Four ways to tell: Is it news or advocacy?

I wrote this originally in 2016, but in the Trump era, it became even more important to know how to judge what is actually journalistic "news" and what is political advocacy.

When people, politicians, journalists, and others talk about "the media", everybody seems to mean something different.

For decades, "the media" referred to established mainstream news sources that pursued ethical and meticulous journalism. Today, social media has flattened the playing field and given everyone a voice, at little or no cost.  But this new "everyone" dynamic is largely made up of people who are not trained in journalism, not committed to telling all sides of a story, or are actively promoting a one-sided agenda.

How do you tell if what you come across is news or advocacy? Here are four ways:

1.  Value judgments are not attributed.

Real journalists do not tell you what they think as part of their stories.

Any time a headline or story body makes a statement about something being good or bad, admirable or not, or any other opinion, it needs to st somebody other than the journalist saying.  that means we have to attribute it as a quote or paraphrase.

If the story contains a value judgment without indicating the source, it is advocacy, not journalism.

2.  Loaded words have hidden meaning.

Journalists are trained to use descriptive language, but to avoid words that have social connotations, stereotypes, or other hidden meaning attached to them.

3. Doesn't really tell both sides of a controversy.

Advocacy thrives on giving you loaded information that is weighted to a particular agenda.  If a supposed news story brushes off an opposing point of view or only gives it lip service, it is likely not journalism.

4.   Contains ad hominem criticism, not attributed.

If the writer criticizes a person or group of people, as opposed to the person's/group's position on issues, it is a logical fallacy and it is advocacy, not journalism. Such "ad hominem" might appear in a quote and still be journalism, but when it is not attributed and this is a contention of the writer, it is not journalism.

Conclusion?

These four rules of thumb are just the beginning.  You have to scrutinize and evaluate the source of information.  Check Snopes or Politifact.  Ask yourself "is the writer promoting an agenda"?  The more you do this, the more it will become clear what is news and what is advocacy pretending to be news.

Judging Ethics and Morality based on Behavior

All of the news about separating children from their parents keeps bringing me back to questions of ethics and morality, and the ACTIONS of the current administration, which many are judging to be immoral.

Behavior stems from ethical principles and moral judgments about right and wrong.  Thus we can evaluate a person's (or government's) ethics and morality by observing their behavior and actions.

I teach ethics in most of my media classes, so here are some definitions:  Ethics are general principles, morality is the ethical judgment of good and bad, and values are actions based on ethics and morality.

I don't like being partisan. I am registered without any party affiliation and I have said for years that I base my election choices on my perception of the ability of the candidate to perform critical thinking, as well as stance on specific issues of importance to me. Critical thinking, applied to ethical principles, is where morality and behaviors come from.

The morality of separating children from their parents is not defensible, particularly since they apparently have no plan for how to reunite the parents and children.  Adults who have been released still can't find out where their kids are.

The attempts at rationalization do not hold up and are often logical fallacies:

• "They broke the law."  Sorry, but many of them did not, because they stopped at the border and requested asylum. And even if they did, first-time violations are no more than misdemeanors. Separating children from parents in a way that they may not be able to find each other again is cruel and unusual punishment, particularly when it is done before conviction. Even felony convicts can have family visitation.
• "Obama (or somebody else) did it too."  Sorry, but alleged past infractions are irrelevant to current unethical behavior. Morality must stand on its own, not through "whatabout" logical fallacies about the past. 
• "The Democrats made me do it." Sorry, but the Trump administration's policy changed in April 2-18, through a directive from the Republican administration.  Nobody MADE them do anything. You have to take personal responsibility for your actions.
• "The Bible made me do it."  Sorry, but narrow out-of-context Bible verses, particularly verses that have been used to justify immoral actions in the past, cannot be a basis for ethical policy today. Holistic reading of the Bible makes clear that you do not mistreat foreigners or children.
• "We need the WALL, wah, wah, wah..." Sorry, but this is a policy question that is unrelated to tearing families apart. Republicans have not been motivated to pass funding for The Wall, so the Trump administration tried blackmail (although the GOP is trying). 

The list of rationalizations and logical fallacies goes on and on, but the point is that immoral behavior cannot be lessened by weasel words. Actions tell the tale about ethics and morality.  We judge a person's (or government's) ethics by ethical or unethical actions.

