The Media Do Have A Bias – Toward Truth

October 27, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

I have avoided writing about Donald J. Trump during this election cycle. I felt the same way when Sarah Palin snagged her party’s vice-presidential nomination. In fact, in the only newspaper column I wrote about her in 2008 I referred to her as She Who Will Not Be Named.

Like Palin, Trump is an entertainer. Like her, he’s an expert at shock-and-awe (slack-jawed awe, as in “Did he really say/do that?”).  I vowed not to write about him, despite his bombast, his bullying, his fear and hate mongering, his nativism, his misogyny, and his rampant sexual aggressions. Because he proved so skilled at controlling the national narrative, I didn’t want to give him one more column inch.

But now he has created the chant of “media bias” against his campaign, and I’m compelled to write. He may call it “media bias.” I call it media responsibility.

I graduated from the University of Kansas School of Journalism in 1971. In the news-editorial sequence, as it was called then, we were taught to report the facts fairly and objectively. We worshipped at the shrine of “objectivity.” Many years later, we all recognize that “objectivity” is a lofty and nearly unattainable goal since our own perceptions and experience filter and inform the facts. Still, we aimed high, though sometimes we missed the mark. Likewise, we were taught to uncover corruption, to be gadflies (what a term) to those in power, and to expose charlatans.

Unmasking charlatans is where Donald Trump comes in.

At the outset of the campaign, the media did not take the Trump candidacy seriously. He was a novelty, a circus act, “the pig who could dance” as it were, a reality TV star and real estate mogul who obviously was running for president to garner more attention for his brand. When it became clear that he was the anointed contender who spoke to large segments of the population, the media bent over backward to cover his campaign with as much gravity as Hillary Clinton’s.

Many people have written about the dangers of such “false equivalence,” of straining to apply the same level of scrutiny to the campaigns of a pathological liar with no political experience, and a seasoned politician whose long career of public service has pockmarks, peaks and valleys.

As a journalist, I have mostly freelanced for newspapers, which are inherently conservative. They are owned by folks whose eyes are on the profit margins, and who are concerned about offending advertisers. Significantly, over 150 newspapers have now endorsed Hillary Clinton, according to Business Insider.

One of those newspapers is the Dallas Morning News. Since my family lives in Dallas, I have read the paper on visits to the city for over 35 years. The Dallas Morning News is an excellent paper, with a talented staff, but of a conservative editorial bent. In fact, until Clinton, the paper had not recommended a Democrat for president in more than 75 years. The editorial board wrote on September 7: “There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.”

So, when Trump takes on the media, including newspapers, he is not only taking on editorial boards headed by business-minded publishers, who should be his natural constituency, but he is also taking on ink-stained professionals who have gone out of their way to treat his nutty campaign with gravitas.

But, let’s face it, Trump is the quintessential cable candidate, and I have spent countless evenings during this campaign watching CNN cover his campaign. Because Trump tends to do or say something newsworthy every day, I would say, without hesitation, that he has received more air time than Hillary Clinton.

This week, a CNN correspondent, Jim Acosta, appeared visibly shaken on the air. He was reporting on a Trump rally in Florida during which Trump had called the reporters covering his campaign “crooks and thieves.” Acosta, a Cuban American who has been insulted by Trump in the past, was yelled at by Trump supporters chanting “CNN Sucks.” One of these supporters, he said, hit him with a sign.

Nobody goes into news-gathering looking for a cushy job. But Trump displays little understanding of the Fourth Estate. The professionals in the shrinking newspaper industry busily double- and triple-checking facts, seeking attribution and the “other side” for news stories, do not deserve Trump’s abuse. Nor do the television journalists recording the drama unfolding at the brutal Trump rallies deserve to be yelled at, much less struck.

Before bashing the media, Trump needs to know what I learned in J-School, that the media do have a bias – for fact-gathering and for trying to tell the truth. And that’s a fact, and that’s the truth.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


(VIDEO) Turner Uses Data To Target And Tailor Creative, Strober Says

October 26, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

ORLANDO — The corporate media world may be stuck in pending regulatory approval of AT&T’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner. But that isn’t stopping Time Warner’s Turner from pressing ahead in to the future of advertising.

