Cross the Streams!

Ghostbusters: Crossing The Streams [1]

1984 Columbia Pictures movie 

by Director/Producer Ivan Reitman and Writers Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis 

Video is copyright. All rights reserved. Used under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 Fair Usage for non profit, non competing, educational, political commentary and criticism.

"Ghostbusters was released at the right time...at the height of the sci-fi blockbuster during the '80s."[2] Chock-full of ironic dialogue, with some now dated comedy and special effects, the movie refreshed tongue-in-cheek the age-old story of warrior saviors. 

Updated (to four decades ago) this "group of miscast nerds, geeks, scientists and paranormal enthusiasts start their own business studying, hunting and 'busting' ghosts, goblins and ghouls."[3] The setting was New York City at a time when, along with many other cities, residents were beleaguered by crime, grime, and poverty–with subway cars, so covered by graffiti on the outside and inside, that these became go-to, must-sees for tourists. With a comedic twinkle, the movie has some hints useful for fighting the slime, grime, crime, and harm generated by autocrat-propagandists.

Defeating the lies, part-truths, rumors, faulty reasoning, abuse, and worse that self-proclaimed autocrats amplify is best done by each of us taking both individual and cooperative actions.

Organizations, nations, or individuals fighting disinformation and propaganda require competence and cooperative commitment to make strategic impact in everyday conversations, as well as through all information platforms and communication channels. Akin to the targeted reach of the Disinformation Summit planned at University of Cambridge in 2025, cooperative initiatives are needed that address strategically "social media, news media, financial and non-financial reporting, and other broadcast vehicles."[4] 

Unsurprisingly, defeating a swill of disinformation requires ongoing actions that deploy better developed understandings and resources than paranormal science provided to the comedic ghostbusters. 

Urgently needed for a serious task are more civic leaders, judges, lawyers, media anchors, pundits, journalists, media managers, teachers, researchers, librarians, students, parents, family, friends, neighbors, and any of us to get up to speed with how to pre-empt wannabe autocrats. Autocrat-propagandists aim to secure acquiescence, not belief, to create "conformists."[5] Dialogue that encourages a variety of viewpoints sharpens doubt about the formulaic comments of propagandists.[6] 

But dispersed warnings and discussions about propaganda mechanisms, the supposed intent of the propagandist, or many fact-checking approaches–via however intelligent and penetrating commentary, or blistering advertisements, or hype, or endless micro-analyses of legal probes in the media–are no match for an ongoing onslaught of unfettered propaganda.[7] 

Such dispersed discussions can be especially damaging in the form of media microanalyses that include repeatedly replaying audio or video of a propagandist. As highlighted in a recent blog post, this approach neglects the "truth effect" of repeating lies.[8] Perhaps the urge to microanalyze a propagandist is fueled by some naive belief that this will spark some magical ah-hah self-awareness in the uncommitted, or that it energizes rather than eventually draining or depressing anyone who already feels negatively toward some propagandist. 

Others may offer that it shows the laziness of too many in the media who latch onto readily available photos, or video, or catchy quotes, in a vain effort to attract attention. As long ago as 2018 in the United States at least, the failure of the approach was publicly acknowledged.[9]

For Now

Certainly, unchecked propagandists work people over continuously to attack free thought and, by extension, freedoms of speech and association.[10] But it is early detection and pre-emptive actions that are critical to neutralize propaganda. Engaging many authoritative voices to debunk nonsense may sometimes be useful. But pre-bunking seems most potent to counter mis/disinformation.[11] Are we prepared to anticipate and head-off what grifter-autocrats will say or do?

Surely, any of us can help counter false information by joining active efforts or setting up our own initiatives to push ahead of nonsense talk–replacing the swill by redirecting the focus of public and private conversations to address everyday concerns–like personally meaningful specifics of healthcare, jobs, shelter, food, safety, freedom, and making bad actors accountable.

Can each of us find ways to

Join or start an action group addressing matters you care about–by putting pressure and expecting results from civic officials, elected representatives or candidates for election, and the media?

Grow networks of person-to-person communication–especially using emails and personalized social media?

Ignore verbal refuse designed to distract, deny, or delay?

Stop using or repeating a bad actor's name–will enough friends in the media ever stop repeating direct quotes in the lower thirds of the television screen, stop showing video clips repeating a bad actor's words or actions, and stop using photos that PR folks believe will make a bad actor look strong?

Reverse any serious lie right back onto the liar–using words much like a graffiti artist sprays a mustache on a propaganda poster? Mastering rhetorical questions is one approach [video here][12] and polemic has a long and honorable record in public communication, especially through artful parody and satire!

More Broadly 

An equal priority is to massively expand education that enhances the ability of adults, youth, and children to assess public discourse–to discern, analyze, and synthesize reality.[13] Substantial expansions of media literacy, rhetorical, and civics education[14] are required in Western democracies. Even where the will exists, this takes time. 

Meanwhile, can organizations and nations also execute well-developed plans to get ahead of and counter the efforts of propagandists, at scale?[15]

Illustrations of success and resources are now available. Some writings crystalize criteria for useful interventions. These are derived mainly from investigations of social media.[16] Some writings deal with the media and propaganda processes more broadly.[17] Further actionable understandings distilled from studies outside the laboratory/"in the wild" are needed,[18] along with cross-disciplinary studies and action research focused on actively building viable futures.[19]

It's up to organizations, nations, and each of us fighting disinformation to call on civic, legal, media, corporate, education, and other leaders to collaborate on strengthening practical initiatives that will address some big challenges, particularly

* Burgeoning computerized propaganda systems.[20]

* Government impotence regulating social media platforms–perhaps we can expect similar failures regulating anticipated hazards of Artificial Intelligence.

* Ever-increasing pressure in social media and mass media to help grow audiences by amplifying what is outrageous.

Propagandists continuously use the capabilities of computer networks, social media, and mass media powerfully against us.[21]

Into the Future

Some gargantuan goals for each of us, for organizations, and for nations are to evolve systematic, ongoing efforts that:

1. Engage autocrat-propagandists' "targets" and followers in productive decision-making to advance community initiatives.[22]

2. Educate everyone about detecting and calling out propaganda.

3. Codify remedies to the multiple deficiencies of norms and regulations–to protect the rule of law.

4. Educate everyone on ways to put civics to use.

As detailed throughout earlier blog posts, our better future requires us continuously to 

* Challenge any propaganda targeting our pre-existing attitudes AND reassert our beliefs in honesty, justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom–and our desire to live in a society that seeks respect and wellbeing for all citizens.

* Highlight the harm to people by those using anti-democratic actions to deny health care, jobs, safety, community services, etc. AND, most importantly, say exactly what should happen instead.

* Reassert the rightness of facts, positively and specifically (without naming the lie or the liar, to avoid being a megaphone for the corrupt).

* Keep repeating what is right (propaganda decays over time, especially when crowded out of the public communication channels).

Yes, our future depends on us. 

