is affiliated with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeff Gruenewald receives funding from the National Institute of Justice. He is also affiliated with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua D. Freilich receives funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). He is affiliated with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) and is a member of its executive committee.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Chermak receives funding from National Institute of Justice. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brent Klein does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Data on violent incidents in the US reveal that our focus on Islamist extremism since 9/11 may be misguided.William Parkin, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Seattle UniversityBrent Klein, Doctoral Student, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State UniversityJeff Gruenewald, Assistant Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, IUPUIJoshua D. Freilich, Professor of Criminal Justice, City University of New YorkSteven Chermak, Professor of Criminal Justice, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/719072017-01-27T12:43:27Z2017-01-27T12:43:27ZTrump’s America – the land of the not-so-free press<p>The Trump offensive – in both senses of the word – against the media continues unabated. The already fraught relationship now appears to have taken a more sinister turn with the news that six journalists who were arrested while covering anti-Trump protests in Washington during the inauguration have been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/business/media/journalists-arrested-trump-inauguration.html">charged with felony rioting</a> and could face lengthy jail terms.</p>
<p>Let me say at the outset that I do not believe that the arrests – ironically including <a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/374978-rubinstein-arrest-charges-outrage/">two reporters from the Trump-supporting Russian media</a> – were, in any sense, a result of direct orders from the White House. But in a country where the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">First Amendment</a> (which guarantees freedom of speech) has an almost religious status, the arrests are indicative of a change of public mood towards journalists – a change arguably inspired by Trump’s constant attacks on the media, throughout the campaign and now into his presidency.</p>
<p>The latest round of hostilities included Trump <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-the-sake-of-democracy-the-us-media-pack-needs-to-rediscover-its-teeth-71241">refusing to take questions from CNN</a> during a press conference after he had accused the network of “peddling fake news” and his spokesman, Sean Spicer, scolding the assembled journalists at an extraordinary press briefing after the inauguration, <a href="https://theconversation.com/spicerfacts-how-the-white-houses-relationship-with-the-press-will-play-out-71767">calling them liars</a> and refusing to take any questions. There have also been threats from the administration to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/15/business/media/trump-white-house-press-corps.html">kick the White House press corps</a> out of the White House and there has been talk of new restrictions on the ability of key government agencies – such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of the Interior, Transportation and Health – to communicate with the press and public. </p>
<p>“A uniquely toxic relationship,” is how Reuters columnist, Peter Apps, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-media-commentary-idUSKBN1582HI">describes the current impasse</a>. He argues that the fault lies not just with one side, saying that in reporting a relatively low turnout for the inauguration the press corps ignored the fact that Washington is largely a (black) Democrat city. This, he wrote, could be the simple reason why there were fewer people than at Obama’s inaugurations – a reason largely ignored by most of the mainstream media.</p>
<h2>Bullying works</h2>
<p>But this mild re-tilting of the balance cannot disguise the fact that we are witnessing extraordinary – indeed, unprecedented – attempts by the Trump administration to undermine the mainstream US media. So what is behind it? Are we simply witnessing the public manifestation of President Trump’s genuine sense of grievance against the “liberal media” – or are there other explanations? </p>
<p>One factor clearly in play is that – as we saw time and time again during his rather unpleasant election campaign – Trump is a bully and for the most part his bullying has worked. He has cowed the Republican leadership and tamed parts of the media. It’s a technique we have seen used effectively elsewhere – admittedly it’s a milder version, but some of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1453676/Bullying-Campbell-branded-a-Labour-liability.html">New Labour’s media handling</a> comes to mind. In terms of winning better coverage, bullying can work – but only in the short term. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"824078417213747200"}"></div></p>
<p>Another consideration by Trump and his team is probably that attacking the media appears to be very <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/politics/trump-media-attacks.html?_r=0">popular with his base</a>. They like seeing “The Donald” making those establishment liberal media types pay for the ordure they have been heaping upon their hero over the past year or so.</p>