Turner is fresh from winning ANA Genius Award for analytics science, as it looks to innovate on how advertisers can take advantage of the changing face of TV.

“We can use  data and analytics to help identify the audience,” Turner client strategy and ad innovation EVP Michael Strober tells Beet.TV in this video interview. “More importantly, we can now use data to help inform which is the right creative message to be targeted to that individual.”

AT&T has said its combination with Turner would create a company with customer insights across TV, mobile and broadband; offering more relevant and valuable addressable advertising that can innovate with ad-supported content models.

But Turner has already been working on some tricks of its own. “We’re working with our social partners, where we can do a lot of A/B testing, and help them map that back to our own audiences across our portfolio,” Strober adds.

“We have a capability that we built internally called Launchpad that allows us to span the entire digital and social universes and test custom audience segments that the creative resonates with. We take that insight and find where those audiences are across our linear portfolio.”

One of the biggest challenges with customizing TV ads for countless individual viewers is making enough video assets to assemble together in to myriad permutations. That doesn’t come cheap, especially if you are looking to produce the kind of quality TV viewers are used to.

The answer is still being worked out – but demand for an answer appears to be growing.

“Our clients don’t have unlimited budgets. How do you scale?,” Strober says. “I don’t think we’ve cracked the code on that yet. In linear television, it’s not as easy. But we do believe dynamic creative versioning is something a lot of clients are thinking about.”

The ANA Genius Awards aim to recognize the best, brightest, most innovative and most impactful work in marketing analytics today.


We interviewed at the ANA Masters of Marketing annual meeting in Orlando. This video is part of a series produced at the conference. Beet’s coverage is sponsored by Cadent. For more videos from the series, please visit this page.

You can find this post on Beet.TV.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


‘Good Girls Revolt’ Is A Show About 1969 That Will Ring True For Women In 2016

October 25, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

Amazon show “Good Girls Revolt” focuses on the lives of a very particular group of New York women in the late 1960s. But the issues it zeroes in on are still painfully relevant to many American women.

“Good Girls Revolt” is centered around a group of women who work as researchers (never writers or editors ? those jobs are reserved for their male colleagues) at the fictional News of the Week magazine. Eventually, they decide to file a lawsuit against their company for gender discrimination.

The premise is a fascinating one, even more so because it’s based on a real landmark discrimination case filed against Newsweek magazine in 1970. The experience prompted Lynn Povich, one of the women behind the suit, to write the 2012 book The Good Girls Revolt. Actress Joy Bryant plays Eleanor Holmes Norton, the lawyer who represented the women ? and who went on to become a U.S. congresswoman. Bryant told The Huffington Post she was “so honored” to portray Norton, a game-changing presence in both the civil rights and women’s movement.

“She is, was and will always be a badass, and she was a badass during a time where it was very dangerous for women or black women or black people to be badasses,” Bryant said.

HuffPost spoke to Bryant about her portrayal of Norton, the feminist movement of the ‘60s and today, and her character’s “amazing” afro. 

Did you get to meet Eleanor Holmes Norton?

I did. I met her right before we began filming and have seen her since.

What was she like?

Every bit as awesome as I imagined her to be. I was honestly very intimidated prior to meeting her because here is a woman who has accomplished so many great things, especially during a time when she was coming up as an esteemed civil rights lawyer and she was always at the front lines of the civil rights movement and the women’s movement. She is lovely. She is brilliant. She is committed. And she’s serious about what she does, but she has a wonderful sense of humor ? and you need to, especially doing the things that she has done.

What was it like to portray her after meeting her?

It calmed me in a way. I think she liked me when she met me so we hit it off. The next thing was thinking, “I hope she likes what I do.” The last thing I would want is for her to be like, “Ugh, why didn’t they get somebody else to play me?” So there was that for sure, but I tried to put that out of my mind as much as possible and just trust that my conversations with her and my own research meant I would do her justice and I really hope that I have.

Watch the trailer for “Good Girls Revolt” below.

Early on in “Good Girls Revolt,” one of the characters explains that when she decides to have a kid she’s going to quit her job at News of the Week so she can focus on her family. When Norton decides to represent the women at the company, she’s pregnant. Was that contrast intentional?

