﻿"Alternative Facts"

"Alternative Facts"

1/24/2017

Watching Sunday morning news shows certainly has become entertaining of late. As a rhetorician, I am interested in the spin that shapes (or tries to shape) the analysis. Whether or not you caught the argument between Chuck Todd of Meet the Press and Kellyanne Conway representing the Whitehouse, the phrase "alternative facts" has likely crossed your social media.

I'm curious how this phrase will affect discourse, teaching, and, of course, the rhetoric of the Whitehouse. Urban Dictionary has already defined the phrase as follows: "When truth is so unfavorable to a pathological liar, that they must invent a whole new category of lies to describe their nakedly intentional acts of deception." You may have also seen the image of the children's book:

While I'm not looking for a political stance here (that is your support or not for the current administration), I am interested in how you see the impact--if any-- of such spin as this phrase.

12 Comments

Sydney Cabral link

1/24/2017 12:52:31 pm

The phrase "alternative facts" is, in my opinion, just a way for people to tell lies in a "politically correct" way. This phrase can be damaging for our society because it basically offers a way for people to always say whatever they see fit. Even if something is not a fact (and therefore just an opinion or lie), just saying that it is an "alternative fact" gives some justification to it. This will most likely lead to more ignorant comments about fake news that people post about on social media without actually looking up the truth value of that story.

Tristen Merchant

1/25/2017 01:42:57 pm

The fact that the Trump Adminstration has been in power for less than a week before they coined the phrase "alternative fact" is legitimately concerning to me.

I don't understand why they felt the need to tell a boldface lie about something as insignificant as numbers at the inaugeration so early on. I can't help but wonder what will be the next "alternative fact".

On a side note, I was watching a YouTube video titled Donald Trump: Magician in Chief a while ago and this whole "alternative fact" situation connects spot on with the premise of the video. As explained in the video, magicians often direct your attention on one thing so they can pull off the real trick without you knowing until it is too late. Although this is somewhat conspiracy theory type of stuff, this may be his administrations latest attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the public as he signs executive orders and does things that are largely unfavorable in the eyes of the masses. By making everyone talk about what I am talking about right now, he limits the amount of attention that his policy ends up receiving.

Link for that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkvvAQxxo_0&t=95s

Lindsay Gurka

1/25/2017 02:28:10 pm

While this may be a newly coined term, it's really nothing new in politics, we just have a name for what the politicians do now. Is it deceitful? Yes, but it honestly does not surprise me as it seems that all politicians side with whatever is beneficial for them in the spur of the moment, and not necessarily for the good of the people they represent. In the realm of scholarly papers, I don't see this effecting much, but in the social media world I can see this dividing an already fragile society even more, which is where my true concern lies.

Elizabeth Hickey

1/25/2017 04:15:52 pm

The term "alternate facts" does not concern me nearly as much as it does others. As someone before has already said in this forum, there is nothing that's truly new about politicians lying. There are groups of people who are trying to tear apart the Trump Administration for any wrongdoing, whether the administration deserves it or not. I believe nothing has really changed with the introduction of "alternate facts" into our vocabulary. All we're seeing now is a horrendously divided country being even further divided by the realization that we do not trust the government.

Sally Loschiavo

1/25/2017 06:56:26 pm

As a political science major and a very opinionated person it'll be hard to leave out my personal stance in this response. But in all honesty I think her usage of "alternative facts" is terrifying and it should be alarming to most Americans. While politicians have famously used certain rhetoric to get around a few questions or issues, this was a complete disregard for the truth. The fact that Trump's press secretary can lie is not okay because if they can say what we are seeing with our own eyes is lie, imagine what they can lie about that we can't see.
I believe it's foreshadowing a government that will lie to the public, and disregard our best interest and preferences. You can see that in how Trump has added to the swamp he said he would drain, and his accumulating number of executive orders. Orders such as beginning to repeal the Affordable Care Act, revived two deadly pipeline projects, and brought back the Mexico City Policy.
His battle with the media is equally as troublesome because the first step to being a dictator is controlling the press. He has called CNN "fake news", and he condemned the EPA to a media blackout, It is not the first lie and it will not be the last. This is the start of a very long string of lies.

Kaleigh Longe

1/26/2017 08:51:39 am

As some people have pointed out, it is definitely nothing new for politicians to lie to the public, however, this newly coined term "alternative facts" is somewhat distressing if only because it means we either have an administration that is so ignorant that they believe that "alternative facts" are a real thing, or one so bold as to be so blatant about their deception. From here on out, we must question whether the so called facts we are being given are actual facts, or just some "alternative facts" that are meant to control our perception of how things are going in our country. I think we could all agree that in any other situation, using "alternative facts" would be wrong and considered deceitful, so I'm not sure how the administration could consider this to be an acceptable way to speak to the public.

