AND THEN HE CRITICIZED THE MEDIA!

Wow! This past week when President Trump criticize the media in his rally in Phoenix and from the response of the media (generally), you would have thought that all of modern civilization was on the verge of plunging into hell or some other apocalyptic catastrophe. There was a storm of criticism from the media about him criticizing the media! This followed from having just completed writing about the media’s need to engage in some critical thinking regarding the way that most are reporting these days (Neurons #39).

Interesting enough on Monday night President Trump addressed the nation about the war in Afghanistan and nearly everyone recognized the presidential tone and nature of that presentation. Then on Tuesday in the rally, simply because he turned his attention to the media and explained (actually giving details) about how some of them have been creating “fake news” distorting what he has actually said and one ... he “criticized” the “fake news.” He also “criticized” them for not reporting the progress that he’s already made. In his speech, he focused on repeating what he said specifically when he condemned racism and how much of the media distorted that. He said that he wanted to “expose their role in fomenting divisions” in the country and that for “the source of the division in our country, look no further than the fake news and crooked media.” That’s what was said.

How did the media respond to the criticism? Well, not very well! Did they engage in some fact- finding analysis or even better, acknowledge that some of the coverage has been biased? Of course not! I am in Manila in the Philippines and the only two stations I could get here is CNN and BCC and from their reporting I would have concluded that he lost his mind, went insane, became mentally unstable and the world now stands on the brink of destruction.

That’s certainly the impressed that they gave. CNN said that the rally was a “blistering rally” and that he attacked the media, and because of that, it was “a dark day” because the President “threatened the media.” Then to explain why he would criticize them, they engaged in the highest level of mind-reading— “this speaks to a personal vendetta,” “it suggests he’s unstable,” “ranting like this questions his fitness for the office,” “he is not mentally well,” “he was angry, rude, unrestrained, unhinged.” They must have mentioned his anger dozens of times.

The next day CNN was reporting that his statements indicated “a total eclipse of the facts,” that he “lied to the American people,” that it was “devoid of wisdom. It had no sanity.” “He has given oxygen to racism, he is starting a civil war in this country.” Repeatedly they question his sanity, “this is not sane behavior.” He is “a 71-year old man-baby.” “He is not mentally well.” He is the “bigot in chief.” And why? Because he was “unrestrained,” he was “lashing out.” He was “committing fratricide.”(!) It was because “the insult that went on and on. And it is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.”

Wow! Now if this kind of a response occurred between individuals, we would immediately recognize that the person reacting to the criticism certainly cannot take criticism, is overly- sensitive, and very defensive. It would be obvious also that the person isn’t even listening or considering the facts within the criticism. The response is a particular bias, we call it ad hominen which means “to the person or character.” That is, this cognitive fallacy is one where when you can’t, or do not, address the facts of the conversation, you attack the person. Instead of talking about the subject, you call the person names, you attack his character, intelligence, history, whatever.

What CNN did not report was that in “blaming both parties” President Trump also said this: “No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first.” He said “We condemn this egregious display of racism in the strong possible terms.” “Racism is evil and those who cause evil in its name are thugs, including the KKK, the white supremacists, etc.”

What’s Needed What’s needed is being able to talk about the facts in a calm and neutral way, objectively considering things without imposing it with our interpretations. This is the foundation of science. It is the art of critical thinking. It is also the foundation of a healthy group, healthy communications, and democracy itself. If we can’t do that, if we color the facts with our views and interpretations, then we will not be able to communicate our different views and understandings.

What is needed is to not expect that everyone will agree with our views about psychology or philosophy or politics, but to desire and work so that we can talk about our differences respectfully. This includes talking about our assumptions, premises, beliefs, etc. What is needed is to make our communications respectful even if we strongly disagree. How I treat you as a person, as a human being, should not be dependent on you agreeing with my views.

What’s needed is the NLP Communication Model and guidelines. That would enable all of us to distinguish descriptive sensory-based language from interpretative evaluative language. That would enable us to receive and give behavioral feedback, to listen without interrupting, to summarize what we’ve heard and check it with the speaker, to ask questions more than telling. Obviously, because the media showed a hyper-sensitivity revealing their own humanity and need for a model to govern their behavior. I recommend learning NLP!