A way for Journalists and Other Writers to Deal with Trump's lies: From George Lakoff

I got a 404 error on the "A Blitzkrieg Strategy of Lies and Distractions" article, but this link seems to work: https://medium.com/@GeorgeLakoff/a-blitzkrieg-strategy-of-lies-and-distractions-829c59880015.

This resonates with me; it's the assumption I've operated under my whole life and he's right, it doesn't freakin' work because people don't want facts, they're comfortable in their own framing:

A lot of Democrats believe in what is called Enlightenment reasoning, and that if you just tell people the facts, they’ll reach the right conclusion. That just isn’t true.

Click to expand...

And this runs in harness right alongside Nancy Pelosi's earlier comments * (see below Prof. Lakoff's quote):

Faced with an authoritarian leader who uses lies as weapons, reporters must evolve to counter the threat. Protecting the truth requires more than fact checking. It demands that reporters take into account the strategy behind Trump’s blitzkrieg of lies and refuse to fall for it.

Click to expand...

*Nancy Pelosi in the NYT: “May I say something you’re not going to like? I think the press loves him. All day on TV —and I don’t even watch TV, except sports. But he says somebody had a horse face —all day we hear about that. You just give him all day”

Unfortunately, what matters most is connections and not truth. If a connection is witness to truth, then they are more likely going to be swayed by it. If a connection is witness to a falsehood and is swayed by that falsehood, there is greater chance that whomever is deeply connected to them will be swayed to believe the falsehood.

That said, Lakoff's suggestion is pretty good. It would make stories less frustrating to read. And that is important because we don't want to suffer the ambivalence of poor reporting. Furthermore, putting the onus on reporting what the reporter knows to be true makes it more clear-cut between them and those who are simply selling insinuations.

I've been saying this stuff for a while now. The GOP is good at this stuff, Trump is the King of it, and the Democrats have yet to figure it out.

Lakoff is great for sorting out and dealing with framing and other persuasion techniques with words. I'm really glad to see him weighing in.

Now if only more news services would pay attention. Unfortunately they operate on the profit business model and what sells is crap like Trump's lies. Lakoff thinks maybe they don't know better. I wonder if they know better but as long as they are getting good ratings, they've jumped right in bed with the devil.

There is no distinction between mediums in terms of publication schedules in the link above. TV network news that operate 24/7 have to follow the news as it happens. You have to watch Fareed Zakaria or Brian Stelter's own weekly show to have a bird's eye view of the news, one which sifts from Trump's chaff and go straight to the wheat.

That's why Trump thrives in the 24/7 environment. First, he's a narcissist therefore he needs the constant attention his next clusterfucks bring him. Second, by the time those get debunked, the 24/7 news outlets are already behind two or three news cycles. That's one reason why the lies linger - they are not debunked within the same publication cycle. That's your problem right there.

Yes, 24/7 news outlets could throw the chaff out and keep the high road. I don't see this working. In the long run, the audience will move away from those outlets as they do not report "current" news no more, and those outlets need eyeballs for the advertisement. It's unavoidable.

-cb

I've been wondering for a while if Journalists, politicians, and people in general should focus less on what Trump says and more on a given issue. I suppose the Truth Sandwich would be a way of doing this. The problem is, the idiotic and fallacious things he says make for attention-grabbing headlines and clickbait.

As a teacher, I have noticed that an approach that focuses on common misconceptions about something (like evolution or stem cells or embryonic development etc.) tends to backfire, because a large number of students will remember precisely what you were attempting to debunk (as indicated by their response on exam questions) and forget the information that actually debunks it. Not that focusing on the correct information and minimizing mention of the myths is fool proof. For one thing, most students come to me already steeped in the fallacies, and dethroning 18+ years of misinformation in just semester is pretty hard.

So, re the recent flurry of news stories about Trump's stupid comment about raking forests in Finland as one example. An appropriate response, if my takeaway from the article is accurate, would be to write a story that focuses on forest management practices that work best in the Western US. Trump's lie about raking and Finland might not be mentioned at all as such, or simply sandwiched inside the factual information.

The main problem with this approach, as I see it, is that an article about forest management practices wouldn't be as attention grabbing as articles that make fun of, or try to debunk, his comment about raking. People who already hate Trump are eager to read articles that highlight how stupid he is, and people who are more neutral probably aren't terribly interested in factual articles about the best way to manage CA forests. Of course, nothing is going to sway the people who love him, people with world views that are confirmed by his utterances.

The challenge would lie in framing such an informative article in a way that is as attention grabbing as one that focuses on something bombastic Trump said or did.

