Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

Coronavirus Task Force, White House photo

Last Thursday, President Donald Trump asked during a Coronavirus Task Force press briefing in the White House whether scientists might look into injecting disinfectants or shining ultraviolet light into coronavirus patients to cure this terrible disease. This stunningly stupid idea created enormous controversy, although probably not as much as it should have, with interesting rhetorical effects:

1. President Trump was obviously unprepared for the briefing, showing once again that speakers need research.

2. Trump and his enablers in the conservative media have subsequently been going overboard trying to reconcile his ridiculous speculation with some kind of rational belief system. But they failed to coordinate their stories. 

3.The other task force members played dumb, showing, once again that people need to speak the truth to power.

This post looks at #1: speakers need research. I plan to write about #2 and #3 over the next few days.

What Trump Said
Let’s start with what Trump said. He made his comments immediately after a report from William Bryan, Acting Under Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and not in answer to a reporter’s question. Bryan discussed various disinfectant solutions and made the mistake of saying, “you inject summer — the sunlight into that. You inject UV rays into that.”  That should have been harmless enough, except that, by saying “inject,” Bryan apparently gave Trump an idea. Oops.

I’ll quote Trump’s entire section to make sure that the context is clear (since, as we’ll see in a later post, the White House claims that he was taken out of context):

“THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Bill.

“Q Mr. Bryan —

“THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting.

“ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

“So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s — that’s pretty powerful.”

This was not an offhand comment; Trump suggested his bizarre medical solutions at length.

Later in the briefing, a reporter (finally) asked Bryan about Trump’s statement. Trump then backtracked:

“Q But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —

“ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: No, I’m here to talk about the findings that we had in the study. We won’t do that within that lab and our lab. So —

“THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.”

Speakers Need Research: The Continuing Case of Donald Trump?

Speakers Need Research, and President Trump Gathered a Little Bit of Research About the Coronavirus

Trump Got His Facts Wrong
Pretty much any mother in America could warn you that it’s a bad idea to take disinfectant internally. Responsible people quickly jumped Trump’s ridiculous ideas. CNN’s Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, said that injecting disinfectants had “absolutely no merit.” The Clorox Company, which manufactures bleach, quickly issued a warning on its website carefully distinguishing between consuming disinfectants as opposed to using them to clean surfaces:

“Bleach and other disinfectants are not suitable for consumption or injection under any circumstances. People should always read the label for proper usage instructions. Disinfecting surfaces with bleach and other disinfecting products is one of the ways to help stop the spread of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The manufacturer of Lysol promptly issued a statement warning against taking their product internally:

“Due to recent speculation and social media activity, RB (the makers of Lysol and Dettol) has been asked whether internal administration of disinfectants may be appropriate for investigation or use as a treatment for coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route). As with all products, our disinfectant and hygiene products should only be used as intended and in line with usage guidelines. Please read the label and safety information.”

The ultimate humiliation, at least to Republicans, might be an article from Al Jazeera, the Arab news agency, quoting a number of medical authorities to explain how dangerous Trump’s suggestion was.

Trump Needed Research
Now, let’s talk about why we need research. On the one hand, President Trump can pick up a phone and in a few minutes talk to people either in or out of government who know more about just about any subject than anyone else in the world. He could, on the other hand, look up information about disinfectants on his infamous cell phone. If he had done so, Trump might have encountered this passage in which, two days before his disastrous press conference, WebMD warned that the coronavirus pandemic had resulted in increasing cases of poisoning when people, especially children, consumed disinfectants:

“‘Exposures to cleaners and disinfectants reported to NPDS [the National Poison Data System] increased substantially in early March 2020,’ noted a team led by Dr. Arthur Chang, a researcher at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

An argument walking around in the dark corners of conservative talk says that only an idiot would have taken Trump seriously. This is so. Nevertheless, what does that stay about the uninformed president who asked an idiotic question founded on appalling ignorance? I hope to talk about that in an upcoming post.

The President of the United States has great prestige simply because of his office. Incredibly, despite his long record of getting things wrong (PolitiFact.com has rated hundreds of Trump statements, finding 21% to be Mostly False, 34% to be False, and 14% to be Pants on Fire) millions of Americans hang on President Trump’s every word. He has a responsibility to get things right.

The idea of a press briefing is to convey factual information to the public during an international crisis. The people who present such briefings have a basic obligation to get things right. For the president to spew dangerous nonsense, recognizing that millions of Americans are foolish enough to believe the things he says, overthrows the briefing’s purpose. Fortunately, there are no signs that Trump’s supporters are mainlining bleach. At least, not yet.