References

1. Ivan Reitman (Director/Producer) and Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis (Writers) (1984), "Ghostbusters: Crossing the Streams," from Ghostbusters [Movie], Columbia Pictures,  https://youtu.be/9wrEEd1ajz4

2. Hannah Rose (2024), "RETRO REVIEW: Ghostbusters Busted Genres & Standards at the Right Place & Time," CBR, June 8,  https://www.cbr.com/ghostbusters-1984-review/

3. Rose

4. Cambridge Disinformation Summit (2025), University of Cambridge, Judge Business School, "First-order objectives and deliverables: Identify and convene researchers, from across disciplines (e.g., journalism, social-psychology, sociology, anthropology, business, computer science, law, communications, theology, philosophy, political science, criminology, and authoritarian studies) who are engaged in this body of work; Develop shared networks for collaboration; Develop infrastructure to share research and research feedback across disciplines; Develop trust and share learning with policymakers, practice professionals, and data providers; Develop curriculum to enhance societal awareness of, and resilience to, disinformation campaigns; Develop infrastructure to protect research community members from threats, harassment, frivolous legal or freedom of information, or other attacks on academic freedom by those who exploit disinformation." Background at: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2023/fighting-disinformation-needs-interdisciplinary-approach/; see also: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/events/cambridge-disinformation-summit-2025/

5. Nicholas O'Shaugnessy (2017), "Putin, Xi, and Hitler - Propaganda and the Paternity of Pseudo Democracy," Defence Strategic Communication: The Official Journal of the NATO Strategic Communication Center of Excellence, 2, Spring, p. 115-130,  https://issuu.com/natostratcomcoe/docs/full_academic_journal_vol2_issuu_07

6. Jacques Ellul (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, New York: Knopf, p. 300

7. Rodney G. Miller (2024), Get Ahead of Propagandists: Countering Disinformation, Albany, NY: Parula, p. 55

8. Word to the Wise blog (2024), Repetition at Work, August 31,  https://communicator.rodney-miller.com/2024/08/repetition-at-work.html

9. David Brooks (2018), "Opinion: The Failures of Anti-Trumpism," The New York Times, April 10, p. 27

10. Miller, p. 13 

11. Jon Roozenbeek, Eileen Culloty, and Jane Suiter (2022), “Countering Misinformation: Evidence, Knowledge Gaps, and Implications of Current Interventions,” European Psychologist, 28(3), pp.189-205, published online July 14, 2023, https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1016-9040/a000492

12. Luís Azevedo (Director) and Mark Forsyth (Writer) (2021), What Makes a Movie Line Memorable? Rhetorical Questions, Little White Lies - https://lwlies.com/ video at: https://youtu.be/UD3TaR5iPAo

13. Miller, p. 44

14. Hobbs, Renee (2020), Mind Over Media: Propaganda Education for a Digital Age, New York: W.W. Norton, also Media Education Lab, Harrington School of Communication and Media, University of Rhode Island, mediaeducationlab.com; Andreas Ventsel, Sten Hansson, Merit Rickberg, and Mari-Liis Madisson (2023), “Building Resilience against Hostile Information Influence Activities: How a New Media Literacy Learning Platform Was Developed for the Estonian Defense Forces,” Armed Forces and Society, April 18, pp. 1-21,     https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0095327X231163265?af=R&ai=1gvoi&mi=3ricys; David Fleming (2016), "Quintilian, Progymnasmata, and Rhetorical Education Today," Advances in the History of Rhetoric, 19, 2, pp. 124-141,    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304069434_Quintilian_Progymnasmata_and_Rhetorical_Education_Today; Lorraine Higgins, Elenore Long, and Linda Flower (2006), “Community Literacy: A Rhetorical Model for Personal and Public Inquiry.” Community Literacy Journal, 1(1), pp. 8-43, https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/communityliteracy/vol1/iss1/2/; Brandon L. Kingdollar (2021), "Harvard Professors Allen, Kamensky Help Develop Roadmap for U.S. Civics Reform," The Harvard Crimson, March 5,   https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/3/5/harvard-professors-civics-reform/; see also: Educating for American Democracy (2021), Educating for American Democracy Project, https://www.educatingforamericandemocracy.org

15. Dmitri Teperik, Solvita Denisa-Liepniece, Dalia Bankauskaitė, and Kaarel Kullamaa (2022), Resilience Against Disinformation: A New Baltic Way to Follow? Estonia: International Centre for Defence and Security,   https://icds.ee/en/resilience-against-disinformation-a-new-baltic-way-to-follow/ and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364474732_Resilience_Against_Disinformation_A_New_Baltic_Way_to_Follow; Jon Bateman and Dean Jackson (2024), Countering Disinformation Effectively: An Evidence-Based Policy Guide, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,  https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Carnegie_Countering_Disinformation_Effectively.pdf

16. Laura Courchesne, Julia Ilhardt, and Jacob N. Shapiro (2021), “Review of Social Science Research on the Impact of Countermeasures against Influence Operations,” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, September 13,   https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/review-of-social-science-research-on-the-impact-of-countermeasures-against-influence-operations/; Li Qian Tay, Stephan Lewandowsky, Mark J. Hurlstone, Tim Kurz, and Ullrich K. H. Ecker (2023), "A Focus Shift in the Evaluation of Misinformation Interventions," Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4(5),  https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/tay_focus_shift_interventions_20231005.pdf

17. Paul Baines, Nicholas O’Shaughnessy, and Nancy Snow (Eds.) (2020), The Sage Handbook of Propaganda, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Nancy Snow, Garth S. Jowett, and Victoria O’Donnell (2024), 8th edn, Propaganda and Persuasion, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Jacques Ellul (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, New York: Knopf

18. Roozenbeek, Culloty, and Suiter (2022),   https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1016-9040/a000492; Miller, p. 42; Jon Roozenbeek, Miriam Remshard, and Yara Kyrychenko (2024), "Beyond the Headlines: On the Efficacy and Effectiveness of Misinformation Interventions," Advances.in/psychology, July 27,  https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00019/ 

19. Kenneth J. Gergen (2023), "The Social Sciences as Future Forming," Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1-2),  https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231157624

20. Woolley, Samuel C. and Howard, Philip N. (2019), Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians and Political Manipulation on Social Media, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 243; Shaffer, Kris (2019), Data Versus Democracy: How Big Data Algorithms Shape Opinions and Alter the Course of History, New York: Apress/Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 114-115

21. Miller, p. 6

22. Miller, p. 26

Repetition at Work

"Free at last! Free at last!" 

Civil rights march on Washington DC 1963 

by staff photographer of U.S. News & World Report, Library of Congress. 

Image is in the Public Domain {{PD-USGov}}

Consciously or intuitively, we frequently use repetition to emphasize, connect, contrast, and compare–or for humor and other rhetorical or literary effects.[1] While too much repetition may become boring, or suggest careless editing, the occasional repetition of a word or a few words in a passage of speech or writing can also help simulate the informality of conversation–probably because we often repeat words in everyday talk.