Or maybe the comments about Finland raking its forests really is not all that interesting and again is more of a game of selling the insinuation of the already preconceived notion that Trump is a wet-brained idiot. Perhaps it is more interesting and truthful to report on actual forest management policies in effect and that what Trump said was a hot mess of spurious ideas that popped in his head and mouthed off to fill time that was allotted for him to speak.

I could see an article about forest management practices might be interesting if they are framed in a context of avoiding tragedies like the one that is still unfolding in CA.

The problem is, we live in an era where there is almost too much competition for our attention. As a consequence, people don't (probably can't) stay focused on any issue or story for very long, no matter compelling. People also tend to not want to read anything that's very long or in-depth anymore.

Success would depend on getting the article about preventing forest fires out there in the moment when it's most likely to capture readers' attention (just after they've exhausted the stories about the horrors of the fire and all the human interest stuff about survivors but are still interested in reading about things related to wildfires) and to have it be short and to the point enough that people's eyes don't glaze over.

Roxxsmom said:

I've been wondering for a while if Journalists, politicians, and people in general should focus less on what Trump says and more on a given issue. I suppose the Truth Sandwich would be a way of doing this. The problem is, the idiotic and fallacious things he says make for attention-grabbing headlines and clickbait.

As a teacher, I have noticed that an approach that focuses on common misconceptions about something (like evolution or stem cells or embryonic development etc.) tends to backfire, because a large number of students will remember precisely what you were attempting to debunk (as indicated by their response on exam questions) and forget the information that actually debunks it. Not that focusing on the correct information and minimizing mention of the myths is fool proof. For one thing, most students come to me already steeped in the fallacies, and dethroning 18+ years of misinformation in just semester is pretty hard.

So, re the recent flurry of news stories about Trump's stupid comment about raking forests in Finland as one example. An appropriate response, if my takeaway from the article is accurate, would be to write a story that focuses on forest management practices that work best in the Western US. Trump's lie about raking and Finland might not be mentioned at all as such, or simply sandwiched inside the factual information.

The main problem with this approach, as I see it, is that an article about forest management practices wouldn't be as attention grabbing as articles that make fun of, or try to debunk, his comment about raking. People who already hate Trump are eager to read articles that highlight how stupid he is, and people who are more neutral probably aren't terribly interested in factual articles about the best way to manage CA forests. Of course, nothing is going to sway the people who love him, people with world views that are confirmed by his utterances.

The challenge would lie in framing such an informative article in a way that is as attention grabbing as one that focuses on something bombastic Trump said or did.

Click to expand...

Two issues I see here. One, and I'm sorry this is a sidetrack) the problem with teaching evolution theory to people who have other beliefs is we treat the problem like it's a knowledge deficit. It's not. You have to stop and reassess the problem. Eugenie Scott has some good ideas for teaching evolution.

If you are still teaching the subject you should take a look at this: Evolution vs. Creationism
An Introduction
Second Edition
EUGENIE C. SCOTT
FOREWORD BY NILES ELDREDGE
FOREWORD TO SECOND EDITION BY JUDGE JOHN E. JONES III
Just a word about Judge Jones, he is a Reagan appointed judge that hasn't sold out to the Evangelicals. He decided the case and wrote an excellent opinion in the Kitzmiller v Dover decision.


But I digress, two) the issue of the news media being led by the nose by Trump's Gaslighting also is not a problem of a knowledge deficit. Rather it's the bigger problem that our news media sells a commodity and that commodity is not information. As long as they have an audience and ratings don't expect them to suddenly change to professional news people.

We have to address the problem another way.


Edited to add The Attention Merchants by Tim Wu is another must read recommendation about that very thing, vying for our attention.

Ari Meermans said:

This resonates with me; it's the assumption I've operated under my whole life and he's right, it doesn't freakin' work because people don't want facts, they're comfortable in their own framing:

Click to expand...

"I don't want knowledge. . . I want CERTAINTY!"
- Bowie, 1997, paraphrasing Bertrand Russell, 1964

poetinahat said:

"I don't want knowledge. . . I want CERTAINTY!"
- Bowie, 1997, paraphrasing Bertrand Russell, 1964

Click to expand...

I'm sorry Ari deleted her post because I have a response I think is important.

Once you've assessed it's not a knowledge deficit, you can't stop there. Now we need to assess just what the problem is so we aren't addressing the wrong thing. And if that doesn't work you reassess again.

It's not a magic answer, not wisdom that the hero uses to save the world. It's a start on a different path because the one we were on is a dead end.

The 'truth sandwich' is a useful tool. Reinforce the truth, point out the falsehood but before you stop, make the truth the last thing you say or write.

I try to look at framing. Trump's gaslighting is a classic propaganda technique. Lakoff is right. And the more we recognize the stuff the more immune we become to it.

AW Admin said:

I'm going to try to provide a truth sandwich when I post here or on my sites about Trump.