This is exactly why we need organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).   We need organizations that are willing to TEST the morality of the "groupthink" that can lead policymakers astray. The causes ACLU champions are often not popular, but the way to push back against immoral governmental behavior is to challenge it in the courts, and that's what ACLU does well.

By the way, I wonder if it has occurred to Trump supporters that if they LIKE the separation policy as a deterrent, they should be thanking Democrats, who they feel are responsible for the wording of the law.

So, if you, or politicians you support, make immoral decisions, and act accordingly, don't be surprised if YOUR ethics and morality are found to be lacking.

Hate

Causing or advocating injustice is hate.

Opposing injustice is not hate.

We need to be prefectly clear about this.

Why does "the media" keep "attacking" Trump?

In fact, there is no such thing as "the media" and they are not "attacking" the Trump administration.

"The media" is not some monolithic bloc with a mind if its own. There are organizations that use media and advocacy.  Some of them attack and some of them defend any given political viewpoint, using posts that resemble news stories, except for the advocacy.

But the point of THIS post is to examine the operation of the professional journalistic media organizations, and why THEY keep reporting on possible wrongdoing by Trump and friends.

Simple Thinking in a Highly Complex World

One of the defining characteristics of conservatives is that they expect things to be basically simple.  They think that once you figure out a problem, there is usually one identifiable cause, and the problem gets solved by doing one thing.  But that doesn't work out too well in a world that is highly complex, in reality.

Same Sex Marriage Legalized in Taiwan

The constitutional court in Taiwan has ruled that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

I believe that this makes Taiwan the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage.

The change will not take effect instantly.  The court directed the Ministry of Justice and the national legislature to write new laws permitting same-sex marriage.

More details at http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3171568 (which is also the source of the photo).

Respect is a Reflection of Ethics

I heard someone say the other day that "respect is a value."  

What the statement really means is that giving respect, or not, is an action based on a set of ethical ideas.  That got me thinking and checking the literature, and it turns out that respect generally increases as people achieve higher levels of ethical development.

Trump Crisis Communications

When it comes to crisis communications, i.e. deflecting attention from scandal, the president only has one playbook - outrageous claims.

How does it work?  Why does it work?

The Role of the ACLU

I am sure that there is a segment of Americans that is vexed with the ACLU right now, but the ACLU serves a vital role which every democracy needs.

What's REALLY going on with Trump's Tweets?

As bizarre as many of them seem, there is an astute political strategy behind the tweets of the president elect - deflecting the narrative.

Rejecting Ideas we Don't Like

When we receive information that conflicts with our pre-conceived notions (as happens all the time in politics), we often struggle to avoid admitting that we may have been wrong. But how does that work, exactly, and how can we overcome this resistance in others?

Social Media Activism 2.0

From "The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: 

Divided they blog" by Ladal Adamic and Natalie Glance.  By extension, 

it is an excellent representation of the current understanding of the 

"Echo Chamber" in which people online mainly interact 

with people of similar thoughts and orientations.

Political observers have noted recently that people on social media inhabit an "echo chamber" in which they only talk to themselves. As a result, no matter how much they post, they don't really change people's minds.

Yet, social media is huge in terms of selling stuff and corporations spend a fortune to influence people via social media.

How do we resolve these apparent conflicts into a paradigm for political activism via social media post-2016?

What is social media?

The idea of social networks long predates computers and smartphones.  It is "a social structure made up of people or organizations with one or more specific connection, such as friendship, family, common interests or dislikes, financial exchange, sexual relationships, and relations of belief, knowledge or prestige."

Social media is a technology-mediated social network, i.e. one pursued via electronic communications technology.

The key is that it is a network of relationships, not just information exchange.

What is persuasion?

Persuasion is "communication that is intentionally devised to influence attitudes, beliefs, or actions."  Persuasion, then, is about getting people to behave in ways you desire by appealing to their beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and motivations.

There are MANY ways to persuade (I have taught an entire semester course about persuasion). One of the most powerful, in the context of politics, is appealing to the threat/fear response. This works most effectively when the threat is personal.

How did social media fail in 2016?

To succeed, social media cannot be seen as persuading people directly to do something.  Social media needs to be seen as building relationships that will influence people to engage in a certain behavior.