We've long recognized that carefully crafted repetition, especially with variation, powerfully reinforces–for good or ill. Teachers of classical rhetoric in Ancient Greece and Rome from about the fifth century BC–and more widely since–advocate strategic use of repetition, through choice from a battery of rhetorical devices with different effects.[2] These include commonly used anaphora, antistasis, commoratio, or diacope.[3] [video here] 

A nineteenth century guide to composition recommended that "A frank repetition of a word has even sometimes a kind of charm–as bearing the stamp of truth, the foundation of all excellence of style."[4] 

Some nuances of this truth effect are explored in more recent psychology research. Apparently "people judge repeated information as truer than new information." Researchers also find "People consider that others are more susceptible...than themselves, and underestimate the impact of repetition on judgments of truth."[5] This all seems to confirm "Repeating information increases people's belief that the repeated information is true."[6]

Propagandists intuitively understand this power of repetition. As Jacques Ellul points out, the "endless repetition of formulas, explanations, and simple stimuli" erodes "scorn and disbelief."[7] However foolish we might initially believe some nonsense to be, its repetitive use focuses both conversation and actions.[8] 

When journalists and others in the media repeatedly quote verbatim the egregious lies or nonsense of propagandists, this just helps to advance a propagandist's name, identity, and style–which inevitably increases the significance of the rants and ramblings.[9]

Former editors or journalists and the large number of readers or viewers cancelling media subscriptions seem more concerned about this than many in the media.[10]

References

1. Jeanne Fahnestock (2011), Rhetorical Style: The Uses of Language in Persuasion, New York: Oxford University Press

2. Fahnestock, pp. 320-327

3. Luís Azevedo (Director) and Mark Forsyth (Writer) (2020), What Makes a Movie Line Memorable? Diacope, Little White Lies - https://lwlies.com/ video at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo5Ikx3F5ak

4. Richard Nordquist (2023), "Definition and Examples of Repetition in Writing," ThoughtCo, April 5, https://www.thoughtco.com/repetition-language-and-rhetoric-1691887

5. Simone Mattavelli, Jérémy Bena, Olivier Corneille, and Christian Unkelbach (2024), "People Underestimate the Influence of Repetition on Truth Judgments (and More So for Themselves than for Others)," Cognition, 242, January, 105651,  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027723002858; also Preprint, April 2023, "Repetition Increases Perceived Truth of Interpersonal Statements from Both Politically Congruent and Incongruent Sources," https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369858247_People_underestimate_the_influence_of_repetition_on_truth_judgments_and_more_so_for_themselves_than_for_others

6. Felix Speckmann and Christian Unkelbach (2024), "Illusions of Knowledge Due to Mere Repetition," Cognition, 247, April, 10579,  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724000775

7. Jacques Ellul (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, New York: Knopf, p. 312

8. Rodney G. Miller (2024), Get Ahead of Propagandists: Countering Disinformation, Albany, NY: Parula, p. 14

9. Miller, p. 18-19

10. Zada, John (2021), Veils of Distortion: How the News Media Warps Our Minds, Toronto: Terra Incognita; Dan Gillmor (2024), "At Its Moment of Peril, Democracy Needs Journalists to Be Activists," Medium, July 2,  https://dangillmor.medium.com/at-its-moment-of-peril-democracy-needs-journalists-to-be-activists-8776aa9c99c3

Meaning More

Conversation

by Matt @ PEK from Taipei, Taiwan licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

From early in life, we are encouraged to be clear when speaking or writing. We put a lot of attention on specifying what we mean. We talk about words as delivering a message. Endless energies are expended trying to remove ambiguity, to magically bring everyone into alignment by crafting that perfect message.

This becomes especially noticeable during election campaigns. Politicians, media pundits, journalists, advertisers, and others talk about this or that candidate's message. They also quote catchy words or phrases, or paraphrase comments–with frequent reference to polls that supposedly report opinions of the pollster's invented audience "segments."

Some people even describe themselves selling us a message–apparently blind to the reality that "when we know the goal of communication is just to 'get a message out,' many of us understand intuitively that our views, feelings, or perspectives aren't considered important."[1] So much for that sales pitch.

Do we really believe that others receive just what we mean? It's still to be established that minds ever truly align. Each of us interprets and gives words meaning. It seems true that "Any text is open to countless interpretations and debates, and any word or phrase can connote and give rise to an infinity of other words."[2] 

Also apparent in everyday life, and no less during elections, is that everyone interprets messages very differently. It's natural enough to assume meaning is in the words we choose. But even dictionaries only record some common usage of words. As Noam Chomsky indicates "The most elaborate dictionaries provide no more than the bare hints about the meaning of words..."[3]

The continuous boosting of message transmission as a simple, but mistaken view of communication causes serious delusions. And audience analysts convince public figures and many organizations to pay expensively for opinion polls or even creepy "measurement" of physiological reactions to bits of speech among focus group participants. 

It was in the nineteenth century that the retailer John Wanamaker claimed "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half." It often remains hard to tell what if any part of an advertising budget may have value. Just as uncertain in a political campaign is predicting the outcome from the huge budgets and effort for mass media and digital advertising or political rallies and other publicity.

Likely, communication occurs when people jointly create new understanding and knowledge.[4] It's the to-and-fro of face-to-face, personal interaction that most aligns people. Likewise, in a political campaign, it's conversation, one-on-one, or with a few people at a time that provides the winning difference. 

In the final weeks of an election campaign, what really matters is engaging friends, neighbors, family, workmates, or others to stand together to help elect candidates who are committed to deliver real solutions. 

This is a time to ask what each of us can do to help defeat puffery.

References 

1. Rodney G. Miller (2022), "Developing the Culture of Trust,"  Communication Essays, Albany, NY: Parula, p. 19 

2. David Sless and Ruth Shrensky (2023), A New Semiotics: An Introductory Guide for Students, London and New York: Routledge, p. 98

3. Noam Chomsky (1993), Language and Thought, Kingston, RI: Moyer Bell, p. 23

4. Robyn Penman (2012), “On Taking Communication Seriously,” Australian Journal of Communication, 2012, 39(3), pp. 41-63,  academia.edu/6487224/On_taking_communication_seriously_Penman, p. 9

What's Weird

"Weird Al" Yankovic performing live... 2010 Tour 

by Kristine Slipson licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported

Propagandists are weird. As far back as July 2021, this blog named the contemporary pseudo-populists in politics as "propagators of weird social beliefs."[1] Even then, the swill of truthiness, trash-talk, and outrageous screeches for the camera of these propagandists was so amplified that some perspective was required. 

The plea in later blog posts was that it is: 

...often safest and best to assume that a propagandist is weird, driven to develop extraordinary skills of self-preservation from probably a very early age, by a distorted commitment to being right and winning–at everything, by whatever means–including as an adult through remarkably protracted gaming of the legal system. All the lies, distortions, and dodges are tactics to prove to anyone who'll react that the propagandist is right and a winner, at your cost.[2]

Yet, the history of the word weird offers its own twists. Unsurprisingly with a living language, this word's story is, well, a bit weird.

Today, we mainly use weird to describe what's bizarre, cringeworthy, creepy, odd, peculiar, unusual, or eerie–with a strongly negative connotation. At the same time, Internet slang in its perversity can use weird to describe something unique or unconventional[3]–as a compliment, akin to how the word "Sick!" becomes a positive.