Eleanor was and is a woman who is self-possessed and was comfortable in the work-life balance. Her career was very important to her as was being a mother, but she didn’t see there being issue with her having both of them. And it’s not so much about having it all because no one can have it all, but you can have a lot of what you want. I think at the end of the day the fight is for the choice to live your life the way that you want to live it. If you want to work and have a family, then you should be supported in that. If you decide that you want to take a break from your career to stay at home, then you should be supported in that as well.

That’s what it’s all about. It’s having the freedom to make the choices that we want and feeling comfortable and supported in the choices that we make. I think that’s what the ultimate fight of feminism is all about really. I think that Eleanor from the very beginning understood the intersection between feminism and civil rights, feminism and the struggle for black liberation, and she was always at the forefront of those issues.

In one scene, Norton tries to persuade another woman of color to join the lawsuit against the magazine. What was creating that scene like?

That was one of my favorite scenes, and it was very important to me that in my appealing to her that I try to express to her our commonality. [In the show I tell her something like], even though the box that [a white character] is in looks prettier than yours, she’s still in a box. We are connected and her fight is our fight and our fight should be theirs as well.

In actuality, the black researchers were not a part of the lawsuit, but I think that what was interesting about playing it this way is that it was great to have that conversation. It really touches on not just feminism as a whole, but also white feminism or mainstream feminism vs. black feminism, feminism of women of color. With women back then and even now, there’s often a tone deafness when it comes to women of color within the women’s movement. We all have to understand that as we talk about feminism, as we talk about things that affect women, we have to address race and we have to understand intersectionality of all these things. I feel like that scene touches on that.

I’m just wearing an afro and we’re wearing period clothes. That’s the only difference. We’re still having these conversations. We’re still breaking glass ceilings. We’re still fighting for reproductive rights. We’re still fighting for the same things.

You’ve mentioned how the show focuses on issues that are still important today even though it’s set in the late 1960s. What was it like portraying a character in the past while also acknowledging that women and people of color are still fighting for equality today?

What’s crazy and wonderful about being involved in this show is that we’re not just talking about history. I mean we are, but it’s not just something that happened in the past and that’s it. We’re talking about issues then that are still relevant now. On one side, women like the women who filed the suit, women like Eleanor Holmes Norton, the fight that they gave back then continues today and we are all beneficiaries of that. But on the other side, we’re talking about the same thing. I’m just wearing an afro and we’re wearing period clothes. That’s the only difference. We’re still having these conversations. We’re still breaking glass ceilings. We’re still fighting for reproductive rights. We’re still fighting for the same things. If anything, being a part of this show and having these conversations, I think that it made being a sister even more important to me, not that it wasn’t before but to see myself within this struggle more clearly I walked away with a stronger sense of sisterhood. Also it was frustrating because it’s like, “We’re still talking about this shit.”

It’s only as the people in power start to see their power slipping away that they grab harder and tighter.

It’s so relevant and now as we’re approaching the dawn of the first female president ? please, Jesus [laughs] ? it is more relevant than ever before. The same way we were when we elected a black president, some people thought that we were automatically post-racial. Electing a female president doesn’t mean that we’re post-sexism or post-misogyny at all. It’s only as the people in power start to see their power slipping away that they grab harder and tighter, so I think it’s only going to get gnarlier. We will be on equal footing one day, but the fight continues. And I think being on this show really brought that home. It’s not just a story that I read. It’s not just something that happened. It’s still happening and we, beneficiaries and fighters, are very much a part of the fight still.

Did you find any scenes especially difficult to shoot?

As we were filming, one more black body after another black body was being gunned down by police ? unarmed citizens, unarmed black citizens. It felt like as we were filming it was just like, “Jesus Christ.” And I think that everyone is feeling that in a way, or they should. As this show is primarily focused on the women’s aspect of human rights and civil rights, it was also a volatile time then in our country when black people and people of color were fighting for their lives. And we’re still doing that. We’re still talking about gender equality and workplace discrimination and we’re still talking about segregation and we’re still talking about police brutality and we’re still talking about these things. I think the current times definitely affected me to play the past in a way.

