A person can lose by winning the argument. A person can win by raising a point that is obviously wrong, if it changes the subject. It isn't fair, but it's real.
Trump "gets" this.
Trump and his allies have gone apoplectic in opposition to Mueller's investigation having received tens of thousands of emails generated by the Trump transition team. These were obtained and inspected as part of the investigation of contacts during the transition between Michael Flynn and others with Russians, a matter for which Flynn has already pled guilty. They were obtained through regular warrants and routine process.
Trump, his spokespeople, and his media allies are shouting foul. We were spied upon! They over-reached! Bias! Jackboots! Corruption!
In fact, the emails all took place on government-supplied, official equipment, with special transition team government-supplied email addresses, with government tech support, and with full notice that these were government communications subject to inspection and audit. They were doing the public's business in public, as is the law and custom.
The facts don't matter--not where it counts.
 |
| Pointless. Just digging the hole deeper. |
The fact that does matter is that the subject of the complaint changed to whether or not there was Mueller investigation overreach. This puts the attention of the audience on the question of exactly how much investigation is appropriate: a lot, some, none. Some readers and viewers of the media kerfuffle will conclude that well, of course, government official communications on government emails on government business is the public's (and auditors') right to inspect. But many will not. Many people will want to split the difference, and conclude that if some people are wildly unhappy there must be some justification for it.
Where there is smoke there must be fire.
A Fox News reader can strongly influence this by the tone and inflection used in introducing the subject, for example: "Breaking News: A new scandal in the embattled Mueller investigation raises once again the question of corruption and bias. Here's a comment from one very angry Trump official shocked and outraged that e-mails he expected to be confidential. . . ."
Mueller can win the argument--it was legal and commonplace--but the winning is irrelevant and pointless. He already lost in the court of public opinion. The subject was switched to the legitimacy of the search, not the content of what was discovered.
There is a lesson here worth learning. Readers of this blog may find themselves personally--or the organization they are associated with--the subject of an accusation or criticism or some piece of bad publicity. The current example is people accused of some kind of sexual overture or harassment. Disgruntled former employees can make charges regarding anything. They are protected under the law as "whistleblowers" and they are considered sufficiently credible by media sources to be able to tell their story.
The media likes complaining whistleblowers. It fits a media self-understanding as institutions that uncover hidden truths. And the whistleblower brings newsworthy controversy to them on a silver platter.
The temptation by the accused is to offer up an public explanation of the context, in a form of nuanced denial. The explanation may well be completely honest, accurate in every detail, and it would completely absolve the accused person of wrongdoing if readers paid close attention to the accusation and denial. They don't. They get impressions. This is not a court of law with lawyers looking at closely reasoned arguments. These are people watching the news while they make dinner.
The problem with a righteous explanation and denial is acceptance that the subject of the accusation required a denial/explanation, thus validating it. That focuses public attention to the question of just how wrong was the act: very wrong, somewhat wrong, not wrong? Smoke-fire.
That is a mistake Trump does not make. Trump changes the subject to one that favors him. In the case of his multiple female accusers of sexual harassment the question is who paid them to lie and how much are they being paid to make outrageous lies and why are Democrats using lying women to try to overturn the just results of the election? In the case of the Mueller investigation of collusion, he has changed it to just how corrupt and biased is this completely illegitimate Democratic witch hunt?
The strategy is ugly and unpleasant. It does not comport with a high school civics notion of how representative democracy and a free press is supposed to assure government with the consent of the governed. But it is how modern media works, and Trump understands this.
A person or organization being accused could do worse than ask themselves "WWTD?"
What would Trump do?
If accused by a disgruntled former employee of some sexual or other misbehavior he would find some weakness or vulnerability or at least an arguable flaw in that person and focus accusations on that point. If the person has any criminal or competency issue, focus there. The accuser becomes the subject. Is the accuser insane or simply sociopathic, given that matter of question in his or her biography? If asked about the underlying accusation, don't answer. Instead, revert back to the really important issue: is the accuser slightly mentally ill or thoroughly crazy and what exactly is that criminal accuser's motivation?
Make that the subject--the only subject.
No one cares about the merits of the original question. Present a more interesting question. That is what Trump would do.
Make that the subject--the only subject.
No one cares about the merits of the original question. Present a more interesting question. That is what Trump would do.
2 comments:
Please note that Trump is being investigated for impeachable offenses, is suspected of worse.
Opponents of the Progressive victory of Barack Obama attacked him and his policies with lies about his citizenship. That attack was led by a well-known huckster and reality TV delinquent enabled by a corrupt political party. The attacks gave the worst elements in our society a green light to publicly justify their prejudices, misogyny and nihilistic impulses.
It continues.
This foolishness did not erupt overnight. Republicans in the states desperate for votes increasingly pandered to the ignorant, biased, and embittered and found that a toxic stew of lies and false promises bought them unquestioning loyalty. The misinformation does not serve any ideology. With these tactics certain individuals are defending their own personal agendas, money and power, not any concern for preserving the integrity of the Republic and the principles it venerates.
Progressives were complacent, a mistake that will never be repeated (one hopes) again.
As I recall you have noted, Trump has supporters who, like him, believe there is a conspiracy by “the lying media, the deep state, etc” against him, so the accusations aren’t appeased by any facts to the contrary. We do have to ask ourselves how we got to a place where there is such trust of our institutions, and we have to work to improve that trust, even in this situation where it seems obvious. Well, like the southern rock group sings, ‘Watergate does not bother me, does your conscious bother you?”
Post a Comment