These are modern twists in the word's history from the Modern English period (c. 1500). In Middle English (c. 1100) connotations of the supernatural or uncanny were dominant. Mainly, before this, all the way back to the originally recorded Old English (c. 725), the word referred to fate or destiny and was often associated with supernatural or mystical beings.[4]

Other changes were to the word's spelling. The transition to "weird" came with the Anglo-Norman influence from the 1100s. Old Norse (c. 900) had adopted "urðr," referring to the fate or destiny of individuals–which was "often associated with the Norns, who controlled the destinies of gods and humans." Earlier, Old High German (c. 800) had ushered in the use of "wurt" in place of the original Old English "wyrd."[5] 

This etymological story might serve as a timely warning. It'd be unfortunate and confusing if the Old English referent for what's "wyrd" as fate or destiny was in current use. Thank goodness we give the most common, modern meaning to "weird." 

Its application to propagandists seems especially apt. What's really WEIRD are the obsessive energies of these zealots, who foment hate to target and marginalize any group not serving the propagandists' self-interest. 

Nothing mysterious or supernatural here–just cruel perversion and self-obsession. If there's any othering worth doing, in the spirit of George Orwell's urging,[6] what is needed are ongoing efforts at scale to drive the lies and drivel of propagandists "into the dustbin" where they belong.

References

1. Word to the Wise blog (2021), To Strengthen Democracy, July 30,  https://communicator.rodney-miller.com/2021/07/to-strengthen-democracy.html

2. Word to the Wise blog (2022), Certainty Claims, April 22,  https://communicator.rodney-miller.com/2022/04/certainty-claims.html

3. WikiEtymology (2024), "Etymology of Weird," https://wikietymology.com/w/etymology-of-weird/

4. WikiEtymology (2024)

5. WikiEtymology (2024)

6. George Orwell (1981), “Politics and the English Language,” A Collection of Essays, Orlando, FL: Harcourt, p. 171 [1^st published 1946]

Some Dodgy Verbs

The Artful Dodger from Oliver Twist 

by 'Kyd' (Joseph Clayton Clark; 1857-8 August 1937). 

This image is in the Public Domain {{PD-US}} 

Of course, words are not dodgy since they have no meaning other than the significance that authors and readers or listeners give them.

But certainly, how a journalist uses verbs reveals much about the journalist. For example, have you noticed how a public figure is often reported as "trying" to do or say something? 

Weirdly, a television journalist will share a video clip that clearly shows a public figure taking an action or making a comment–then the journalist paraphrases what we've just seen with a redraft of what the public figure is "trying" to do or say. 

Especially when the verb "try" occurs like this repeatedly in successive sentences, it's at least distracting, or puzzling, or downright annoying. At worst, the insertions insult our abilities, since we've just seen or heard what the public figure did or said. With some journalists, these qualifiers punctuate news reports like raisins in a fruit cake.

The cumulative effect is to imply the public figure is someone who is continuously trying but never succeeding. And "trying" in this context implies failing or weakness.

This is especially so when the journalist cites in the same report that the public figure's opponent "slams" or "blasts" the actions or statements–verbs that imply power, dominance, or strength, which are likely lifted directly from a media release. Really?! No wonder so many journalists are considered useful idiots by propagandists.

Are such habits taught in journalism classes or demanded on the job by editors? Perhaps this is some sort of carry-over from editors' directives to insert verbs like "believe," "understand," or similar to distinguish what is not fully known or knowable, or to label what are merely claims. Or maybe this is all part of some misguided or naive effort to appear objective. 

Ironically, for anyone paying attention, this failure to use words wisely helps progressively to diminish the credibility of the journalist and the media.

The NOT-Debate

Puzzly watching TV

by Wikimedia Foundation licensed under CCA-SA-3.0 Unported

[NOTE: This post was written and published ahead of the June 27 "debate," which has stimulated a flurry of editorial and other media conjectures and projections that further illustrate points below.] 

Unsurprising to anyone except those most involved in the media industry is the smoldering recognition that this industry is its own problem.

For example, the much-touted Question & Answer event that's branded as political debate between United States presidential aspirants usefully illustrates the low bar that the industry sets for itself (and us) to deliver either information or entertainment.

The media's self-hype that pitches this 90-minute non-debate as "most watched" and "potentially decisive" is suitable fodder for late night comedians, who instead exaggerate the incongruous and ironic to pillory both candidates for laughs.

Amid all the hyperbole for this not-so spectacular, it seems just one serious late night anchor is prepared to challenge such presumptions–repeatedly clarifying how this Q&A session, that's fit to be called a "NOT-Debate," requires no skill or activity of the candidates that's relevant to being an effective president of the country.[1]

Even after the 1960 presidential debates between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, it was generally agreed that the "images" television projected of the candidates was most determining of an apparent "winner," rather than the candidate's views or abilities to handle national and international issues facing America.[2] Persistently for decades, scholars and other thoughtful commentators have accumulated useful insights about what's really going on during these made-for-TV efforts.[3] 

It's long acknowledged that photographs can lie. Yet the physical characteristics of a television stage set, camera angles, the frequency and duration of reaction shots, and a host of videography features will greatly impact viewer perceptions. What viewers get to see of facial expression, eye contact, use of gestures, body movement, and spatial considerations is important to imply power, dominance, and strength, or weakness.[4]

Some genuine analysis of these nonverbal features immediately following the verbal jousting might be more useful than all the conjecture and projections generally filling the commentary of pundits. This nonverbal "veil of distortion"[5] by the medium is arguably most critical in determining which candidate may have "won" in the eyes of viewers. 

Such nonverbal features are especially influential in framing conscious or unconscious inferences. And the absence of useful insights about the impact of nonverbal factors that are often beyond the control of the candidates on stage is particularly unfortunate, since the comments afterwards of pundits still seem to matter most to how viewers see the so-called debaters.

Not that such important considerations seem to matter much to gatekeepers of the media industry in many western countries. Apart from a relatively few thoughtful members of the media and the very notable exception of some Scandinavian and European media organizations,[6] western broadcast media seem to lack ability (or perhaps even willingness) to benefit from available information about themselves.

Rather, media executives slavishly sustain a mockery of the public square. For almost a decade, most media in the United States at least have provided so much mention, video, photos, and verbatim quotes of one politician versus any other that their elevation of that name and "brand" surely now totals an incalculable billions-of-dollars value in free publicity.

As I've noted elsewhere, in the United States, mass media have frequently broadcast entire political rallies of a candidate, again and again and again, for months on end. This was acknowledged at the time by the occasional broadcast media executive as not good for America, but "damn good" for the broadcaster.[7]

And likely well into the future, overall this industry appears set to keep performing poorly for voters and the democracy that protects media freedom.