I think it’s difficult in general to constantly see these images and hear the stories of unarmed black people or just black people in general being murdered by police. That is traumatic. That is race-based trauma and as a black woman how could I not be affected by that? As I’m playing a woman who again was at the front lines, who was with Medgar Evers hours before he died before he was assassinated, who was down in Mississippi, who was fighting a fight. So I can’t help but be even more charged coming on set every day because it’s like, “Damn, when are things really going to change?” Again the fight must go on.

So now that the show is finally about to come out, why should people watch “Good Girls Revolt?”

“Good Girls Revolt” is a great show touching on some issues that everyone can still relate to now, but also shining light on some really great women who fought for their right to write. So many women have benefited from it. I think it’s a great moment in history that has gone unsung for a long time. And who doesn’t love the ‘60s?


Oh, and my afro is amazing! That is actually the main reason that they should watch the show. My afro is doing all kinds of things.

I’ll just put that down as your answer then. 

That’s right. Two words: my afro.

“Good Girls Revolt” will be released on Amazon on Friday. The pilot is currently available to watch for free.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


John Baxter: Global Summit to Investigate Why Forty Minutes of Power Represents Absolute Limit of Cordless Vacuum Technology in 2016

October 25, 2016 by  
Filed under Humor

Scientists and engineers from around the world will converge on Geneva next week to address one of the biggest mysteries of the tech age: why a simple…

Read more: Technology, Satire, Parody, Comedy News

Read original article here

Glenn Beck Says Trump Is A ‘Frightening’ Sociopath

October 24, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

Glenn Beck made his disdain for GOP nominee Donald Trump clear earlier this month, when he suggested voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton could be a “moral, ethical choice.” Now, the conservative pundit has gone even further, saying that Trump’s behavior seems “possibly sociopathic.”

In an interview with Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Beck said he thought Trump was a sociopath because of his lack of empathy for others.

“Have you seen him, during the last year and a half, truly feel for someone that couldn’t help him?” Beck asked. “Truly connect on a human level and say, ‘This has made me stop. This has made me think. I’m deeply sorry for what I have said?’”

“Frightening,” he added.

Beck has been part of the conservative anti-Trump movement. He told Vice that he even considered voting for Clinton, but ultimately “can’t do it.” 

“I think Donald Trump is so unstable ? so dangerous ? that it has crossed my mind,” Beck said.

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly
political violence
and is a <a
style=”font-weight: 400;”>serial liar
, <a
style=”font-weight: 400;”>rampant xenophobe
racist, <span
style=”font-weight: 400;”>misogynist
and <a
>birther who has
repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from
entering the U.S.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Greg Scarnici: Why I’m Voting For Trump

October 24, 2016 by  
Filed under Humor

I am intrigued by a man who responds to those who question his policies by attacking them on Twitter. It reminds me of the time I pulled Kelly McGovern’s hair when she called me, “Gaygory” for dressing like Prince in third grade.

Read more: Donald Trump, 2016 Election, Satire, Queer Voices News

Read original article here

Yoga Pants Parade Celebrates The Right To Look And Feel Fabulous

October 24, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

Don’t mess with women’s yoga pants. 

An angry letter to a Rhode Island newspaper demanding that older women stop wearing yoga pants prompted hundreds to participate in a parade while clad in the popular workout apparel.

On Sunday, the comfortably attired protesters marched right past the home of Alan Sorrentino, who last week complained about yoga pants in the Barrington Times, saying that women over 20 shouldn’t wear them.

“(O)n mature, adult women there is something bizarre and disturbing about the appearance they make in public,” he wrote. “Maybe it’s the unforgiving perspective they provide, inappropriate for general consumption, TMI, or the spector [sic] of someone coping poorly with their weight or advancing age that makes yoga pants so weird in public.”

Needless to say, local women weren’t happy about being told what they should or shouldn’t wear and arranged Sunday’s Yoga Pants Parade as both a protest and a celebration.  When they reached Sorrentino’s home, he had a message for the marchers: 

The man's home who started it all, promoting "free speech" and peace. #yogapantsparade

— Kyle J. Silva (@Kyle_J_Silva) October 23, 2016

Other neighbors also had messages for the Yoga Pants Parade, like this home: 

Welcoming neighborhood! #yogapantsparade

— Danielle (@DBlasczak) October 23, 2016

The marchers said they weren’t engaging in a “hateful protest” against Sorrentino but rather “celebrating our bodies and our right to cover them however we see fit.” Writing on Facebook, the organizers said: 

“And while yoga pants seem to be a silly thing to fight for, they are representative of something much bigger ? Misogyny and the history of men policing women’s bodies.”