Although it is surprising that he didn’t understand that people should not inject disinfectants, Trump could easily have checked the facts before he opened his mouth. It’s okay if the president doesn’t know everything off the top of his head. It’s not okay if he fails to gather simple, easily available information before he briefs the American public about a national emergency.

Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself (P.S.: Speakers Need Research)

I first became interested in communication and rhetoric because of my participation in my high school and college debate teams. In academic settings, the debaters with the best research win the debates. Unfortunately, however, we need to remind politicians to check their facts before they speak.

Stay tuned for future posts about this bizarre press briefing, when I will write about Trump's advisors and the desperate responses on conservative media.

Update: Increased calls about disinfectant consumption after Trump's briefing?

Once Again, Trump Proves That Speakers Need Research

Donald Trump, White House photo

Yes (sigh), once again, Donald Trump needed research. Trump’s town hall yesterday at the Lincoln Memorial, although bizarre, was no more bizarre than his usual public presentations. He made simple factual errors that could have been easily prevented. All he needed was a few minutes of research. 

Of his many odd statements, what struck me most was his ignorant comment about the 1918 flu epidemic:

"So in 1917, we had a horrible, that case was the flu, you remember the Spanish flu? So much has been written about it, now of course it’s the hottest.” 

He continued:

“Everybody that writes a book about the Spanish flu of 1917, it killed between I guess 50 to a hundred million people. It probably ended the first world war because the soldiers were all getting sick. It was the worst the world has ever seen that we know of.”

Speakers need research, and Trump didn’t have it.

First, the so-called Spanish flu broke out in the spring of 1918, not 1917. Somehow, Trump seems to have in his head that it started in 1917 and he has been unable to get that straight. The History Channel website, for instance, explains that: “The first wave of the 1918 pandemic occurred in the spring and was generally mild.” For a more prestigious source, we can turn to an article in the scientific journal Revista Biomedica, where scientists Jeffery K. Taubenberger and David M. Morens explain that “The ‘Spanish’ influenza pandemic of 1918–1919, which caused ≈50 million deaths worldwide, remains an ominous warning to public health.”

Second, although the influenza epidemic spread across the world and infected many service personnel, it did not end World War I. A simple glance at credible sources (like the History Channel) would establish that the 1918 (not 1917) influenza pandemic swept through the United States Army and Navy, and yet the United States was on the winning side. An article in the scientific journal Virology gives similar information in more depth.

I assume (it’s not entirely certain, given his comments) that Trump understood that the United States did, in fact, fight on the winning side? If not, research makes that information available as well. For example, an article on the Imperial War Museum website explains the 1918 armistice’s terms. The United States Library of Congress offers a PDF file of the armistice’s actual text.

Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

The sources that I cited are easy to find. I avoided sources like Wikipedia or other encyclopedias and instead looked for information published by responsible people and organizations. Primary sources, such as the actual text of the armistice, are especially credible. I was careful not to rely just on one source for potentially controversial information. It didn’t take me long to get the basic facts.  The History Channel website shows up prominently on a Google or Bing search, whereas Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) offers quality academic sources, often with full-text links, at the click of a button.

Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself (P.S. Speakers Need Research)

If he decides to stop making silly mistakes, Mr. Trump can make either of two choices: (1) he can get on his famous cell phone and look up simple facts, or (2) he could ask his advisors for some quick research before (not after) he opens his mouth. Neither method would take any more time than sending out four or five rage tweets

Millions of people believe the President of the United States just because he is the President. That means that the President of the United States really should make basic efforts to get his facts right. At the same time, the more mistakes the President makes, the less likely it is that people will believe him in the future. Even slavish acolytes might have limits. Trump’s political prospects could improve if he didn’t make so many silly mistakes and commit so many unforced research errors.

P.S.: Many of the things we learn in school become out of date 20 or 30 years later. That is why the most important thing you can get out of high school and college is to learn how to locate and evaluate quality, credible information for yourself. Learning and education are lifelong tasks.

Tweeters Need Research: The Sad Case of Governor Abbott and the Christian Right

Just as speakers need to check their facts, so do politicians on social media. After the Houston Chronicle published an impassioned editorial to remind readers that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were political refugees, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas posted this obnoxious post on X (formerly Twitter):

“Chron doesn’t know the story of Mary & Joseph. They weren’t 'refugees' (look up definition)

Read Luke 2:1-10 They were ordered by the govt to go to Bethlehem to register for the census.

Nice distortion. Doing Devil’s work.”

Wow! “Devil’s work!” Strong words from a mass-going Catholic and scion of the Christian Right, who, evidently, needed to recheck the Bible. Reinforcing his ridicule, Abbott added 3 emoji of faces laughing themselves to tears. 