References

1. Lawrence O'Donnell (2024), The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, New York: MSNBC, June 26

2. Bruce G. Bryski and Jerry K. Frye (1980), "Nonverbal Communication in Presidential Debates," in Rodney G. Miller and Jerry K. Frye (Eds), Australian Scan of Nonverbal Communication, Brisbane, Qld: The Communication Institute, p. 31

3. See, for example, Robert Williams (1965), "On the Value of Varying Television Shots," Journal of Broadcasting, 9, Winter, pp. 33-43; Robert Schlater (1969), "Effect of Irrelevant Visual Cues on Recall of Televised Messages," Journal of Broadcasting, 14, Winter, pp. 63-70; and Daniel J. Boorstin (1978), The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, New York: Atheneum

4. Bryski and Frye, p. 29

5. John Zada (2021), Veils of Distortion: How the News Media Warps Our Minds, Toronto: Incognito

6. Jens E. Kjeldsen (2023), “The Practice and Pragmatics of Scandinavian Research in Rhetoric. Audience Studies in Scandinavian Rhetorical Scholarship,” Res Rhetorica, 10(4), pp. 10-27, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377069911_The_practice_and_pragmatics_of_Scandinavian_research_in_rhetoric_Audience_studies_in_Scandinavian_rhetorical_scholarship; Jens E. Kjeldsen, Christian Kock, and Orla Vigsø (2021), “Political Rhetoric in Scandinavia,” in Skorgerbø, E., Ø. Ihlen, N.N. Kristensen, and L. Nord (Eds.), Power, Communication, and Politics in the Nordic Countries, Gothenburg: Nordicom, University of Gothenburg, pp. 365-383, https://bora.uib.no/bora-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2763090/Kjeldsen%252C%2BKock%2B%2526%2BVigs%25C3%25B8_Political%2Brhetoric%2Bin%2BScandinavia.pdf?sequence=2

7. Peter K. Fallon (2022), Propaganda 2.1: Understanding Propaganda in the Digital Age, Eugene, OR: Cascade, p. 95; see also Rodney G. Miller (2024), Get Ahead of Propagandists: Countering Disinformation, Albany, NY: Parula, p. 13

What Are We Doing?

House Wren

by Mike's Birds from Riverside, CA [cropped] licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-SA 2.0 Generic

On return from travels recently, we're delighted to find that a lovely, noisy wren has finally moved into the small, ornate birdhouse in our front porch. With nobody disturbing efforts during our absence, this energetic songster built a substantial nest inside the birdhouse. More to come on this story, we're hoping.

This little creature's drive and industry could inspire anyone during the vagaries of an election season. And with absentee and early voting for candidates soon commencing in the United States as well as for citizens in international locations, time and effort are needed right now from anyone who values the freedom to control one's own thought, speech, and actions.

This is when action matters. As never before, it's direct push back that's needed to defeat the wannabes seeking public office who are addicted to their part-truths, distortions, lies, dodges, threats, intimidation, and violence. These are stereotyped ugly-Americans so disliked by many here and throughout the world. They promise real carnage for this country.

They count on extreme memes and actions to divert us from sorting through their nonsense. As an astute media anchor noted recently, the thuggery of these predators is not politics. Coercion certainly has no place in elections.

It's vital now to brainstorm and cooperate with strangers, neighbors, friends, family, and others to start or join efforts for a better future. Whether or not you're a joiner, it's more important than ever to find people in your neighborhood or circle of friends and relatives–of whatever party affiliation–who value what democracy prevents. Unlike the wren, you don't have to go it alone. The cooperative action of citizens is the time-proven way to make democracy thrive.

And an election campaign presents countless ways for any of us to press for what we care about, by supporting the efforts of a candidate for public office who is doing something for the common good.

To support a local candidate, simply make contact and offer to help. A well organized campaign will quickly find tasks needing your input, to the extent that your time or resources permit. Some tasks might seem basic, or routine, or below your "pay grade," but these will still be important to the overall effort. A bonus to such brushes with politics, beyond the goodwill enjoyed by interacting with folks committed to a better future, will likely also be the start of lifelong friendships.

Alternatively, if your time is limited, some local boards of electors may still require poll workers or helpers in other roles on Election Day. Though modestly paid, these positions are critical to sustain the democratic process. My mother-in-law into her late eighties worked on polling booths for most election days. She remained "sharp as a tack." And frankly, we would all have been in good hands if she'd been president of the country.

What are you doing to ensure freedom from the control of wannabe autocrats seeking public office?

Common Cause

Reclaim Medicaid for Idaho Van, 2018

by Kencf0618 licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Hardly top-of-mind for most of us is the amazing rate of languages dying globally. Estimates are that about 3,000 of the 7,000 or so languages still spoken worldwide are endangered.[1] From Wales to Vanuatu to many other locations, impulses like the economic advantage of a widely spoken language, natural disaster, or migration drive this decline. The consequent loss of identity, cultures, and communities mean that we all "lose a part of who we are."[2]

Yet 1960 onwards also witnessed a rapid growth in the creation of "essentially fictional and 'private' languages with a playful or cryptic purpose." In an intriguing book on the subject, the French linguist Marina Yaguello explores many of the diverse motivations and processes driving the creation of imaginary languages.[3]

Through the years 1100 to 2005, the tally of created languages grew in single-digits during decades or more before the year 1900. This was followed by exponential growth in new languages, with 298 developed in 2000-2004.[4] The Star Trek cult-phenomenon continues to stimulate tens of thousands of fans to learn and speak Klingon with each other worldwide. 

Another language that's discussed is Newspeak, which George Orwell outlines in an appendix to his satirical novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Irrespective of the ongoing debates about the relationship between thought and language, Orwell's outline of Newspeak further illustrates a purpose of autocrats. He offers that their manipulation of language is to control "mental habits," making "all other modes of thought impossible."[5] 

He describes the principles of Newspeak as designed to (1) reduce vocabulary to exclude meanings contrary to the party line, (2) reshape grammar to dictate regularity, (3) create words to impose a "desirable mental attitude," (4) destroy undesirable meanings, (5) use euphemisms to mean "almost the exact opposite of what they appeared to mean," (6) abbreviate names to narrow and alter meaning, and (7) redefine scientific and technical terms to "strip them of undesirable meanings."[6] Orwell proposes that such changes are designed to change how we think, to control our worldview and actions.

As in Orwell's time, ongoing onslaughts of disinformation are designed to deny freedom of thought, and consequent freedoms of speech, and association. In topsy-turvy diatribes, today's autocrat-propagandists obsessively camouflage criminality as bravado or defiance, while continuing to warp truth to gain trust. 

As far back as 2015 and earlier, computerized propagandists were selling their dubious services to set the basis for these efforts, with claims of being able to track and harvest information to microtarget 5,000 data points of any of us. As Joe Westby notes, "The push to grab users' attention and to keep them on platforms can also encourage the current toxic trend towards the politics of demonization."[7] This is a dynamic amplified at a pace that allows little space for counter-framing. 

The urgency is to build and sustain robust individual and cooperative efforts to outwit these propagandists.

When less than six months remains to an election day, the important question remains what more will each of us do, locally and now, to help democracy thrive? 

