Master of Deception

Speech perception is ephemeral. The meaning of a sentence is derived by an active, interpretive process. The surface structure is rapidly forgotten and what we remember is the gist of what’s said. Deception works because this process is open to suggestion.

Half truth: Trump signed an executive order that he claims: “Restores religious liberty.” However, all he did was change the wording of section 501 of the U.S. Code which exempts churches from paying Federal income tax. Before it simply said that religious groups risk losing their tax-exempt status for making “..political speeches that amount to participation or influence in a political campaign.” What he changed it to is: “Religious groups do not risk losing their tax-exempt status for making political speeches that do not amount to participation or influence in a political campaign.” Trump simply restated it as a double negative. Changing the syntax does not necessarily change the content. In other words, the same restrictions still apply. He falsely claims that this amounts to a: “restoration of religious liberty”
 

Framing: Trump announced that the new American Health Care Act (AHCA) will: “cover more Americans more cheaply.” A review by the Congressional Budget Office found that the net effect was less coverage at a higher price for most Americans. Trump’s announcement only sounds good if you don’t have a copy of the bill in front of you.
 

Pre-supposition: Trump says he fired Comey because the FBI was in turmoil. He adds “..you know that, I know that, everybody knows that.” Saying ‘everybody knows that’ frames his opinion as a generally accepted reason to fire him. But we all know Trump fired Comey for personal reasons that had nothing to do with his performance as FBI director.
 
 Public record: On his termination letter, Trump said: “I appreciate that, on three separate occasions, you told me I was not under investigation.” However, there’s no record of Comey ever saying that. Trump’s statement is deceptive because it enters an indeterminate event into public record

Deceptive speech

1. It’s deceptive when Trump calls news outlets fake and dishonest because reports about him “…haven’t been positive.” He didn’t say that reports about him haven’t been honest. 

2. It’s deceptive when the administration says: “The national debt went down $12 billion since we’ve been in power.” That’s implying that they deserve credit for events that are actually beyond their control (they’ve only been in power for a month and have not yet done anything to affect the budget). 

3. It’s deceptive to attribute job losses by middle class Americans to undocumented immigrants …unless you consider gardening and fruit-picking middle–class occupations.

 4. It’s deceptive to treat the fair-trade agreement with South America the same as China. South America doesn’t engage in anti-competitive practices like the Chinese. They don’t present the same barriers to foreign investment.

5. This is not necessarily deceptive but a big component of intelligence is understanding the question. Over two-thirds of the errors on an intelligence test can be attributed to misunderstanding the question. This was certainly the case at Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing. When asked: “As Attorney General, if presented with evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign communicated with the Russians …what would you do?” He replied: “I did not communicate with the Russians.” Why did he deny doing something he wasn’t asked? He claims he was responding to a something he read in the news that day …and got it confused with the question. Good thing intelligence is not a qualification. 

6. Spicer has reached the level of master of deception. He’s not necessarily good at it …just prolific. In the latest example he cites news-stories about British spying to back up his accusations against Obama. When British Intelligence confronts him, he says: “I was simply pointing out these news-stories. I wasn’t endorsing them.” However, when you cite news-sources to back up your claims …you are crediting theses sources as valid, which is the same as endorsing them

Discourse analysis

I look for samples of deceptive speech in the news. Happens more often than you may think. We don’t process speech like a linguist. It’s too ephemeral. We listen for meaning and not a literal transcript of what's said, which makes it easy for speakers to pass-off fiction as fact and make implications sound like direct assertions. The original sentences don’t hang around long enough for us to tell the difference and we’re left with a more general sense of what's said. The new administration provides a lot of examples. Here are a few I've come across lately.

 1. It’s deceptive when press secretary Spicer defends Trump’s travel ban by saying: “The power given the president to protect our country is substantial and without question.” It’s deceptive because he’s implying that Trump’s actions are ‘beyond question’ because the constitution is beyond question. However, it is not unreasonable to ask whether his actions were a legitimate use of power and met the criteria proscribed by the constitution. The courts clearly found his actions questionable.

 2. It’s deceptive when the administration says they didn’t fire national security advisor  Flynn because he did anything wrong but because it was leaked. According to press secretary Spicer: “leaks are criminal and what should be investigated here.” It’s deceptive when he deflects attention by implying that some kind of “breach in security” was at fault and not the actions of the national security advisor.

 3. it’s deceptive when attorney general Sessions says marijuana use should be prosecuted under federal law because: “When you see something like the opiate addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing that we should be doing is encouraging people.” He’s implying that marijuana carries the same health and safety risks as opioids.

 4. It’s deceptive when the administration denies ever saying: “We are conducting mass-deportations using the U.S. military.” But that is exactly what Trump was implying when he announced: “ We are conducting deportations at unprecedented levels and doing them as efficiently as a military operation.” What’s the difference. Since speech perception is not literal …implications get treated as direct assertions and “ ..mass-deportations by the U.S. military” is exactly what gets conveyed. Denying it because it was not part of the ‘actual transcript’ is like something you’d hear in a court of law. It’s deceptive because it’s not the natural way we process information. We don’t keep record of things like a stenographer and the administration knows this.

 5. It’s deceptive when Trump characterizes undocumented immigrants as criminals based on one case. As tragic as it was … a single case does not represent an entire population. However we don’t think like statisticians. We mistake sensationalism for the size and magnitude of a problem. The administration knows this and they’re relying on it to help make their case.

Trump tweets

Trump is beginning to find Twitter more unforgiving than the press. In addition, it has a multiplier effect that can boost adversarial comments astronomically ..hugely! They’re not just calling him out on his use of ‘alternative facts’ …they’re ridiculing him. Take for instance the (#Bowling Green Massacre Relief Fund). The remark he made about the “So-called Federal Judge …” has spawned (#So-called Presidential appointment) (#So-called Senate confirmation) and (#So-called Constitution). His statement that: “All negative polls are fake news …” and his unrelenting attacks on SNL has generated one called (#SNL weekend update is real). Historically, ridicule is one of the oldest means of deterring socially unacceptable behavior. Twitter has virtually crowd-sourced the editorial and fact-checking process. If Trump thinks Twitter offers him a way around the press so that he can make stuff up without consequence …he’s going to find that Twitter has the unrestrained power to bury his claims with ridicule and mockery. And it’s not subject to libel laws. He may have call in the National Guard on this one.

Deception in Politics

Someone asked the other day if I thought candidate Trump was deceitful. When I thought about it I found him far less deceitful than, say … Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader. When Trump says he’ll build a wall along the border and make Mexico pay for it he’s not being deceptive. He’s making an outrageous claim but it’s out there for everyone to hear and judge. He’s being forthright. Besides it’s a campaign speech that few believe. When McConnell says: “The American people will be heard before the next Supreme Court Justice is determined” … he is being deceptive. Without actually saying so, his statement falsely assumes that Justices are somehow elected to the Supreme Court by the American people. He makes it sound like it would be undemocratic to do otherwise. McConnell is appealing to a sentiment (representative government) where it doesn’t apply (the Supreme Court). Trump’s appeals to a sentiment where it does apply (immigration issues). What he says may be outrageous and undoable but his message is overt whereas McConnell’s message is delivered in a more covert manner. Makes Trump sound like the honest one here. Theatrical and extreme … but honest. McConnell on the other hand sounds duplicitous to me. He is speaking as an elected official about his duties as Senator (approving Supreme Court nominees).