In practical terms, we need to get people to do something because it is an expectation of the their reference group(s), or to support their group. Therefore, we use social media to forge and strengthen this group identify, and to present actions that align with the group.

when someone already agrees with you, this is not too hard.  When someone disagrees with you, it is much harder, and where you need to draw on psychology and established persuasion techniques.

The decision of which presidential candidate to vote for is a big, high-stakes decision.  Not many people change their minds easily about high-stakes decisions, and people HATE to change their minds, which means admitting that they were wrong.

So, how do we proceed?

We use sequential persuasion, that is, we accomplish our big goal via gaining compliance in a series of smaller persuasive steps.

We start by getting our target audience to agree to a small point that is so easy to accept and so logical that they cannot really object to it. Then we build, getting them to agree to another, and another, and another, each a logical step based on their previous agreement.

Businesses do this all the time in ways that are grounded in consumer psychology. Some typical tactics are:

• Pre-giving – Giving "free" return address labels, meals, etc, to get you in a more receptive frame of mind.
• Foot in the door, or a free consultation.  "We're not here to sell you anything.  We just want to understand your situation more" but in reality we are assembling evidence to use to sell you later.
• "But wait, there’s more” – Adding allegedly free stuff that is really hidden in the price you pay.  You see this in infomercials all the time.
• Lowball – Start with the basic version, but extol the benefits of upgrading.
• Incremental – Provide little bits of additional information at a time.  The dozens of little revelations about governmental surveillance of citizens accomplished this. People accept it now who would not if it all came out at once.

How do we apply this in social media?

We need to apply it top-down. Hundreds of thousands of people trying in uncoordinated ways to gain compliance isn't going to work as well as centralization of the message.  The centralization needs to be based on VERY careful analysis of the mindset and world views of the people who are NOT YET part of the group.

We need to find little points that are relevant to the big issues, and frame them in ways favorable to ourselves, but also that are hard for anybody to disagree with.  Then ask readers who agree to take some easy logical action, like sharing to their friends.

When we can show that it is particularly important based on THEIR frame of reference, we can to ask them to do something bigger, like send an email or make a phone call.

What we are asking may be straightforward and obvious our in-group people, but it may be more challenging for the folks we really want to reach, who are not yet in the group.  This is because they think differently from how we think.

How do I figure out the way the other guys think?

Number one, we listen to them.  Eavesdrop on their own talk and see how they present their logic.

But as I have posted before, there is also research that can help a lot.  It shows:

• Liberals make decisions based on data and analysis.  They are less emotional and more adaptable.  They are more likely to respond to complex information, considering multiple possibilities before making a choice.
• Conservatives make decisions based on fear-driven emotions, emotional attachment to an idea, and group identity.  They want stability, i.e. they resist change. When faced with ambiguity, they have a strong emotional response and are more protective of assets and loved ones.  For them, stability equals predictability, equals more expected outcomes, equals less fear.  They go with the choice that seems least threatening.
• The more conservative you are, the more group loyalty, authority, and purity/sanctity are important to you. The more liberal you are, the more harm/care and fairness are important.

To rally your base, use tactics that appeal to your own way of thinking.  To reach across party lines, you need to employ the kinds of arguments and communication styles that resonate with the other party.  This cross-party thinking can be hard to do, because it is alien to how WE think for ourselves.

If the liberals failed in their use of the "echo chamber" in 2016, it was through NOT framing the issues in ways that would appeal to undecideds (and conservatives) and in NOT employing organized, strategized calls to action.

I haven't seem much post-election change in their strategies, but maybe it is still a work in progress.

Trump Cups - Bletch

This USA Today story illustrates the self-contradictory campaign of Donald Trump supporters to spend money with Starbucks, but get the baristas to shout the name "Trump" when the order is ready.

In my opinion, fast food restaurants should be shouting out the order number, not somebodies name or food items ordered.

Please, protect the privacy of all of your customers!

How to Talk to the Other Side of the Asile

This Slideshare PPT, from 2015, contains a nice analysis of how Conservatives and Liberals think.

Your brain on politics the cognitive neuroscience of liberals and conservatives

Therefore, it contains ideas to keep in mind when we are communicating with people who think differently than we do.

