Why Did Trump Attack Peter Alexander at the March 20, 2020 Coronavirus Press Conference?

Donald Trump, White House photo

We heard many points made at yesterday’s press conference with President Donald Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force, but most people are talking about the president’s belligerent response to an innocent question by NBC reporter Peter Alexander. What happened is that Trump set a trap for Alexander, but Alexander didn't fall into the trap and Trump ended up trapping himself instead.

In context, the exchange went like this:

“Q    I’ll just follow up.  Nearly 200 dead.  What do you say to Americans who are scared, though?  I guess, nearly 200 dead; 14,000 who are sick; millions, as you witness, who are scared right now.  What do you say to Americans who are watching you right now who are scared?

“THE PRESIDENT:  I say that you’re a terrible reporter.  That’s what I say. Go ahead.

“Q    Mr. President, the units that were just declared —

“THE PRESIDENT:  I think it’s a very nasty question, and I think it’s a very bad signal that you’re putting out to the American people.  The American people are looking for answers and they’re looking for hope.  And you’re doing sensationalism, and the same with NBC and “Con-cast.”  I don’t call it — I don’t call it “Comcast,” I call it “Con-cast.”

To all appearances, Alexander asked a softball question. During a crisis – which Trump himself declared to be an emergency – most presidents would leap for joy at the chance to reassure the public and assert national leadership. But not Trump! Instead, Trump lashed out. Trump didn't even seem to notice that his canned response talked about hope, which is exactly what Alexander asked about.

What was the result? The predictable people make predictable responses. The mainstream press defended Alexander. An article in Vanity Fair said that the exchange proved that Trump was a “sociopath.” In contrast, conservative pundit Brit Hume agreed with Trump that Alexander asked an unfair question. Hume tweeted that it was a “gotcha question” of the kind that “hack WH reporters have been asking for decades.” Even Hume, however, agreed that Trump could have taken advantage of the opportunity to reassure viewers.

So, what’s going on here? Trump's nasty response was actually an interesting, albeit unsuccessful, rhetorical-persuasive tactic. Here's how it worked:

1. Trump and the press have been slicing at one another for years. Trump takes this personally, and he was, contrary to appearances, not at all interested in the content of Alexander’s question. He was only interested in defending himself from the press. So, ...

2. ... Given Trump’s personality and track record, my best guess – and it’s only a guess – is that Trump planned the exchange to begin with! He seemed to do something similar in 2018 when he called on CNN's Jim Acosta to ask a question. Acosta asked a tough question and Trump lashed out at him. Trump even suspended Acosta's press pass. That was an obvious set up. Now, NBC News reporters have not been among Trump's biggest boosters, and he may well have called on Alexander for the sole purpose of insulting him. Trump was probably going to attack Alexander no matter what Alexander asked. He no doubt expected Alexander to ask a tough question, but Alexander didn’t. He asked an easy question, so Trump’s tactic backfired. Trump's tactic failed because he had no way to anticipate that Alexander would ask an innocent question, and he wasn't thinking fast enough to switch tactics on the spur of the moment.

3. In a larger context, the Republican Party and the press haven’t gotten along well in recent years. Sorry to sound like a fire-breathing liberal, but the Republican Party disconnected itself from factual reporting a long time ago. That’s why Republicans and Fox News get along so well. The basic Republican policies, which revolve around tax cuts for super-rich people, are not popular and there is no evidence that they’re wise. Since these policies do not accord with the facts, Republican politicians have two obvious choices: they can admit that their policies are bad, or they can deny the very existence of facts. The latter tactic, absurd though it sounds, has served them well. Never forget that Trump staffer Kellyanne Conway introduced the concept of “alternative facts” to the news world a few years ago. So, Trump wasn't just attacking Alexander: he was attacking the concept of news reporting. His tactic would have worked in the eyes of Fox News addicts everywhere if Alexander had followed the script and asked a nasty question.

Many years ago, Daniel J. Boorstin wrote about what he called the pseudo-event. A pseudo-event is something that occurs only so it can be reported in the news. Donald Trump's rallies are classic examples.

Maybe we could say that Trump's exchange with Alexander was a pseudo-mini event. Trump picked a fight for the sole purpose of fighting. He wanted to look tough. He wanted to stand up to the press. The press was making him look bad by asking questions about the coronavirus that Trump had no good answers for. It was, Trump seemed to think, time to take vengeance. It was too bad for Trump that Alexander didn't know his lines.

Never attribute a rhetorical tactic to stupidity if you can instead attribute it to malice.