References:

1. Karin Wiecha (2013), "New Estimates on the Rate of Global Language Loss," The Rosetta Project Blog,  March 28, https://rosettaproject.org/blog/02013/mar/28/new-estimates-on-rate-of-language-loss/ 

2. Anouschka Foltz (2015), "When Languages Die, We Lose a Part of Who We Are," The Conversation, December 9, https://theconversation.com/when-languages-die-we-lose-a-part-of-who-we-are-51825

3. Marina Yaguello (2022), Imaginary Languages: Myths, Utopia, Fantasies, Illusions, and Linguistic Fictions, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

4. Yaguello, pp. xx-xxi; see Klingon Language Institute website at: https://www.kli.org/

5. George Orwell (1972), "The Principles of Newspeak," Nineteen Eighty-Four, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 241-251 [1st published 1949]

6. Orwell, pp. 242-249

7. Amnesty International (2019), 'The Great Hack': Cambridge Analytica Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg,  https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/07/the-great-hack-facebook-cambridge-analytica/

To Do Something

Seedling

by DataBase Center for Life Science (DBCLS) [cropped] licensed under CCA 4.0 International

Election campaigns bring both challenge and opportunity. As the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson remarked during a crisis with the sterling currency in 1964, "A week is a long time in politics" (Ratcliffe). Likewise, in the topsy-turvy of election campaigns, what is concerning today can be less or substantially more significant tomorrow.

My first experience of this was directing a local election campaign in my late twenties. This campaign sought the re-election of a less than ideal candidate who had managed to upset many of his constituents over the years.

Equal first priorities were to (1) find and engage the few party loyalists and a larger number of young folks willing to work for the campaign, (2) secure donations and media coverage, and (3) build and sustain the enthusiasm of volunteers for the myriad, repetitive clerical and logistical tasks needed to get the campaign underway.

And there can never be enough opportunities for people to talk with the candidate. One-on-one or one-on-two conversations defuse polarized views and ignite new commitments. For local campaigns or more widely, it's block parties, "meet-and-greets," door-to-door, or other opportunities for personal conversation that matter.

One initiative made possible by the generosity of volunteers and donors was to arrange for the candidate to give out tree seedlings to his constituents at local shopping centers. With each tree, the candidate also provided a leaflet explaining how residents could obtain an additional free tree through a little known "greening" program of the state's department of agriculture. This "meet-and-greet" was warmly welcomed and, as a bonus, stimulated some local media coverage.

During this fairly short campaign, small and larger issues for attention popped up endlessly. It was thanks to the support of some wise, new friends and a can do persistence of many that we kept up the momentum. The resulting win by 117 votes in an electorate of about 28,000 voters, like many such wins, proved important not only for the candidate, but also for the overall campaign effort.

When just six months remains to election day, the key question to answer is what more can each of us do that's useful?

Reference:

Susan Ratcliffe (Ed.) (2017), Oxford Essential Quotations, (5th edn), https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00011621 [probably first said at the time of the 1964 sterling crisis by British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson 1916-95]

Opportunity

Daffodils in 2024

photo © copyright

Spring is finally being felt here. Warmer mornings edge aside the crisp night air. Daffodils project the mood of the season. As we move beyond being "fed up" or "sick of" the last months of winter, can we catch the spirit of this new season? Can we "do something" useful for democracy in the new "silly season" of electioneering that many of us face? 

Pseudo-populists of the right and sometimes of the left latch onto emotions stimulated by terms of grievance to rail against so-called elites or to amplify some other peeve. In the politics of fear, "all right-wing populist parties" will accentuate being "fed up" or inflame feelings to make an: 

ethnic/religious/linguistic/political minority...a scapegoat for most if not all current woes and subsequently construe the respective group as dangerous and a threat "to us," to "our" nation (Wodak, cited in Muecke).

During elections, manufactured outrage of this type is amplified. Baby Boomers and older age groups appear particularly prone to identify with the sentiment of being "fed up" or "sick of," or having "a gutful." Gen X and Millennials seem to find this framing less engaging, but the terms remain common catchcries in the politics of many English-speaking nations at least (Muecke). 

When linked with economic or social ills or cultural fears and myths, such catchcries also acquire compelling power–as witnessed with Brexit or ongoing efforts of pseudo-populists in a wide range of nations, as they pretend to be "of the people."

Not a new approach, but it's no comfort this type of polemic is as old as the ages. Though a propaganda tool, its mockery can also be used to counter propaganda. As noted in an earlier blog post, it was almost five decades ago that the actor Peter Finch, in the film Network [here], satirically modeled this framing. He memorably declared:

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore..."

Into the next six months in the United States, can we get beyond being "fed up" or "sick of" what occurs in the repetitive cycle of "silly season" electioneering? 

Can we sustain the promise of springtime to help democracy thrive?

References:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/Sidney Lumet (Director) (1976), “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore! Speech from Network,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwMVMbmQBug

Stephen Muecke (2023), "'Australians are sick of...': The Rise of Australian Populism," English Political Catchwords,

https://englishpoliticalwords.wordpress.com/2024/04/07/australians-are-sick-of-the-rise-of-australian-populism/ 

See also: https://fass.open.ac.uk/research/projects/analysing-political-catchwords

R. Wodak (2015), The Politics of Fear: What Right-wing Populist Discourses Mean, London: Sage, p. 2

Off to the Races

Boat Race in the Desert, Alice Springs, Australia

by Alli Polin is licensed under CCA-SA-2.0 Generic

A friend just shared a letter-to-the-editor recently published in an Australian newspaper. It draws attention to the Melbourne Cup, held annually on the first Tuesday in November. Anyone from other countries not fanatical about thoroughbred horse racing might not know that "The Cup," as it's widely known, is a horse race held in the far south of the country, at the nation's second most populous city of about five million people. 

And the Melbourne Cup is not just any horse race. Held since 1861, Australians nationwide traditionally stop all other activity to follow the calling of the race. From all walks of life on one day of the year, Aussies avidly follow this occasion with its trackside touches of high fashion and excess. 

Opportunities are everywhere, in both urban and rural areas, to bet on the race. These include legal betting outlets, as well as pools or sweeps in workplaces, schoolyards, suburban homes, and, of course, as complement to refreshment in the local pubs. For many, this will be their once-a-year flutter. It is an annual big deal that unites the nation on hopes of betting on a winner. 

The letter-to-the-editor describes folks to the north some 2,000 miles/3,150 km, who follow the occasion in their own way. At "the Berry Springs Tavern, 40 minutes south of Darwin...they marked the Melbourne Cup Day by having baby crocodiles race down the pub's veranda–which was lined with hay stacks."

This brings to mind some other Aussie novelties. In the country's central desert, at least from 2007 to 2020, tourists and maybe some locals enjoyed the Alice Springs Camel Cup (here). And apparently still in full sail is the so-called Henley on the Todd Regatta (here + news video here), featuring wannabe sailors who are not very conveniently about 550 miles/900 km distant from any useful body of water. 

Undaunted, some of these landlubbing sailors belong to the Alice Springs Yacht Club. Amid raucous fun, they learned enough about tacking and other sailing skills on sand to put together a crew for the grueling Sydney-to-Hobart Yacht Race. 

Among blue water classics, this Race has an earned reputation for being complicated and difficult. Reportedly, it's "the hardest," with a high rate of yachts ordinarily not finishing (Schmidt). To the credit of the sand-sailors, though unplaced, their initial, considerable accomplishment was to complete the Race.