Social Media is not about Advocacy

I've seen all kinds of chatter this week, second guessing the presidential election and blaming whoever they can think of for the outcome, including a hefty dose of blaming social media.  But most of this social media blaming is from people who do not understand social media.

Social media is about relationships, not about persuasion.

Social media is about relationships, not about advocacy.

Let me say it again -- social media is about relationships, which is why you are much more likely to see posts that agree with your social, political, and religious orientation.

Not quite seeing the difference?  Let's take a step back.

In the 1990s, visionaries were learning that the Internet was not simply about moving data from place to place.  It was about social relationships. Look at these two Prodigy commercials:  In 1990, it was all about stuff, but by 1995, it was about people.

Facebook and Twitter were created for the express purpose of connecting together people who already knew each other, and people who shared common interests.

When social media evolved to also be about marketing and selling you things, it drew on the fundamental principals of marketing communications, which are giving people information to which they are most likely to be receptive, and minimizing content to which people will react negatively.

This is why the Facebook newsfeed algorithm sends you news about things it believes are your interests.  In politics, this means content (news and advertising) that aligns with your political views.  Note that such advertising usually has a line at the top listing a couple of your friends who also supposedly "like" this content.

See?  Facebook is not only sending you content it thinks you favor, but it is emphasizing your relationships, in effect using your friends to make endorsements.  If you are not sure about a product or service, you are more likely to consider the product or service because people you know appear to like and endorse it.

It is your social relationships that they depend on to persuade you to consider the advertising.

Jack Wagner has pointed out that, because of the way social media works, many people who favored Trump did not really even see the opposition to him.  Many who favored Clinton never saw the opposition to her.

But even more important, they probably saw it, but did not feel any social connection to people espousing it, so discounted it.

Jim Wright observed that neither party is good at reaching out to the other side.

If progressives want to counter all of their feared Trump policy initiatives, they need to find new ways to communicate -- new ways of making contact with people who do not think the way they do, and new ways of explaining their positions in ways people who think differently can relate to.

But the real lesson here is that memes and fake news stories do not persuade people. Peer groups persuade people.  In real life and in social media.

What's next?

I was disappointed by the election results, but I could care less about second-guessing who should have done what differently.

I could care less what MIGHT happen under Trump.  All that speculation is just a distraction.

What I DO care about (as a registered independent) is whether Progressives figure out that the way they have been telling their story hasn't worked.

I DO care about whether Progressives are able to retool their system and tell their story more persuasively to people who do NOT think the way they do.

I DO care about whether Progressives are able to organize in a way they never have before to stymie policy initiatives they don't like.

Business as usual will not cut it.

Words that Persuade, and Words that Don't

I see very few words in my social media feeds that support Donald Trump. Some of this just reflects who my friends are, but I also think that many people planning to vote for Trump are reluctant to have it be known they will vote for him.

I have been a registered independent (not affiliated with a party) for almost all of my adult life.  My choice of candidates is based on who I think is best able to perform critical thinking, which is one of my own skills.  I find that candidates who are critical thinkers are likely to share my views on individual policies.

But there are a lot of political words out there that do not come from critical thinking. They are based on rampant logical fallacies or convenience.  "Doctrine", which people in a given party are told they must support, almost always has big logical gaps.

So right now, almost all am seeing are words of ridicule against Trump, which he well deserves.  I am also seeing quite a bit of negativity aimed at Clinton.  In her case, much of it is based on decades of attacks by conservatives, drawing on faulty logic.  In Trump's case, the liberal attacks are mostly based on facts.

So why aren't people planning to vote for Trump coming out and saying they support him?

Some have "drunk the Kool-aid" and insist on voting against Clinton.

But I have concluded that in many cases it is it is because every day, they are experiencing a sort of anonymous criticism because how they plan to vote contradicts the overwhelming majority of factual stories floating around about the candidates.

When we are bluntly criticized, we tend to clam up and get defensive.  We tend to insulate ourselves against such criticism, in this case by simply not talking about it.

Do you have someone in particular you want to persuade?  Do it in person, not via distance technology.  Avoid criticizing the current views of the person.  Begin with areas in which you know you agree and gently move into the grey policy areas between you.  Words have power, but they must be the right words, at the right time, delivered in the right way.

Is Kneeling for the national anthem the right time and place?