Journalists could engage in what I’ve called “truth sandwiches,” which means that you first tell the truth; then you point out what the lie is and how it diverges from the truth. Then you repeat the truth and tell the consequences of the difference between the truth and the lie.

Click to expand...

from here.

Click to expand...

This only works if the audience you want to sway away from the lies is actually listening to you.

Unless something drastic happens at Fox News it will continue to spread lies and conspiration theories.

-cb

cbenoi1 said:

This only works if the audience you want to sway away from the lies is actually listening to you.

Unless something drastic happens at Fox News it will continue to spread lies and conspiration theories.

-cb

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. Turns out it was also addressed in the first link provided in the original post.

AW Admin said:

Journalists could engage in what I’ve called “truth sandwiches,” which means that you first tell the truth; then you point out what the lie is and how it diverges from the truth. Then you repeat the truth and tell the consequences of the difference between the truth and the lie.

Click to expand...

If you could point to a recent case of a truth sandwich that worked against Trump it would help a lot in the discussion.


ETA: Maybe a little more about my thinking here...

My background is in marketing. I'm used to having competitors bad-mouth my products. It's part of the game. Counteracting their message need two things: 1) early knowledge of the message and 2) strike back within the same time frame through a better medium. Everything else is execution.

How does that apply to Trump and truth sandwiches?

Early knowledge, speed in execution, and having access to a better medium are key.

How to get early knowledge from Trump. First, forget Trump. He's the parrot of Fox & Friends and Sean Hannety. Find what's coming the pipeline from where Fox (and conservative media) are getting their alternative facts. Expect Trump to pick up on that some time after it's aired on Fox.

Timely execution. It takes some time from conservative media to reach Trump. Not a lot, but's it enough to build that sandwich and deliver it within the same time frame as Fox spews its crap so that they look like fools. If Trump picks up on Fox while the sandwich is being deployed, he will look like a utter moron.

Better medium. You need something with wide appeal, a little off from the debate, and one for which messages linger for days. Like a daily SNL skit.


-cb

MaeZe said:

Two issues I see here. One, and I'm sorry this is a sidetrack) the problem with teaching evolution theory to people who have other beliefs is we treat the problem like it's a knowledge deficit. It's not. You have to stop and reassess the problem. Eugenie Scott has some good ideas for teaching evolution.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, and it's definitely an issue unto itself. I wasn't talking so much about people who don't "believe in" evolution for religious reasons, however (I've seen fewer of these students in recent years, for whatever reason) but about people who actually do think evolution is real science but who have serious misconceptions about what it is or how it works. For instance, many people think evolution is goal-oriented or Lamarkian in nature, and many think that things evolve because an organism "needs" them, that evolution builds perfection, or that somehow the appearance of humans was inevitable or moving in an inexorable direction that is, in essence, predestined.

These are very hard ideas to debunk, even with cute cartoons like this one. I've found that focusing on the misconceptions only tends to entrench them, which is related to the issue mentioned in the article. Talking about something and telling people not to think it is like asking someone not to think of or remember a bear when you mention a bear.

cbenoi1 said:

Timely execution. It takes some time from conservative media to reach Trump. Not a lot, but's it enough to build that sandwich and deliver it within the same time frame as Fox spews its crap so that they look like fools. If Trump picks up on Fox while the sandwich is being deployed, he will look like a utter moron.

Click to expand...

I think this is true. The problem may lie in anticipating which lies he will latch onto. There are so darned many. It would be even better if one could post the truth before the right-wing media runs a fallacious article. Also, there's the issue with getting the people who most need to see the real information. Peoples' news-consuming habits are very partitioned these days. I get a lot of my news from NPR and the Washington Post, for instance, but many people regard these sources as anathema or are simply not interested in investing the time required to "consume" them.

Better medium. You need something with wide appeal, a little off from the debate, and one for which messages linger for days. Like a daily SNL skit.


-cb

Click to expand...

This is very challenging, because even without the charged political atmosphere (which lead people to increasingly filter obtain information through comfortable, view-confirming channels), there are simply a kajillion sources. Fewer (though still many) provide original stories or content, but there are a gross number that recycle each others' news. Consumers, even those who genuinely want to stay informed and see things from different angles, can't possibly sample even a fraction of what is out there. Most people prefer to obtain news from sources that reinforce their own world views.

This may be the ultimate downfall of the free press in the age of near-limitless communication and a business model that relies on eyeballs clicking through sites and seeing their ads. Thoughtful, well-researched, worldview-challenging articles (which also take time and skill to write) aren't profitable.

Most people don't even try.

Roxxsmom said:

The problem may lie in anticipating which lies he will latch onto.

Click to expand...

He's a textbook narcissist, so focus on the lies that makes him look good right now.