<p>An alternative explanation can be found in the notion of “gaslighting”. This is an idea based on the <a href="http://www.filmsite.org/gasl.html">1944 film Gaslight</a> in which when a scheming husband seeks to drive his wife mad by doctoring her reality by, for example, making the gaslight in their home go off and on seemingly without cause. </p>
<p>Some are <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/opinions/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america-ghitis/index.html">now arguing</a> that this is Trump’s “grand plan” – to neutralise the media by making the American public so confused by false news, alternative facts and post-truth politics, that they become totally befuddled. The hope is that this, combined with the general mood of distrust in the press, makes people refuse to believe anything that the so-called “liberal” media – or any other media for that matter – says.</p>
<p>One further explanation might be found in the “hitting head against brick wall” school of media management. This involves initially making life absolutely miserable for the media and then switching to making it only a little bit miserable. The result is that journalists are so pleasantly surprised that the extreme pain has stopped that they roll over and allow their tummies to be tickled, fearful that the extreme pain might recommence if they don’t play ball.</p>
<h2>Truth to power</h2>
<p>But, removing tongue from cheek, the evidence to date is that nothing so Machiavellian is happening – what you see is what you get and what you see is that Trump doesn’t like the media and the media, for its part, is none too keen on him. And as amusing as this sometimes might be for onlookers, there is a real danger. In the US – and many other Western-style democracies – disillusionment with politics (and the media) has become a potent force and is playing an important role in the rise of populist solutions and populist politicians.</p>
<p>Although just before we get too holier than thou, it is worth observing that when issues of media freedom come up, there is a tendency in the West to focus on the obvious offenders: China, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia among them. Here is a sharp reminder that even in the “Land of the Free”, media freedom is not a given – and has to be constantly defended. </p>
<p>In his classic <a href="https://archive.org/details/publicopinion00lippgoog">Public Opinion</a>, the pioneering media scholar, Walter Lippman, wrote that the press was, “like the beam of a searchlight that moves restlessly about, bringing one episode and then another out of darkness into vision”. This is the imperative for American journalists today: they must continue to shine that beam of light and even if those in power turn away, or worse, try and snatch the searchlight away, they must prevail – because speaking truth to power has never been more important.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71907/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ivor Gaber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Now, more than ever, the US press must shine a light on the workings of the Trump administration.Ivor Gaber, Professor of Journalism, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/719322017-01-27T02:03:58Z2017-01-27T02:03:58ZTrump isn’t lying, he’s bullshitting – and it’s far more dangerous<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154471/original/image-20170126-30410-7z3eqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lying means you're actually concerned about the truth.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/558353116?size=huge_jpg">'Trump' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’ve been paying attention to the news over the past week or so, you know that over the weekend America was introduced to the concept of “alternative facts.” After Trump administration Press Secretary Sean Spicer <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence">rebuked the media for accurately reporting</a> the relatively small crowds at President Donald Trump’s inauguration, senior White House aide Kellyanne Conway <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-inauguration-alternative-facts">told NBC’s “Meet the Press”</a> that Spicer wasn’t lying; he was simply using “alternative facts.”</p>
<p>News outlets are still working through the process of figuring out what to call these mischaracterizations of reality. (“Alternative facts” seems to have been <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/opinions/alternative-facts-lies-obeidallah-opinion/index.html">swiftly rejected</a>.) Many outlets have upped their fact-checking game. The Washington Post, for instance, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/16/now-you-can-fact-check-trumps-tweets-in-the-tweets-themselves/">released a browser extension</a> that fact-checks tweets by the president in near real-time. </p>
<p>Other outlets have resisted labeling Trump’s misstatements as lies. Earlier this year, for instance, the Wall Street Journal’s editor-in-chief Gerard Baker <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-1-1-17-n702006">insisted</a> that the Wall Street Journal wouldn’t label Trump’s false statements “lies.” </p>
<p>Baker argued that lying requires a “deliberate intention to mislead,” which couldn’t be proven in the case of Trump. Baker’s critics <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/02/yes-donald-trump-lies-a-lot-and-news-organizations-should-say-so/">pushed back</a>, raising valid and important points about the duty of the press to report what is true. </p>