Donald Trump Could Learn Something about Good Public Speaking from Public Relations People: Truth and the Coronavirus

Coronavirus, CDC

The press often complains that President Donald Trump has been treating the coronavirus-19 crisis as a public relations problem rather than a public health issue. For example, Nancy LeTourneau writes in the Washington Monthly that Trump is making  "an effort to treat the situation as a public relations issue rather than a public health crisis." I disagree. LeTourneau's complaint underestimates the thousands of ethical public relations professionals who serve the public honorably around the country. Pretty much everything the President has done contradicts basic public relations principles. Indeed, he and his administration are making everything even worse than it needs to be by engaging in poor public relations.

What is public relations? The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) explains that "public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics" (italics added).  The most basic insight of any public relations crisis communication strategy is that the truth always comes out. Although most managers – including President Donald Trump – turn futilely to denial, obfuscation, and cover-up as their major tools, the truth is that coverups are doomed to fail. We live in an open society, and a secret that is known by dozens or hundreds of people is no secret at all. The only question is whether the manager will control the release of information to serve the public, or, instead, let the damaging information trickle out over days, weeks, months, or years, repeatedly reminding public that the organization has fallen short. Good public relations means to tell the truth, always, without exceptions. The best way to control a problematic story is to release all the information quickly and accurately, thus turning one’s mistakes into a one-day story. This frees the organization to deal with the real-world problems and make things right. Every beginning public relations student learns this.

Nevertheless, President Trump is inventing nothing new. It was the cover-up, not the initial crime of burglary, that drove President Richard Nixon out of office. Bill Clinton thought that he could deny his sleazy affair with Monica Lewinsky. He was wrong.

By trying to deny obvious truths, President Trump follows in the long, sad tradition of business managers, university presidents, and politicians who destroy their credibility and damage their organizations by misleading the public. Sora Kim, Elizabeth Johnson Avery, and Ruthann W. Lariscy explained this when they reviewed the most common responses to crises in an article published in the Public Relations Review: “Despite its ineffectiveness, organizations seem to continuously engage in denial, regardless of their crisis circumstances.”

On February 23, 2020, Trump said that the coronavirus was "very much under control in this country." That  quickly turned out to be false, and coronavirus continued to spread. The Trump administration’s promise that a million tests would be available in early March proved to be vastly overstated. President Trump’s Oval Office speech of March 11, 2012 contained several inaccuracies that needed to be corrected immediately: for example, he falsely promised to suspend the “tremendous amount of trade and cargo but various other things as we get approval.” Speaking at the CDC on March 7, he falsely said that “Anybody right now and yesterday – anybody that needs a test gets a test. They’re there. The tests are there. The tests are beautiful. Anyone who wants a test can get a test.” This was not only wrong but ridiculous, and testing has still not ramped up.

President Trump at March 15 Coronavirus Briefing

On the one hand, yes, the world has gotten accustomed to Donald Trump speaking untruthfully. And, sadly, Trump’s most loyal supporters continue to believe even his silliest claims. On the other hand, the truth comes out almost as fast as Donald Trump can lie about it. The predictable result is that he spreads confusion, damages whatever credibility he has left, and complicates effective action to deal with the crisis. So, when the Trump administration promised yesterday, March 15, to have 1.9 million tests by the end of the week, who is going to believe it? Even if it turns out to be true?

Denial is the common theme behind all of Trump’s falsehoods. He tried for weeks to deny that the coronavirus would even be a problem for the United States. He denied that the virus could get past his immigration restrictions. He denied that there was a problem with testing. As usual, denial doesn’t work. Denial doesn’t work because the problem is real. Effective public relations techniques would require the Trump administration to confront the problem head-on, as quickly and energetically as possible. Even now, with the government slowly lumbering into belated action, the United States continues to fall behind what it needs to do. And that, my friends, creates the real public relations problem.

Unfortunately, President Trump has never placed competent public relations or public affairs personnel in high positions in the White House. Sean Spicer became a worldwide joke the minute he pretended that Trump’s inauguration crowd was the largest ever. Sarah Huckabee Sanders more subtle, but she moved out of her job as it became obvious that few people in the press were foolish enough to believe what she said.

Every good public relations professional understands that, although the client pays your salary, public relations is first and foremost a social science that serves the public. Wise organizational leaders know that communicating honestly and forthrightly is the best way to maintain a long-term positive image. Unfortunately, the Trump administration’s approach to the public has been far from wise.