Did Abbott Read All of the Gospels? 

But Abbott did not do his research. For the Holy Family’s refugee story is found, not in the Gospel of Luke, as Abbott imagined, but in the Gospel of Matthew. That is, traveling among Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, as described in Luke, did not make Jesus and his family refugees. According to Matthew’s gospel, however, they escaped their country and fled to Egypt to escape political persecution from King Herod. That is what made them refugees, but that story is not found in the Gospel of Luke! There are two stories of the birth of Jesus Christ in the Gospel, and Christians know to read both.

Earlier Post: Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself (P.S.: Speakers Need Research)

So, in the second chapter of Matthew (so you don’t need to read very far), we read the story of the Wise Men (or Magi). The Magi came from the east, following a star. (Surely Abbott has heard about the Star of Bethlehem? But, then, maybe not). The Magi told King Herod that:

“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” (Matthew 2:6 KJV)

This disturbed Herod, who figured that he, not some upstart from Bethlehem, was governor of Judea. So, forging a crafty plan, Herod told the Magi:

“And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.” (Matthew 2:8 KJV)

The Magi found Jesus and gave him gifts of “gold, and frankincense, and myrrh” (Matthew 2:11 KJV).  However, being warned in a dream, the Magi did not return to Herod and took another road home. Enraged, malicious, and fearful (like most dictators), Herod ordered that all boys under the age of two should be put to the sword (Matthew 2:16). This would, he figured, ensure that the future upstart governor would meet his end. 

Escaping to Egypt to Avoid Political Execution

The Holy Family foiled Herod’s plot, however, for Jesus, Mary, and Joseph became political refugees. Having been warned in a dream, Joseph collected his family and fled to Egypt to avoid Herod’s slaughter. They remained there, safe from political persecution, until the king died:

“And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

“When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:13-14 KJV).

After Herod’s death, Joseph received another dream (many dreams in this story) that Herod had died. Joseph took his family to Nazareth, and the gospel narrative continued.

Earlier Post: Romans 13, Jeff Sessions, and the Cultural Heritage of Conservative Immigration Policy

Research Is Important

So, let the reader recognize Governor Abbott's astonishing arrogance. Not only did he fail to make even the most minimal effort to look at the biblical accounts of Jesus’ birth, but he snarked at the Houston Chronicle’s writers, who obviously had read the Bible. Abbot said: 

“Nice distortion. Doing Devil’s work.”

Just as speakers need research, so do politicians who post on social media.

Nativity Scene, Shepherds on Left, Magi on the Right

It is, on the one hand, bizarre that Governor Abbott, who loves to appeal to conservative Christian voters, did not know the familiar story. After all, almost every Christmas creche scene features the Magi (Gospel of Matthew) visiting the baby Jesus, lying in a manger (Gospel of Luke), right next to the shepherds (Gospel of Luke) who also paid a call. Still, on the other hand, Abbot’s mistake reminds us of the object lesson: that we should check our facts before we speak.

The sad part is that Abbott’s obviously cruel, inaccurate account of the Bible story might gain him votes from the Christian Right. 

______________________

P.S. The underlying complexity, of course, arises because a narrative of Jesus’ birth only appears in two places in the Bible. In Matthew, we encounter the Star of Bethlehem, the Magi (or Wise Men), the flight to Egypt, and the slaughter of the innocents. In Luke, we read the Magnificat. We then find (still in Luke) that Jesus was laid in a manger and was visited by shepherds, following which the family traveled peacefully to Jerusalem and Nazareth. Abbott is aware, obviously, that the Gospel of Luke does not feature any political refugees. If only Abbott had also read Matthew, the very first book of the New Testament! 

The Magi, of course, were priests of the Zoroastrian faith.

As the reader can see, the different accounts of Jesus’ birth are, well, different, and I will let theologians argue about whether they are, or are not consistent, as well as whether they do, or do not, possess any verifiable historical accuracy. Anyway, today (December 30) is the traditional fifth day of Christmas (the count starts on December 26 for some traditional reason), so, maybe, if you are lucky, your true love will give you five golden rings today. One can always hope!

The Chronicle gave a polite, well-argued response to Abbott’s attack. 