Only in Australia? At least, "especially in Australia" seems apt.

References:

Henley on Todd Regatta (2023) https://www.henleyontodd.com.au/

Pyndan Camel Tracks (2021) https://www.cameltracks.com/camel-cup/

David Schmidt (2022), "The Sydney Hobart Is a Dream to Win and Formidable to Navigate," The New York Times, December 23, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/23/sports/sailing/sydney-hobart-navigators.html

Broken Eggs

Gettysburg Address - Bliss copy

by Abraham Lincoln. This image is in the Public Domain {{PD-US-expired}}

President Abraham Lincoln's deletion of one sentence from a draft of one of his letters intended for publication in a newspaper might not warrant much attention in the long view of history. But in the book Lincoln's Sword, Douglas L. Wilson shows the significance of such edits and other word choices that a legendary President made to navigate difficult times. 

Wilson compares drafts of Lincoln's speeches, public statements, letters, or other documents with his historian's eye. He provides context for comparing documents, by making connection also with recollections in primary sources, such as diaries and reports of Lincoln's colleagues, friends, family, and adversaries. Wilson interprets both why Lincoln made a variety of language choices and how these impacted decisions and events. In sum, the book illuminates Lincoln's extraordinary use of words to help unify the United States, at a seriously partisan period in the nation's history.

One example occurred in late August 1862, at an "anguished period" in Lincoln's administration, when he replied to criticism by a formidable adversary, Horace Greely, editor of the New York Tribune (Wilson, pp. 148-161). This was just prior to Lincoln's landmark Emancipation Proclamation, issued on January 1, 1863. He presented his reply to Greely as a public letter published in the competing newspaper National Intelligencer. Wilson notes that a direct rebuke of a formidable critic in the form of a public letter in a newspaper was an unusual step for a president. 

The penultimate draft of his letter to the newspaper included the figurative sentence, "Broken eggs can never be mended, and the longer the breaking proceeds the more will be broken." Prior to publication though, at the suggestion of the newspaper editors that this sentence seemed "somewhat exceptionable on rhetorical grounds, in a paper of such dignity," Lincoln agreed to its deletion, "with some reluctance"–even though he had previously expressed the sentiment in private correspondence and would do so again later  (Wilson, p. 155). 

What the newspaper editors objected to then, we might welcome today as enduring wisdom and homely truth. Applied to our own time, the sentence offers perspective on some major troubles, like the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, or domestic gun violence, or the thuggery of pseudo-populists in the United States and elsewhere.

By examining drafts of Lincoln's discourse, Wilson shows the power that emerges from his practice of writing as rewriting. A leading analyst of rhetorical style indicates the value of exploring "words and phrases crossed out and written over, substitutions or additions careted in, circled text removed to another position" (Fahnestock). Throughout Wilson's book, he shows how Lincoln chose words carefully, to rhetorically negotiate closeness with his audience in relation to a question or a problem (Turnbull).

A law clerk...claimed that Lincoln told him, "I write by ear. When I have got my thoughts on paper, I read it aloud, and if it sounds all right I just let it pass" (Wilson, p. 90).

Lincoln preferred to use many commas–possibly, to reflect the pauses of where he took a breath when reading aloud. In the opinion of the Government Printer, Lincoln used too many commas. A continuing routine of back and forth editing was common between the two, as Lincoln kept reinserting (usually, not quite as many as his original) commas in galley proofs.

He would also stay firm on a word not considered at the time to be dignified, when the word expressed precisely his idea. Lincoln reportedly asserted on one occasion, "The time will never come in this country when the people won't know exactly what sugar-coated means!" (Wilson, p. 90). Wilson astutely observes that the Emancipation Proclamation "...succeeded not by eloquence, but by inexquisite language exquisitely suited to the occasion" (Wilson, p. 142).

Across a wide range of Lincoln's speech and writing, both including and beyond his better known Gettysburg Address and Inaugural Addresses, Wilson provides revealing insight on how Lincoln "...uses language that, in its rhythms as well as its connotations, carried conviction" (Wilson, p. 280). An appendix in the book also provides commentary on Lincoln's postdelivery revisions of the Gettysburg Address.

For anyone who cares about choosing words wisely, this book offers a treasury of insights.

References:

Jeanne Fahnestock (2021), "Analyzing Rhetorical Style: Toward Better Methods," in R. Boogaart, H. Jansen, M. van Leeuwen (Eds), The Language of Argumentation, Argumentation Library, vol 36, Springer, Cham., pp. 79-96, doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52907-9_5

Nick Turnbull (2007), "Problematology and Contingency in the Social Sciences," Revue Internationale de Philosophie, vol. 242, no. 4, pp. 451-472, www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2007-4-page-451.htm

Douglas L. Wilson (2007), Lincoln's Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words, Vintage: New York

Tea Leaves for Action

Reading Tea Leaves, Exhibit New Britain Museum of American Art

by Harry Roseland (1867-1950), photo by Daderot CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

"Brilliant," according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a word of fairly wide application, especially during the past half century. Maybe you've noticed how Britons frequently and variously use the word. They'll approvingly comment on the brilliance of actions, feelings, experiences, intelligence, people, and sometimes even the weather.

Shining a positive light on qualities and actions, or celebrating talent, cleverness, and distinctiveness in this way can be engaging. The word suggests optimism, providing uplift and encouragement or, at the very least, stressing an upside. Due to the exploits of the nation's fighter pilots in World War II, Churchill referred to "this brilliant youth." Occasionally, we use the word laced with sarcasm perhaps to refer to people who are "showy" and pretentious. Or colloquially and more weakly, people might refer to what they consider amazing or "fantastic."

The absence of true brilliance can be devastating, whether in people or a nation's intelligence system. In the United States, for example, media pundits will periodically pose whether a "failure of imagination" among responsible leaders allows the success of terrorists. This past week, some pundits again proffered this notion to explain the barbaric, tragic killings in Israel. We heard similar in relation to the January 6, 2021 attack at the Capitol.

Very much before that event were multiple signs of its likelihood. Leadership requires both "reading the tea leaves" and taking action for the public good. Instead then, it was the ongoing undermining of institutions that dominated public debates. Yet institutions do not themselves protect a democracy. 

It is brilliance in the actions of people that might. And the actions needed will often require taking steps well beyond any established zones of comfort within institutions, professions, or job descriptions. Promptly holding bad actors to account is what matters.

Whether in personal or institutional intelligence, both the significance of what's distilled and that this is acted upon is essential. The phrase "failure of imagination" is a euphemism for the failure to take needed and effective action.

Reference:

Sir Winston Churchill (1940), "Their Finest Hour," House of Commons, London, later broadcast on 18 June

"MISBELIEF"

Illustration in "Journey to the Center of the Earth" by Jules Verne

painted by Édouard Riou, 1864. This image is in the Public Domain {{PD-US}}

In his recently released book MISBELIEF, Dan Ariely aims to "shed light" on "a distorted lens through which people view the world, reason about the world, and describe the world to others" (2023, p. 27). He talks mainly about conspiracy theories and other disinformation. He relates the surprise and difficulty of becoming a target of characters who see the world through what he describes as a "Funnel of Misbelief."