The Public Relations Society of America’s code of ethics specifies that “We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.” In public relations, honesty is the best policy – indeed, in the long run, the only effective policy. If Trump and his administration want to get the crisis under control, the first thing they need to do is to tell the truth about absolutely everything, all at once, without making excuses, while laying out a credible plan to make things better. Unfortunately, it remains to be seen whether anyone in the Trump administration possesses the will to do so. Instead, President Trump suffered a case study in incompetent crisis communication.

Readers may want to check out PR professional Allison Schroeder’s excellent article on the PRSA website about public relations during the coronavirus outbreak. Her non-political article gives solid advice to businesses that need to communicate with stakeholders about the coronavirus. The United States government should take heed.

In the meantime, dear readers, please stay healthy. 

Images: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Are Elizabeth Warren's Poor Presentation Skills Keeping Her Out of the White House?

Elizabeth Warren, US Senate Photo

Communication researchers often think that nonverbal communication is more important than verbal communication. I commented in my last post that Senator Elizabeth Warren is by far the most knowledgeable of the 2020 Democratic candidates for president. But we all know that she lags in the polls. Why? There are probably several reasons: too many people, sadly, don’t want a woman president. The media may be under-reporting her ideas and events while they underestimated her performance in early primary debates. Her economic ideas, which would be considered mainstream in Europe or Asia, have been branded as far left or radical, not just on Fox News, but even in the mainstream press.

None of that, however, fully explains why she’s not getting ahead. Her failure lies, not in her ideas, which I think are excellent, or in her reasoning and explanations, which are well-defined, but in the way she presents herself. In the media age, we often talk about what makes a person seem presidential. That is, certain undefined, amorphous qualities make a person seem like a world and national leader.  Elizabeth Warren would probably be an excellent president. Her ideas would probably improve the country. But it isn’t just what you say, it’s how you say it. Warren’s delivery – her use of voice, gesture, body language, and clothing communication, that is, her nonverbal communication – does not make her seem confident and powerful. She doesn’t project the gravitas to lead the country and the free world. I am not saying that she couldn’t do it, because I think she could. I am saying that she doesn’t look and sound as if she could do it.

To illustrate this, let’s look at a short speech that she gave last year at the “We the People” rally. Warren's content was typical: she complained that President Trump was a national security risk, that America’s economy had been deliberately modified in recent years to favor the rich against the working class, and that there was too much corruption in Washington. She talked about her own upbringing in a middle-class family that faced financial struggles. She said (shades of John Dean), “I want to talk about this cancer on our country.”

That’s typical stuff for a liberal politician. Her explanations were precise. She gave examples to support her points. Judged as basic economic and political policy, everything she said was just fine.

Unfortunately, although she said good things, Warren didn’t sound good. For one thing, she spoke in the upper range of her voice. Many speakers habitually speak above their voice’s optimal pitch range. They think this makes them sound excited and powerful. (I often catch myself doing the same thing: my natural voice is in the baritone range, but I often speak like a tenor. I have to fight not to sound shrill.) Other speakers force their voices down into an unnatural range, like Cliff Clavin in the TV show Cheers. It sounds comical when we hear Cliff trying to sound like a big shot. Unfortunately, too many speakers think that forcing their voices down makes them sound manly or forceful or something. They are wrong. When you speak outside of your natural range, you just sound tense and insecure.

Second, Warren speaks with obvious vocal hyperfunction. That is, her vocal muscles work too hard to produce sounds. During this speech, Warren sounded shrill, almost nervous, as if she were pleading rather than persuading. Good vocal production is almost effortless. When you sound like you’re working to speak, you can make your audience feel uncomfortable or, again, you can sound tense or insecure. (You are also more likely to get laryngitis.)

Perhaps as a result, Elizabeth Warren’s voice in this speech often cracked and sounded tense. Saturday Night Live’s brilliant mimic, Kate McKinnon, plays this characteristic to a hilarious hilt. Warren also sounded hoarse, which is not unusual for candidates during a political campaign. Still, a skillful speaker might overcome or prevent hoarseness by good breath control and relaxing the vocal muscles. Overall, Warren’s vocal skills, or lack thereof, often make her sound overeager, uncertain, and unserious. It’s quite a shame. Warren has a college degree in speech pathology and audiology, which makes me wonder why she doesn’t use her voice more effectively.