My wife, Dr. Elaine Clanton Harpine, bought the pictured lovely, hand-carved nativity scene while she was still in school.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2023 William D. Harpine

Nativity Scene Image: William D. Harpine, © 2023

You Might Persuade Climate Change Skeptics by Giving Them Information

Climate Change and the Amazon Drought

The big problem with most climate change speeches is that the speakers tell the audience that there is a lot of evidence about climate change, but they don’t explain what the evidence is. I showed in my previous post that you can’t persuade climate change skeptics by insulting them and calling them names. You also can’t persuade climate change skeptics just by promising that the scientists agree. That asks them to change their minds on faith, and skeptics are not going to change their minds on faith. They need evidence. That doesn’t mean that evidence will always persuade them; it won’t. But evidence is all we have.

Persuasion Theory

Let’s go over a few basic points of persuasion theory.  A well-established persuasion theory is the Elaboration Likelihood Model, which I have written about a few times. This theory, developed by psychologists Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo, says that there are two paths by which listeners process persuasive messages. People follow the central path when they think about a message carefully. This occurs when people are motivated to analyze a persuasive message and feel that they have the skill and knowledge to do so. The peripheral path does not involve careful thinking. Instead, the listener relies on peripheral cues, such as whether the listener likes the speaker, finds the speaker attractive, or already has a positive attitude toward the message. The number (as opposed to the quality) of messages gives listeners a peripheral cue.

When people change their attitudes over the central route, the attitude change is likely to be long-lasting and to influence their behavior. For example, it might influence their long-term voting. But attitude change that occurs over the peripheral route is likely to be temporary and easily changed. Furthermore, attitude change over the peripheral route is unlikely to change people’s long-term behavior. Much advertising, including most political advertising, aims at the peripheral route. That, for example, is why many political messages are ridiculously short and convey little actual information. Voters who process information on a given topic by the central route will ignore such short, simple messages.

Speakers cannot control whether the audience will process a message by the central or peripheral route. They can, however, offer the audience opportunities to process information. When a speaker says, “scientists agree about climate change,” the speaker is appealing purely to the peripheral route. That almost all scientists do, in fact, agree about climate change is a peripheral cue. Climate change skeptics, however, are exposed to many other peripheral cues.  For example, they hear Fox News hosts and talk radio personalities call climate change a hoax. When speakers give the audience too little information, they offer the audience little chance to process a message by the central route. Of course, a highly motivated audience member can find the research on Google Scholar. But how many people will do so? Climate change speakers make a mistake when they do not invite central route processing. Here are the reasons why and what to do about them:

First, the evidence for climate change is complex. A superficial speech cannot address complexities.

Second, audience members might not feel that they have the knowledge or ability to analyze the scientific information for themselves. People use the central route only when they feel motivated and capable. That is why it becomes a speaker’s job to present information in a way that is accessible and persuasive. That requires a speaker to do research (and I’ve often commented that speakers need research) and to present that research to the audience in a way that is clear and well-organized. That requires a speaker to make a lot of effort, but the effort might pay off in a higher likelihood that the audience will choose to process the information critically.

Third, the speaker needs to give the audience a reason to think carefully about climate change. The central route requires effort! That is where Greta Thunberg has been doing a great job. She is enthusiastic and knows how to get the audience’s attention. But what she has not done, however, is to help people understand the information. That’s probably too much to expect from any 16-year-old speaker, no matter how smart she is, so it’s time for other speakers to pick up the load and take the next step.

Fourth, it is necessary to anticipate the most common objections that climate change skeptics present. Skeptics will say that scientists once complained about global cooling, which is partially true. They will point out that there are natural causes of climate change. This is also true, although a bit beside the point. Some people will flat-out deny that the climate is changing at all, since day-to day weather changes much more than the two degrees of warming that we’ve seen so far from climate change. Speakers should not expect conservative objectors to give them a reasonable chance to engage in back-and-forth dialogue. That experience, which high school and college debate teams take for granted, rarely occurs in the real world. Instead, speakers need to anticipate and preempt the major objections, and to refute those objections with care. Speakers should assume that they only get one shot to make their case. (That doesn't mean that one speech is enough, but that's a topic for another day.) Again, asking the audience to take something on faith invites them to process the message by the peripheral route.

All effective persuasion comes down to giving people information. The better job a speaker does of presenting information, the more likely it is that audiences will respond. We ask a lot of people when we expect them to cut back how much they use the fossil-fuel energy sources that have made the industrial nations so prosperous. It is wrong to think that changing people’s minds will ever be an easy job. Any time we think about persuasion, we need to think about the audience.

So, that’s what persuasion research tells us. In my next post, I’ll show how these persuasion principles might work in a practical way. 

P.S. Many good sources explain the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Here’s a simple, accurate explanation by an Oregon State University professor. Any current persuasion textbook will also discuss this model. Ambitious (and wealthy) readers can buy an e-book version of Petty and Cacioppo’s book here.

Image from NASA.