Friday, June 9, 2017

Comey, Part 3, and Why Research Is Good

Former FBI Director James Comey gave powerful testimony on June 8. But we all interpret speech through our own filters, what Kenneth Burke called a "terministic screen." So, different listeners report greatly different interpretations of what Comey said.

Examples: conservative (but anti-Trump) writer Jennifer Rubin found Comey convincing and wrote that "There’s no unringing the alarm bells Comey sounded over the past two days."

Taking the opposite point, Fox News's Politics home page this morning blared: "Comey Testimony: Trump Responds, Claims 'Total and Complete Vindication."

It is very hard to reconcile those two different interpretations of the same speaking event. Actually, Rubin seemed to draw more impact from the testimony than the general public, while the Fox report obviously skimmed over some important facts.

So - if you want to have your own previous political views reinforced, just get your news from the source you like best. You will then be smug but ignorant. If you want to form a reasoned opinion, get several sources. Keep an open mind. Know that you might be wrong.

The best opinions in this case would come from watching or reading the entire testimony. And remember Ralph Nichols' lesson about listening: understand first, and only then decide whether to agree or disagree.

Or, as my friend and colleage, the late Dr. James Fee used to say, "Persuasion takes place in the receiver. There's nowhere else it can take place." It's not just what Comey said; it's how people interpret it. In a free society, voters need to gather enough information to form a reasoned opinion.

Earlier posts about Comey here and here

No comments:

Post a Comment