<p>As important as discussions about the role of the press as fact-checkers are, in this case Baker’s critics are missing the point. Baker is right. Trump isn’t lying. He’s bullshitting. And that’s an important distinction to make. </p>
<h2>Bullshitter-in-chief?</h2>
<p>Bullshitters, as philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote in his 1986 essay “<a href="http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf">On Bullshit</a>,” don’t care whether what they are saying is factually correct or not. Instead, bullshit is characterized by a “lack of connection to a concern with truth [and] indifference to how things really are.” Frankfurt explains that a bullshitter “does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”</p>
<p>In addition to being unconcerned about the truth (which liars do care about, since they are trying to conceal it), Frankfurt suggests that bullshitters don’t really care whether their audience believes what they are saying. Indeed, getting the audience to believe something is false isn’t the goal of bullshitting. Rather, bullshitters say what they do in an effort to change how the audience sees them, “to convey a certain impression” of themselves. </p>
<p>In Trump’s case, much of his rhetoric and speech seems designed to inflate his own grand persona. Hence the tweets about improving the record sales of artists performing at his inauguration and <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/trump-rnc-speech-alone-fix-it/492557/">his claims</a> that he “alone can fix” the problems in the country. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"816718880731234304"}"></div></p>
<p>Likewise, his inaugural address contained much rhetoric about the “decayed” state of the country and rampant unemployment (<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/news/economy/trump-administration-unemployment-bls/">a verifiably false statement</a>). Trump then proceeded to claim that he was going to rid the country of these ailments. The image of Trump as a larger-than-life figure who will repair a broken country <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-each-side-of-the-partisan-divide-thinks-the-other-is-living-in-an-alternate-reality-71458">resonates with his audience</a>, and it doesn’t work without first <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-day.html">priming them</a> with notions of widespread “carnage.”</p>
<h2>A stinky, slippery slope</h2>
<p>There are several problems with Trump adopting the bullshit style of communication. </p>
<p>First, misinformation is notoriously hard to correct once it’s out there, and social media, in particular, has a reputation for spreading factually inaccurate statements and conspiracy theories. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-facebook-confirmation-bias-misinformation-paranoia-20160108-story.html">One study</a>, for instance, examined five years of Facebook posts about conspiracy theories. The authors found that people tend to latch onto stories that fit their preexisting narratives about the world and share those stories with their social circle. <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.abstract">The result</a> is a “proliferation of biased narratives fomented by unsubstantiated rumors, mistrust, and paranoia.” <a href="https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/47257">Another study</a> examined Twitter rumors following the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. These researchers explored how misinformation about the identity of a suspected terrorist abounded on the social media platform. They found that although corrections to the error eventually emerged, they didn’t have the same reach as the original misinformation.</p>
<p>Second, because Trump’s communication style relies heavily on anger, people who are predisposed to his message may become even less critical of potential bunk. Research suggests that when people are angry, they evaluate misinformation in a partisan way, typically accepting the misleading claims that favor their own political party. <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12164/abstract">One study</a>, for instance, primed participants by having them write essays that made them feel angry about a political issue. The authors then presented them with misinformation about the issue that either came from their own party or the opposing party. Participants who felt angry were more likely to believe their party’s misinformation than people who were primed to feel anxious or neutral. </p>
<p>Finally, a communications strategy based on bullshit inherently makes enemies of anyone who would seek to reinstate the truth and expose his statements as bunk. <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/313777-trump-berates-cnn-reporter-for-fake-news">Journalists</a>, scientists, <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/12/donald-trump-obama-keeping-down-interest-rates-fed/">experts</a> and even government officials who disagree with him are subject to charges of ineptitude, partisanship or <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/26/donald-trump/facts-dispute-donald-trumps-claim-donation-fbi-spo/">conspiracy</a>. They’re then threatened with restrictions on <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/25/14388928/environmental-protection-agency-grant-freeze-temporary-donald-trump">funding</a>, <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-01-18/trump-wont-remove-press-from-white-house-but-says-he-will-pick-who-gets-in">access</a> and <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-climatechange-idUSKBN15906G">speech</a>. We’ve already seen this happening with the <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-epa-studies-20170125-story.html">suggestion that Environmental Protection Agency data may undergo review by political appointees</a> before being made public. </p>