Around the world of athletics, we are seeing people kneel and presumably pray, rather than standing at attention, hands over their hearts, during the national anthem. They are protesting racial injustice.

At best, the national anthem is a celebration of the brave spirit of those who defended Fort McHenry, and thus the American government, from British attack.  At worst, the national anthem is an automated ritual that most people don't think about, and that is often intertwined with specific political agendas.

So, I have been thinking recently about the folks who believe that American has racial injustice and police brutality, and are making the point by kneeling during the national anthem.

The people who believe this already believe it. Therefore, the message of the athletes is presumably aimed at people who do NOT believe that there is racial injustice, or at least haven't thought about it much.

In marketing communications, we teach that a persuasive message should be crafted such that it receives the most positive response from its audience.  Part of this means understanding the audience well, so you KNOW what will cause them to respond positively.  Part of it means deliberately keeping elements out of the message which might cause people to react negatively.

In addition, while I completely support the right of the athletes to their free speech, I think that it is a valid expectation that we exercise our free speech on our own time, not on-the-clock with our employer or volunteer organization we represent, etc.  When we are being paid by an employer or in a volunteer capacity for a non-profit organization, ethics requires us to represent the best interests of that employer or organization.

When we are off-the-clock, we can fully exercise our right to free speech, making clear that we are speaking for ourselves.  This is particularly important for professional athletes and other celebrities who are closely associated in the minds of the public with a team, business, or organization.

So what about the fundamental message of the athletes?

I agree that there are big problems of racial injustice and inequality in the United States.  A lot of the rhetoric about these issues is based on logical fallacies.  We need to address the problems, but the way democracies make ground-breaking changes in social policy is political and messy and usually takes a lot longer than advocates wish.

It is important that advocates for social change avoid negative perceptions related to their causes that distract from the real message.

Therefore, my advice to the athletes is that the beginning of a football game, in the uniform of their employer or school, is not the right venue for their personal messages about the need for change in social policy, regardless of how valid the fundamental message is.

Fears and Threats in Politics

This presidential campaign is based deeply in what research shows about using fears and threats for persuasion.  I have taught Persuasion.  Here are some notes from my class:


Gain-framed and Loss-framed Arguments

Persuasion research shows that to achieve a choice which AVOIDS risk, an offer or argument should be made in terms of what people will GAIN if they do NOT take the risk. This is called a "gain-framed" argument.

On the other hand, to achieve a RISK-SEEKING choice, the offer or argument should be rooted in what people will LOSE if they do not take the risk. This is called a "loss-framed" argument.

Persuasion also teaches us to appeal to PERSONALLY RELEVANT threats that are neither too big or too small. Too small and it is not enough of a threat to motivate people.  Too big, and they don't think they can do anything about it.

We can boost the perception of the audience that they CAN make a difference by convincingly presenting our offer as easy and effective.

When we use fears and threats, we need to provide a clear and strong call-to-action directly after or next to the description of the threat. When the desired response is received, we need to provide reassurance that it was the right thing to do.


Applying it to Politics

I would suggest that if you are in, or leaning toward, a party, voting for that party can be seen as the choice that avoids risk. We know from the party's track record how they will behave in office. On the other hand, the risk-seeking behavior is voting for the other guys, in hopes that they will be better.

There two strategies are at the core of what we hear every day in the campaign rhetoric.  If you DON'T vote for me, you will LOSE this and this and this, whereas if you DO vote for me, you will gain this and this and this.

Convincing people how to vote is ALL about fears and threats.  Both sides do it.

• Fear of terrorist attack vs. gain from better defense and enforcement
• Fear of loss of abortion rights vs. fear of threats to your religious beliefs
• Fear about loss of guns vs. fear of murder 
• Fears about retirement income vs. fears about limitations on the stock market
• Fears about being low-income vs. fear of limitations on big business 
• And many other pairings of fears

Next time you listen to someone making a political point, see if it isn't a fear/threat appeal, right out of a Persuasion textbook.

9-11

9-11 was an act of hate.

Too many people responded to it with hate and a desire for revenge.

9-11 should be about love and remembrance, for the people who lost their lives, and for the amazing work of rescuers.

If you look at the anniversary as an opportunity to renew hate, I do not respect you.

As Martin Luther King said:

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. You may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. You may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate, nor establish love. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."