Roxxsmom said:

This is very challenging, because even without the charged political atmosphere (which lead people to increasingly filter obtain information through comfortable, view-confirming channels), there are simply a kajillion sources.

Click to expand...

I'm not underestimating this point. You have to outgun the competition. Literally. I gave SNL as an example but I'm sure people well-versed in the media business can figure this out.

-cb

cbenoi1 said:

He's a textbook narcissist, so focus on the lies that makes him look good right now.

Click to expand...

The strongest lies are supposed to be twisted truths, but some of the whoppers that get trotted out these day are so fallacious it's hard to see where they came from. Anything that makes Trump look good is likely in that category.

cbenoi1 said:

This only works if the audience you want to sway away from the lies is actually listening to you.

Unless something drastic happens at Fox News it will continue to spread lies and conspiration theories.

-cb

Click to expand...

When they are not listening to you, you have to stop and reassess the problem.

Not saying there is always a solution, but if we don't start with the correct assessment of the problem, we surely won't find a solution.

Roxxsmom said:

I agree with this, and it's definitely an issue unto itself. I wasn't talking so much about people who don't "believe in" evolution for religious reasons, however (I've seen fewer of these students in recent years, for whatever reason) but about people who actually do think evolution is real science but who have serious misconceptions about what it is or how it works. For instance, many people think evolution is goal-oriented or Lamarkian in nature, and many think that things evolve because an organism "needs" them, that evolution builds perfection, or that somehow the appearance of humans was inevitable or moving in an inexorable direction that is, in essence, predestined.

These are very hard ideas to debunk, even with cute cartoons like this one. I've found that focusing on the misconceptions only tends to entrench them, which is related to the issue mentioned in the article. Talking about something and telling people not to think it is like asking someone not to think of or remember a bear when you mention a bear.

Click to expand...

In some cases, a knowledge deficit is the problem.

With evolution I remind people that not all traits are the result survival of the fittest. Some (most) genes are neutral, some aid survival and some deter survival. If you think about it, not all genes can be positively selected because groups of genes, not single genes are are passed on together.

Roxxsmom said:

These are very hard ideas to debunk, even with cute cartoons like this one. I've found that focusing on the misconceptions only tends to entrench them, which is related to the issue mentioned in the article. Talking about something and telling people not to think it is like asking someone not to think of or remember a bear when you mention a bear.

Click to expand...

Cartoons work great and that one should get the point across. You probably know a lot more about teaching than I do. My specialty is biology and propaganda. I would love to have more education in how to teach and how people learn.



Anyway, just some thoughts.

Countering Trump's lies is a very complex problem.

You can make predictions based on his patterns:

Truth doesn't matter in anything he says. People are quite numb to pointing out 'there's a Tweet for everything'. In other words, whatever he says now, you can find an old Tweet of him saying the opposite.

He starts one controversy after another so that none of the bad has time to stick.

The mainstream news media is a big part of the problem, they can't seem to help themselves chasing after all the shiny squirrels.

And so on. ... Sorry, just got a call, I'll have to continue this later.

MaeZe said:

When they are not listening to you, you have to stop and reassess the problem.

Click to expand...

Will they listen to Mueller?

If not, you lot have lost the U in USA.

-cb

MaeZe said:

Cartoons work great and that one should get the point across. You probably know a lot more about teaching than I do. My specialty is biology and propaganda. I would love to have more education in how to teach and how people learn.



Anyway, just some thoughts.

Click to expand...

I don't know how well the Truth Sandwich will work with the kinds of political issues that get people really emotional--abortion, climate change, immigration, feminism, civil rights etc. It seems promising for teaching, though, when we're dealing with misconceptions that aren't as emotionally charged (of course, evolution is emotionally charged for some people but not for others).

I don't know what to do about dispelling misconceptions that are central to a person's world view or identity or anecdotal experiences. It may require a more roundabout approach?

cbenoi1 said:

Will they listen to Mueller?

If not, you lot have lost the U in USA.

-cb

Click to expand...

Back on square one, not everyone is reachable. Will who listen to Mueller? We don't know yet what he's even going to say.

It's unlikely an impeachment will get past the Senate without a whole lot of public pressure and that is unlikely as well. Better to look at other goals. Number one is to limit the damage Trump is doing. Pelosi has chosen the ACA to repair. One step at a time, let's see what she does.

One of the things Obama and his Admin did wrong was not selling himself and the legislation. The bad rollout of the ACA was a disaster the GOP launched right in to. Obama didn't fight back selling the messages he could have been selling.

Listen to Trump tell people everyday how good his economy is. The GOP framed Obama's economy as bad when it wasn't. Obama didn't counter the message or if he tried he didn't do a good job of it.

It was doable, it just didn't get done.