<p>In fairness, Trump may very well believe the things that he’s saying. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lie-notable-quotes-trumps-pre-inauguration-interviews/story?id=44852845">He was recently quoted as saying</a> “I don’t like to lie.” And people can convince themselves of things that aren’t true. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/">There’s some evidence</a>, for instance, that he avoided information that Muslims in New Jersey didn’t actually celebrate the terrorist attacks on September 11th, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/">as he claimed</a>. Like all of us, Trump may be putting up psychological defenses to avoid accepting information that challenges his worldviews, <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2010-25386-006">as research suggests all of us do</a>. So although he’s corrected frequently by journalists and on social media, it’s a very real possibility that he’s simply shut out anyone or any source of information that threatens his way of seeing things. </p>
<p>But this is of little comfort. Trump has an affinity for speaking mistruths with little consideration for their factual accuracy. Combine this with his relentless efforts to discredit anyone who challenges his declarations and his heavy use of social media – where posts and tweets can go viral with little context and no fact-checking – and it sets the stage for a dangerous turn in American political and civil discourse.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71932/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Griffin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Inflating his own grand persona is Trump’s sole goal, and he doesn’t care whether or not you believe him.Lauren Griffin, Director of External Research for frank, College of Journalism and Communications, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/717672017-01-24T13:51:46Z2017-01-24T13:51:46Z#spicerfacts: how the White House’s relationship with the press will play out<p>Journalists would have anticipated the <a href="http://www.vox.com/2017/1/21/14347812/trump-press-briefing-sean-spicer">first press conference of the Trump presidency</a> with some trepidation. Not only had his <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trump-press-conference-transcript.html">briefing at Trump Tower as president-elect</a> been something of a shambles as Trump excoriated some journalists and ignored others, but the whole election campaign had been traumatic for many. Reporters had been submitted to ritual humiliation at Trump rallies, ushered through baying crowds to be labelled “liars” and “disgusting” by a candidate who did not seem overly burdened by the concept of truth himself. </p>
<p>But campaigning is different from governing. Journalists, who had endured a storm of criticism from Trump’s transition team, were hoping for a transformation of campaign Trump into a more presidential Trump – or perhaps a press liaison operation sympathetic to the press’ needs.</p>
<p>The first press “briefing” from White House press secretary Sean Spicer, delivered the day after Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States made it clear that this transformation has not happened. In a six-minute tirade, Spicer told journalists why their coverage of the inauguration had been wrong, told them what they should be reporting and left the stage with no opportunities for questions and answers. </p>
<p>Any impression that a mutual trust might be nurtured between presidency and media – or even that a deal for mutual benefit might be negotiated – was shattered. Journalists’ worst fears, articulated widely and openly during the transition, are now realised and both sides are now digging in for an extended battle.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8l_uoiXixcI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Written out</h2>
<p>From <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/theodore-roosevelt">Theodore Roosevelt</a>’s presidency at the turn of the 20th century onward, presidents have traditionally nurtured a relationship with journalists. <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/franklin-d-roosevelt-9463381">Franklin Roosevelt</a> held briefings in the Oval Office and Jack Kennedy <a href="http://millercenter.org/president/biography/kennedy-life-before-the-presidency">traded on his own journalistic experiences</a> in talking to the press. The relationship was symbiotic and mutually beneficial; presidencies broadcast their messages to the public and the media had stories and pictures to run. </p>
<p>But the relationship has soured since the 1970s – and the Trump presidency may come to represent the logical conclusion of a half-century’s development in presidential relations with the media.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vLt6djxhNe8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The disillusionment of the media with the presidency is well-documented. The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/timeline.html">Watergate scandal</a> and <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/pentagon-papers">misinformation over the Vietnam War</a> caused journalists to examine their assumptions about the trustworthiness of the country’s commander-in-chief. </p>