Here are some more images from the #YogaPantsParade

a great day to be a woman #yogapantsparade

A photo posted by Abby Voigt (@abbyvoigt_) on Oct 23, 2016 at 2:36pm PDT

The Yoga Pants Parade in Barrington, Rhode Island. #yogapants #rhodeisland #barrington #yogapantsparade

— Selena Maranjian (@SelenaMaranjian) October 23, 2016

Hundreds defend yoga pants in protest parade #yogapantsparade

— FOX 61 (@FOX61News) October 23, 2016

It was a great day for a #yogapantsparade#Peaceful demonstration and #freespeech are powerful rights for all voices #allpantsmatter

— EB Events (@eastbayrievents) October 23, 2016

Participants finishing the day with a quick yoga flow @ABC6 #YogaPantsParade

— Bianca Buono (@BBuonoABC6) October 23, 2016

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=5616ab26e4b0082030a18a05,55c3cdd2e4b0f1cbf1e46885,5798d978e4b0e339c240009f

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Marty Rudoy: Supreme Court Confirms 20-Year Prison Sentence For Ex-VP Dick Cheney

October 23, 2016 by  
Filed under Humor

Washington DC, Oct. 23, 2019 (Goodyear Satire Co.)–

The US Supreme Court upheld a 20-year prison sentence for former Vice President Dick Cheney, con…

Read more: Donald Trump, Satire, Supreme Court, Dick Cheney, Iraq War, War Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Comedy News

Read original article here

Tom Hanks Takes On His Toughest Role As A Donald Trump Supporter For ‘SNL’

October 23, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

Tom Hanks transformed himself into a paranoid Donald Trump supporter to play the spoof game show “Black Jeopardy!” on “Saturday Night Live.”

The Hollywood star, who has repeatedly railed against the GOP nominee in real life, donned a fake white beard and a red “Make America Great Again” cap for the role of conspiracy theorist Doug.

With “SNL” previously likening Trump supporters to white nationalists, viewers were likely expecting his character to be as racist as the brash businessman he supports.

But the segment took a more subtle turn, as it emerged that Doug had more in common with his two black female competitors Keeley and Shanice (played by Sassier Zamata and Leslie Jones) and black host Darnell Hayes (portrayed by Kenan Thompson) than most people may have initially thought.

The group’s rapport steadily grew as Doug correctly answered questions on the upcoming election and global conspiracy theories. Hayes even shook his hand after a particularly inspired response.

But then it all fell apart just as fast when Hayes introduced the final category ? “Lives That Matter.” “It was good while it lasted, Doug,” quipped Hayes.

Check it out in the clip above.

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=580c5003e4b0a03911ed5422,580b5d2ee4b02444efa3afe9,580c6cb4e4b02444efa3df87

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Fact-checking Clinton and Trump is Not Enough

October 22, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

By Gleb Tsipursky, The Ohio State University

debate audience/AP photo
The audience listens to the third presidential debate, Oct. 19, 2016. AP Photo/John Locher

During the debates, fact-checkers like CNN and Politifact focus on evaluating the truthfulness of what each candidate said.

While it is important to get the facts straight, focusing on the truth of the candidates’ statements is not nearly enough to evaluate the actual impact of the debate on the audience. How candidates say things matters just as much as whether they stuck to the facts.

Savvy politicians can take advantage of what scholars call cognitive biases, which make us believe something is true because we feel it is true, regardless of the evidence. This phenomenon is also known as emotional reasoning.

We may think of ourselves as rational creatures who form our opinions based on logic. In reality, our emotions play a much larger role in influencing our beliefs than we think.

We make quick and intuitive decisions based on our autopilot system of thinking, also known as system 1. This is one of the two systems of thinking in our brains. It makes good decisions most of the time, according to Nobel Prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, but is more subject to bias than the other thinking system – known as the intentional system, or system 2. The intentional system is deliberate and reflective. It takes effort to use but it can catch and override the bias committed by system 1. Kahneman describes these as “fast” and “slow” thinking.