Comfortably embedded in the word "misbelief" is the word "lie," neatly highlighted within the cover graphic for the book's title. This picks up Ariely's observation in an earlier book that "When we and those around us are dishonest, we start suspecting everyone, and without trust our lives become more difficult in almost every way" (2012, pp. 158-9). My Irish grandfather and the philosopher Immanuel Kant would likely have agreed there are no degrees of honesty, even if a great many others apparently believe differently.

Ariely is a popularly published professor of psychology. Writing in the chatty, first-person mode fashionable with some readers and publishers, he relates many encounters with people who readily believe what's weird, trust no one, are mean or violent, and continuously exhibit anger and outrage. He wraps rational explanation around his whirlpool of experiences, with the help also of some quizzes, interpretation of experiments, and principles of psychology. 

At times, this less than pleasant, personal journey becomes a bit like what's unfortunately unforgettable about two movies scantily translating Jules Verne's sci-fi novel A Journey to the Center of the Earth. The few coordinates guiding that journey of course didn't provide a map that changed the world. In contrast, along the way, Ariely offers some signposts to understanding through what he calls "Hopefully Helpful" comments. He places value on strengthening qualities like trust, "healthy skepticism," and "genuine open-mindedness" that evaporate as people slide into "dysfunctional doubt" (2023, pp. 27-8).

A selection of his "Helpful" comments is: Practice Intellectual Humility; Tend to Your Narcissists; Start with Common Ground; Fight the Temptation to Ostracize; Listen to Former Insiders; and Invite Trust by Demonstrating Care–each followed with a brief, reasonably-grounded discussion.

Ariely rightly, in my opinion, places value on nurturing empathy and trust. It's too bad for all of us though that this book is just a shade better than yet another warning. It mainly explores intricacies in the swamp of disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theories, pseudo-populism, and propaganda.

Meanwhile, we face these dangerously growing challenges, wishing for more writers, publishers, media, civic leaders including legislators, or other fellow citizens with the chops required to join in intelligently and systematically to deliver remedies.

References:

Dan Ariely (2012), The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone-Especially Ourselves, New York: Harper

Dan Ariely (2023), MISBELIEF: What Makes Rational People Believe Irrational Things, New York: Harper

Simon Winchester (2001), The Map That Changed the World: The Tale of William Smith and the Birth of a Science, New York: Harper Collins

Jules Verne (1864), Voyage au Centre de la Terre [A Journey to the Center of the Earth], Paris: J. Hetzel et Jie

Moving Forward

One World Trade Center, New York

(height 1,776 feet) photo © copyright

Even after 22 years, many of us have much too vivid memories of 9/11, along with the days and more following–and how this changed the United States and the world. After the initial and ongoing shocks of broadcast horrors, the grief and uncertainties were to continue.

When finally able to phone a friend in Australia, I recall hearing terror that something similar might occur there. Seeking to ease concern, I offered the no less horrific thought that other cities in America might first be targets. Soon afterwards, an attack in Bali proved this wrong. The courage and resilience of so many then and since endure.

Thanks to the bravery of crew and passengers fighting back against the terrorists, Flight 93 crashed in rural Pennsylvania, never reaching its likely intended target of the Capitol. An especially perceptive television anchor last night noted that what foreign terrorists failed to do, domestic terrorists accomplished on January 6, 2021.

Soon after 9/11, to handle the threat from foreign terrorism, we all built practices to lessen risk. Wouldn't it be a good thought to have similarly concerted efforts to address the real and present threats of domestic terrorists and their collaborators, who continue a commitment to destroy democracy.

"If I Had Sneezed..."

 

Martin Luther King Jr.

Nobel Peace Prize Archive, 1964. This image is in the Public Domain {{PD-1996}}

Sixty years ago on August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous I Have a Dream speech. He called for civil and economic rights and an end to racism, addressing a crowd at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC that was estimated at 250,000. The speech still has a special power. 

But so too, differently and at times more intimately, does his speech I Have Been to the Mountaintop. This was King's final speech, delivered on April 3, 1968 amid threats to his life, with a sense of foreboding, the day before his assassination.

King illustrates with a sweep across history some milestones pertinent to the realities of his day to encourage sustained efforts to advance civil rights. He encourages commitment to a "dangerous unselfishness" with love for all people–and extends a call for unity and determination through non-violent protest.

The refrain "If I had sneezed..." emerges toward the end of the speech, when King recalls the time almost a decade earlier, when he was stabbed by a "demented" woman who nearly took his life. The surgeon at Harlem Hospital, who operated on King after this event, commented that the blade of the weapon lodged in his chest so close to the aorta, the main artery, that a single sneeze would have caused his death. 

As King notes, "once that's punctured, you're drowned in your own blood, that's the end of you." He references the surgeon's comment to relate the significance of one message among the many that he received from around the nation and the world, expressing care, concern, and good wishes for his recovery. 

The letter was from a nine-year old white girl, who expressed sincerely and simply how glad she was that he did not sneeze. After quoting this letter, King repeats the refrain "If I had sneezed..." to engage listeners with remembering important advances for the civil rights movement that he would not otherwise have participated in. This progressively becomes a catch cry, punctuating his recollection of the progress he has enjoyed with his listeners, simply because he did not sneeze. 

With this personal story, King enjoins listeners to sustain the movement's progress and offers hope to reach the promised land without him. He exemplifies the courage, wisdom, and prudence required to seek the fairness and honesty of equal rights.

Excerpt Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgq61-owOG8 

Complete Speech Text: https://www.afscme.org/about/history/mlk/mountaintop

Le Tour Nouveau

Demi Vollering, winner Tour de France Femmes 2023

by Hugo LUC is licensed under CCA-SA 4.0 International 

Once again during July, many millions of fans and followers were devoted to the three-week spectacle that is Le Tour. Beyond entertainment, this annually anticipated event reliably spotlights fitness, endurance, courage, skill, ingenuity, competition, cooperation, camaraderie, and more.

The animatedly rich commentary of Phil Liggett, Bob Roll, and others distill excitement and ever-changing fortunes in play. And along the way are sweeping views of Europe's bucolic landscape and historic architecture, as well as informative remarks on cultural significances, mixed with a continuous flow of anecdotes on cycling performance and previous accomplishments. 

Then Tour de France Femmes advances the televised spectacle similarly, followed by Vuelta a España. Cycling enthusiasts are attuned to appreciate the exceptional. Even the sponsorships plastered over bicycles, support vehicles, roadside signage, cyclist jerseys, and other paraphernalia integrate as an accepted backdrop. Prime attention is focused on capturing remarkable efforts of endurance, strategy, teamwork, and speed.

Yet it was less than a decade ago that the exceptionalism was stained with the distortion of cheats. It took a comparable persistence of the sport's associations, sponsors, and government interventions to purge unacceptable behaviors. For nations now dealing with analogous behaviors of pseudo-populists defrauding voters, the challenges will be at least as great. 

Perhaps "Le Tour nouveau" and similar can help inspire the commitments and courage required to purge the outrageous from public life.