<p>But the media still needs the presidency. The presidency, on the other hand has long struggled to wriggle free of the media’s grasp. Frustrated by increasingly negative coverage from mainstream outlets, presidents pull away from the media over their term, offering fewer press conferences as their term develops. Obama’s administration built a reputation for unusual levels of secrecy due to its refusal to release information in response to press requests. Worse, administration threats to prosecute journalists for not revealing their sources permanently tarnished Obama’s standing with the media and generated many hostile stories. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G6NfRMv-4OY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>During George W. Bush’s administration, journalist <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/contributors/ryan-lizza">Ryan Lizza</a> offered the term “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/09/magazine/the-year-in-ideas-a-to-z-the-white-house-doesn-t-need-the-press.html">pressless presidency</a>” to capture the Bush team’s assessment of the press, not as a Fourth Estate with a legitimate role to check governmental and presidential power, but as just another interest group to be serviced.</p>
<p>The holy grail now for an administration is to bypass the hard questions and unforgiving judgements of the Washington media to reach the people directly. Each new technology seems to offer this potential. Obama attempted to bypass the Washington press corps through use of Reddit and YouTube, while Trump has done more than most to cut loose while calculating that he can use other means to communicate – Twitter being his favourite medium. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"823151124815507460"}"></div></p>
<h2>US vs them</h2>
<p>Instead of working with the media, Trump has made it integral to his core message: his anti-establishment status. Trump’s rhetoric relies upon simple oppositions – and the media has been particularly important in this. In Trump’s populist rhetoric the media have become part of giant conspiracy of politicians, business and media working against the interests of the American people. And the press makes an excellent target – <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx">public trust in the media has dropped</a> precipitously. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153930/original/image-20170123-8055-wnfcxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153930/original/image-20170123-8055-wnfcxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153930/original/image-20170123-8055-wnfcxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153930/original/image-20170123-8055-wnfcxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153930/original/image-20170123-8055-wnfcxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153930/original/image-20170123-8055-wnfcxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153930/original/image-20170123-8055-wnfcxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/153930/original/image-20170123-8055-wnfcxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Declining trust in the news media.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gallup</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Usually there is something of a “honeymoon period” as the two sides develop their relationships and work out a basis of cooperation. Both the incoming administration and the media usually focus on appointments and leading policy proposals. But instead of trying to build that relationship for mutual advantage early on, Trump’s team is launching a full frontal assault on the media’s credibility. The Trump team is “pressless” from the start.</p>
<p>Not only is Trump to be pressless, then, but the logic of this position extends to discrediting the media as a competitor in setting the agenda or even describing reality. When Spicer highlights the delayed nomination of Mike Pompeo as CIA director and <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/the-trump-white-house-is-already-disseminating-propaganda.html">tells the press</a>: “That’s what you guys should be writing and covering,” the attempt to control what is considered news is obvious. But this position extends to portraying the media as a malevolent force. Accusing the media of “dishonesty” allows the administration to claim a new role. </p>
<p>To quote Spicer: “We’re going to hold the press accountable as well.” The administration has appointed itself the guardian of truth against the evildoers of the press. Theatrical denials of the media’s legitimacy suit the administration very well: much as Trump’s tweets have done before, Spicer’s press briefing made the tension between the media and the new administration the main news story. The administration portrays itself as the insurgency against the establishment. As long as the media continue to run the conflict stories, Trump will remain happy to trigger them.</p>
<h2>High-risk strategy</h2>
<p>But this approach carries substantial risks. As a rocky transition focused on <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/intelligence-report-putin-election/">Putin’s influence over the election</a> and <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/">Trump’s conflicts of interest</a> proved, the new administration has not found a way to control the media agenda. Trump’s familiar campaign technique of picking fights over Twitter has served to distract from the worst stories but has not refocused attention on the presidency’s priorities. </p>
<p>The stories in each policy area are of uncertainty and confusion around the administration’s direction and the overall image of Trump’s presidency has been damaged from the start. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"823629211327819776"}"></div></p>