Politicians skilled in the art of public speaking can persuade us by playing to the more powerful autopilot system that guides our fast thinking and avoiding arguments based on evidence, reason and logic. Unless we pay close attention, mindfully slowing down and thinking more intentionally, we are highly likely to be influenced by these more emotional appeals.

Fast talking, poor thinking

NYU students react to the final debate, Oct. 19, 2016.
AP Photo/Julie Jacobson

Each candidate made a number of such appeals during the Oct. 19 debate.

Hillary Clinton stated that Donald Trump is Vladimir Putin’s “puppet.” This invoked a bias likely to cloud the minds of the audience – the halo effect. This bias emerges when we see something we like or dislike, and associate this emotional reaction with something else.

Clinton knows that many Americans do not like Putin. Plus, the image of being someone’s puppet is quite distasteful. Combining Trump with Putin and puppet is bound to create a negative emotional association.

A fact-checker would not be able to give a straight answer on whether Trump is Putin’s puppet. This depends on one’s interpretation, and Clinton could certainly defend her perspective. Yet we can recognize that her framing of this issue is designed to appeal to our fast thinking and create a certain impression that does not necessarily match the facts.

For his part, Trump used repetition to drive home his claims, invoking the so-called “illusory truth effect.” This bias causes our brains to perceive something as true just because we hear it repeated. In other words, just because something is repeated several times, we perceive it as more true.

You may have noticed the last two sentences in the previous paragraph had the same meaning and a similar structure. The second sentence didn’t provide any new information, but it did cause you to believe my claim more than you did when you read the first sentence. In fact, much of advertising is based on using the illusory truth effect to get us to buy more goods.

In the debate, Trump’s relentless repetition of the claim that NAFTA is the “worst deal ever signed” and cost Americans “millions of jobs” functions the same way. Despite the fact that experts disagree on the impact of NAFTA on the U.S. job market, Trump has successfully convinced many millions that NAFTA is terrible.

Trump makes similar statements about not supporting going into Iraq. Many of his supporters are staunchly convinced that he opposed the war, despite clear evidence that he was for it before he was against it. His repetition causes our autopilot system to perceive his statements intuitively as true. It takes effort to fight this perception by using our slow thinking.

Turning once again to Clinton, we see her utilizing the illusion of control. This bias occurs when we perceive ourselves as having more control over a situation than we actually do. For instance, Clinton attributed the decline in the U.S. national debt in the 1990s primarily to her husband’s policies. This exaggerates the actual impact that any president can have on the national debt.

Overly optimistic

Clinton also insisted – as did Trump – that her policies would add nothing to the national debt, despite independent reports by experts showing that Clinton’s economic reforms would likely add billions of dollars and Trump’s plan add trillions to the debt. Clinton’s statements on debt, along with Trump’s, showed both illusion of control and the desirability bias, which leads one to believe their idealized outcomes will come true.

Another claim often repeated by Trump ties in to his core message – America is much worse than it used to be. He conveys a rosy picture of an idealized American past, when everything was right with the world. It’s reflected in Trump’s motto: “Make America Great Again.”

This motto speaks to our tendency to view the past through rose-colored glasses, a bias known as rosy retrospection and also as declinism.

Many would argue, and I would agree, the world has actually grown better by a variety of different measurements. For instance, people are experiencing less violence and greater health, longevity and economic well-being. Despite this, the more Trump repeats that things used to be better, the easier it is for people to agree.

These are some among many cognitive biases that the candidates used to influence our perceptions and opinions. Because we are often not aware of how the candidates are appealing to our fast thinking, they are capable of swaying our views without our knowledge.

We should start fallacy-checking the debates and public statements, in addition to fact-checking them, to guard the safety of our democracy. In the meantime, it may help to actively think more slowly about the messages Trump and Clinton are conveyingThe Conversation.

Gleb Tsipursky, Author, Speaker, Consultant, Coach, Scholar, and Social Entrepreneur. President of Intentional Insights, Assistant Professor in History of Behavioral Science,, The Ohio State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Next Page »