Political communication expert Jennifer Palmieri praises Warren's communication skills. Admittedly, Elizabeth Warren is, in many ways, a skilled and experienced speaker. She was a champion debater in high school. In the speech to the We the People rally, she paused with dramatic effect and used good vocal variety. That is, she adroitly varied her speed and volume; for example, slowing down and speaking quietly when she talked about her parents’ financial struggles and their problems with mortgages and foreclosures, but speaking loudly and quickly when she complained about Donald Trump’s corruption. She spoke loudly and firmly when she said, “What’s happened in America has been a series of deliberate decision made right here in Washington.” She spoke more quietly and slowly when she said, “what’s happening to working families  in this country. What’s happening to opportunity in this country.” She said “opportunity” more loudly, thus nonverbally making opportunity her main theme. That, as far as it goes, is exactly how I would teach my students to speak. That's all good. I just wish that Warren sounded better.

Let’s also look at her physical appearance. A speaker’s physical appearance is part of the nonverbal communication. During the speech, Warren wore her characteristic outfit: an ill-fitting maroon jacket, wire rim glasses, a simple black blouse, and black slacks. She looked like a schoolteacher or university professor. Well, of course, she’s both of those things. I don’t have anything against looking like a university professor; I taught at universities for many years and often wore plaid jackets and plaid ties. It was part of the uniform. A president, however, needs to look like a serious person. Warren did not dress like a serious person. Her entire appearance was insubstantial. Her appearance would serve just fine if she were selling furniture or used cars. Her manner of dress probably makes her seem approachable, friendly, and positive. That manner of dress, in fact, probably tested well during her campaign research and focus groups.  But could you look like that and beat Donald Trump? I don’t see how.

Years ago, I was a high school debater just like Elizabeth Warren. I was not as successful as she was; my partner, future scientist Kenneth Marton, and I at Virginia’s Oakton High School qualified for the state tournament but finished in the middle of the pack. We had three wins and three losses; one of our losses was to national high school champion Dennis Henigan, which is surely no shame.

Anyway, our local high school debate league was constantly looking for judges, and both of my parents volunteered – my father, an attorney, and my mother, a high school debater herself, were both considered qualified. After judging several debates, my mother commented that the female debaters had a difficult task. They needed, she said, to sound forceful and confident without sounding shrill. That is not fair, of course, any more than it is fair to judge a candidate by how she dresses. But it is reality. Neither Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard, who also declared for the Democratic presidential primaries, has anything like Warren’s intellectual power. They do, however, have superb vocal control. They sound good when they talk: their voices are relaxed and rich. They project confidence without seeming eager. They sound serious.

Can a woman become president? I would like to hope so. Speaking only for myself, I think almost any of the female candidates in 2016 would be a better president than almost any of the men. If the Democrats could find a candidate with Elizabeth Warren’s ideas and Tulsi Gabbard’s voice, they might crush Donald Trump in a landslide.

I know that it seems unfair to criticize a female candidate for how she looks and sounds, but it isn’t just women. Let’s face facts: male candidate Pete Buttigieg sounds whiny; Bernie Sanders yells too much, for which he is justly criticized, and he needs a better haircut, while Andrew Yang never wore a tie during the primary debates. That was the end of the line for Yang: rightly so, in my opinion. If you’re a lightweight, you need to stay out of the White House.

We were all taught in high school to choose candidates by judging their issue positions and evaluating their qualifications to lead the free world. Donald Trump, however, won the presidency without passing either test: his issue positions were idiotic (Mexico will pay for the wall? Really?), and he demonstrated no personal qualities sufficient to lead a local hardware store. However, when he speaks, he sounds supremely confident. He manipulates his voice clearly, naturally, and powerfully. His voice expresses vast emotional range. He makes every word count. No, speech delivery is not the only thing that matters. It’s not even the most important thing: even in the age of the rhetorical presidency, many people think that presentation skills should have little bearing on choosing a presidential candidate. All the same, political candidates need to know how to convey a serious, confident impression when they speak.

P.S.: How can speakers improve their voice? I took two years of voice therapy from speech pathologists. I will never sound like a newscaster, but I sound a lot better than I used to. Furthermore, after treating my vocal hyperfunction, I no longer get laryngitis even when I have a bad cold. For some people, acting classes might have a similar effect. Colleges used to teach voice and diction classes. These are less common now than in the past, but I recommend taking one if you can find it. Or, if you simply train yourself to relax your neck and breathe from the abdomen, like a singer, you’ll sound at least a little bit better. 

Here is an old trick to find your natural vocal range: sit in a comfortable chair, close your eyes, relax, breathe slowly, and hum. You will be humming in your natural range. Your natural range, maybe much to your surprise, will probably be higher or lower than the way you usually speak. You do not sound your best when you force your voice to be high or low. You sound your best, by far, when you speak in the range that your voice wants to use.