<p>So far, the media has expressed substantial doubt that the Trump administration has a clear direction or clarity over priorities, a claim reinforced by Trump’s own tendency to make bold, incredible and contradictory statements. Attacking the press is a serious – and unforced – error that will generate negative coverage. Trump and Spicer’s calculation, that the new president’s support can endure a relentless stream of negative stories, is an extraordinary gamble. It relies on Trump’s supporters resisting the influence of negative media coverage, while the administration communicates with them directly. </p>
<p>Without doubt, there is much to suggest that some partisans will remain loyal to their president amid media criticism. News accessed only through selective <a href="https://news.vice.com/story/journalists-and-trump-voters-live-in-separate-online-bubbles-mit-analysis-shows">social media “bubbles”</a> is likely to reinforce this effect. However, experience suggests that Republicans will not be blindly loyal. As Nixon and George W. Bush discovered, Republicans can turn on their own.</p>
<p>As the administration’s credibility falls, the same rhetoric from Trump blaming media demons for Americans’ perceived plight will sound less like a promise of conflict, victory and transformation and more like excuse-making in the face of under-achievement. Trump attacks on those merely trying to report on his presidency will come to look like the product of a paranoid mindset.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71767/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon Herbert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The relationship between the Trump administration and the press is off to a rocky start. This is a high-risk strategy for the White House.Jon Herbert, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Director of Learning and Teaching, Keele UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/717332017-01-23T16:23:00Z2017-01-23T16:23:00ZHow Donald Trump turned the presidency into greatest reality TV show on Earth<p>Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president will go down as one of the great spectacles of our age. While <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-lefts-response-to-trump-and-alt-right-must-be-international-71647">protesters</a> have been venting their anger, his supporters <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/20/donald-trump-supporters-inauguration-interview">have been</a> cheering his victory. Almost half of Americans <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/us-election-2016-voter-turnout-fell-to-58-per-cent-this-year-est/">may not have</a> bothered to vote on November 8, but, oh boy, will most of them be watching the show now. </p>
<p>If you are among those trying to make sense of the rise of Donald Trump, you <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268210904_Puppets_of_Necessity_Celebritisation_in_Structured_Reality_Television">have to</a> first understand reality television. The new president’s bewildering journey from The Apprentice to the Oval Office has been made possible by what he learned behind the cameras about the voting public and their relationship with modern televised entertainment. The media widely refers to Trump as a reality TV star. In fact, Trump and his advisers have turned the election and the presidency into the greatest reality TV show on Earth. </p>
<p>The Apprentice is a lesser example of a genre known as “structured reality TV”. Epitomised by <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1086761/">Keeping Up With the Kardashians</a>, other classics would include <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0306370/">The Osbournes</a>, <a href="http://www.itv.com/hub/the-only-way-is-essex/1a9310">The Only Way is Essex</a> and <a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/made-in-chelsea">Made in Chelsea</a>. The genre is an intriguing hybrid of dramatisation and real life. </p>
<p>We all know the scenes are scripted or at least “directed” to maximise the drama, but the events are also based to some extent on the stars’ real lives. We buy in to a paradox, since it’s less entertaining if you have to wait for the action to happen, like on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/channel5bbuk">Big Brother</a>, or if stories are completely fictional, like in soap operas. </p>
<p>Trump has used exactly the same style to win power. Millions of people enjoy consuming news of his latest activities, sharing the latest and speculating about what will happen next. It doesn’t matter that we broadly acknowledge that Trump’s rhetoric is often false or unfounded – <a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-chaotic-use-of-metaphor-is-a-crucial-part-of-his-appeal-61383">as does</a> the man himself <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/08/05/donald-trump-admits-doesnt-understand-sees-television/">on occasions</a>. He has manufactured a parallel structured reality, real enough to be compelling but fantastical enough to be entertaining. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MP473ail5Tg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Trump’s best bits</h2>
<p>When we <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268210904_Puppets_of_Necessity_Celebritisation_in_Structured_Reality_Television">looked at</a> what engages people with this kind of structured reality, we identified three key factors that could be applied to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0267257X.2014.988282">existing academic theories</a>: a competition between different characters, a spectacle that exaggerates or stylises reality; and cultural hallmarks that help us to understand the environment. </p>
<p>This applies equally to Trump: he made the campaign a <a href="http://www.thehungergames.co.uk">Hunger Games</a>-style fight to the death between him and Hillary Clinton, turning on a clash of personalities. He took his political positions to their extremes during public rallies, such as <a href="http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/01/21/mexicans-build-makeshift-wall-around-us?videoId=370967850">proposing</a> a wall with Mexico; and he painted a picture of his America by drawing caricatures in crayon for the electorate, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/05/pence-yes-trump-called-mexicans-rapists-and-criminals-but-you-keep-forgetting-about-the-other-part/?utm_term=.379493e43521">such as</a> calling Mexicans rapists and criminals. </p>
<p>He also shared another important feature of structured reality TV, which is that people’s consumption is not restricted to watching the shows. We intensify the viewing experience by engaging with these people on social media and seeing them discussed in the media outside the limitations of the actual show. </p>
<p>Shows like Big Brother and <a href="http://www.itv.com/xfactor">The X Factor</a> hinge on the audience’s ability to influence participants’ outcomes through voting. Structured reality TV goes one stage further by embedding the sensation of voting in the normal rhythms of viewers’ social activity through mechanisms like social media. Donald Trump gave viewers the best of both: furious Twitter activity and an actual vote at the end, and something no other reality TV show can match – the prospect of influencing real life in a major way. </p>
<p>Trump played a similar trick on viewers as when we see someone like Kim Kardashian on the screen. Kardashian’s apparently stylised, exaggerated and idealistic world is dragged into reality by her seeming accessibility to viewers through social media. This bridges the gap between viewers’ desire to be like her and being able to fulfil that aspiration. Since we know what we’re seeing isn’t real but we persuade ourselves it’s a reality we can aspire to, we’re in on the delusion. </p>
<p>So too with Trump’s run for president – the man who became a billionaire property tycoon and then a household name as host of The Apprentice. This American dream fairytale has been undermined by ambiguity over his <a href="http://time.com/4521851/donald-trumps-wealth/">true wealth</a> and <a href="http://ijr.com/opinion/2015/09/247749-donald-trump-is-a-mediocre-businessman-and-his-record-proves-it/">business success</a>, yet his supporters use it as proof of his eligibility for office all the same. </p>
<p>They also use his inflammatory and divisive rhetoric as an excuse to display extreme views and normalise them. It echoes the way that after The Only Way is Essex appeared on British screens, many people from Essex became “more like” the stereotypical view of people from the county as they aspired to live like the stars of the show. </p>
<h2>There to serve</h2>
<p>The really neat trick from producers of the best structured reality TV is using our audience participation to know which way to steer the “drama” next. Do this and, hey presto, we feel like we are getting exactly what we want. </p>
<p>Trump’s supporters and opponents must have come away with a similar feeling from his “America first” <a href="https://theconversation.com/death-and-rebirth-reading-between-the-lines-of-trumps-inauguration-speech-71667">inauguration speech</a> and the subsequent spat over the number of people who attended the ceremony. Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2017/01/trumps-press-secretary-just-told-4-whoppers-in-5-minutes-233984">delivering</a> inauguration facts widely seen as false is a beautiful metaphor for people’s fears that Trump will worry more about appearances than getting on with the job – and potentially use it as a smokescreen for policy vacuums. </p>
<p>Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, meanwhile, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38712182">accused</a> the media of “talking about delegitimising the election” from day one, saying the administration would fight press coverage “tooth and nail every day”. Clearly The Hunger Games analogy continues, with the team now fighting the press. Over the next few weeks, Hillary Clinton is also likely to be replaced by <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/theresa-may-donald-trump-hold-talks-trade-deal-cuts-tariffs/">Theresa May</a>, the UK prime minister, and the <a href="http://www.voanews.com/a/trump-to-meet-with-mexican-president-nieto-pena/3687690.html">Mexican</a> and <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-president-trump-and-prime-minister-trudeau-plan-to-meet/article33699643/">Canadian</a> premiers as the next round of supporting actors in the Trump show to take to the stage. </p>
<p>Like the Kardashians, don’t be surprised if the Trump family become more prominent, too, or if this show runs for multiple seasons. When it’s worked this well until now, after all, why on earth would Donald Trump change direction?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Kim Kardashian et al taught Trump everything he knows.Kevin O'Gorman, Professor of Management and Business History, Heriot-Watt UniversityAndrew MacLaren, Lecturer in Marketing. I research team and field dynamics within cultural and business contexts, Heriot-Watt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.