Gabriel Hazeldine

1/30/2017 07:07:31 pm

Pardon the long explanation:

I've lingered on various message boards, witnessed thousands of political arguments from all manner of viewpoints, and butt heads with others for several years now. I can testify that terms like "fake news" and "alternate facts" have been around for quite some time; perhaps since the first political argument was waged online.

Seeing such terms and concepts reach mainstream status has been intriguing. It is entertaining to watch how such terms once reserved for "conspiracy theorists" and users discussing discouraged or belittled in mainstream discourse topics (such as information leaks about politicians, government programs, charity-fronts, public figures and their sponsors, etc.) are now becoming household words.
As for "alternative facts," my definition of the word comes from it being used to describe information coming from a source outside of the mainstream. For example, News Network A says X is fact because of a particular source backs it up. Whether or not that source is identified is trivial, as news media rely on their reputation and the audience’s trust to validate their message. However, person B on a forum thread relating or detouring into the news topic says X is not true. Instead, Y is true. They then must prove their trustworthiness or state their sources, or as the good old internet comment threat adage goes, “Pics or it didn’t happen.” Whether “Y is true” catches on does not necessarily correlate to if sufficient evidence was provided. Then, if Y becomes notable enough that it reaches the mainstream discourse, then the news media adjusts their narrative or discredit Y to support their argument that X is fact to preserve their reputation. Therefore, X becomes the mainstream “fact” and Y becomes the alternative “fact”.

“Fake news,” synonymous with “alternative facts,” operates in a similar but more aggressive manner. Unlike “alternative facts,” it has been thrown around by all sides of the political spectrum for years now as a quick-and-easy means to discredit information. It relies on attacking a news source’s reputation rather than addressing the information itself; it pulls apart the messenger rather than the message. Once a news source is discredited, the opposing sources may provide their information with less resistance. The motives extend further than promoting a political slant. News media needs an audience to make a profit. Therefore, “fake news” and “alternative facts” have been used for the sake of improving business.

As a former newspaper intern who has seen the correlation between the reputation of a news outlet and its profit, I understand the terms “fake news” and “alternative facts” to be the tools of corporate warfare. By removing and discrediting voices contrary, challenging, or conflicting with its established slant, a news outlet can build a trust-worthy reputation, or a visage of one. The more trustworthy a news source seems, the greater of an audience it can draw. The greater the audience, the more advertisers are willing to purchase spaces in papers, slots on television, and adds on webpages.

It is better understood when applied to the “??? PROFIT!” plan from the television show, Southpark:
1) Discredit the reputation of your enemies with catchy terms to discredit their opposing arguments. 2) Discredit their arguments with said catchy terms. 3) Use their discredited arguments to discredit them further. 4) Destroy their reputation. 5) Remind the stunned and baffled public that you were right all along to improve your ratings. 6) Assimilate the disillusioned audience of your slain foe and the public that now sings praises to your name. 7) ???????? 8) Rake in that advertising dough (Profit!).
Returning to the current context, there is no doubt that the statement that Trump’s inauguration had close to a million is false. When the Counselor to the President stated that the information presented was “alternative facts,” she implied that the information came from outside of the mainstream narrative –information counter to that posed by mainstream news outlets. As another attempt to save face for a POTUS for whom it is easy to ride the bandwagon against, it was hasty and poorly done. How quick the news outlets were to equivocate “alternative facts” to “false news” and lies demonstrates their eagerness to improve their business.

It is common knowledge that business hasn’t been going to well for the old-school news media – regardless of their political affiliation and slant. The 2016 election is a painful reminder to them of how vulnerable they are as more people outside of the mainstream can discredit and damage the reputation of the news outlets more than ever through the power of the internet. So far, for the outsiders and

1/30/2017 07:10:33 pm

(Part 2: Sorry for the long comment, but I felt the need for a thorough explanation)

So far, for the outsiders and bloggers from any political background who have argued against the mainstream, it has been effective.

Thus, the excitement of news outlets taking advantage of the President’s unpopularity and equivocating “alternative facts” (information opposing or counter-intuitive to the mainstream narratives) directly to lies and falsehoods, and their newfound love for the term “fake news,” are the efforts of an industry scared for the welfare of their businesses and way of life. They are the terms and tactics to gain the relevance, influence, and profits the news outlets (and their corporate owners) desire. They are the means of to eliminate the competition which is no longer limited to their fellow media networks, but now includes anyone or any group of any identity online who is willing to provide an alternate source of information that challenge’s the mainstream networks’ slants, narratives, reputations, and profits. American news networks are even going as far as attacking the reputations of independent news sites, whistleblowing and document release hubs (ex: Wikileaks), and well-established foreign news networks on a regular basis.

So what will be the impact of the term “alternative facts”? I see it as merely another lazy means to discredit arguments, a label that will be toxic to information. It is being made into the passive-aggressive, equivalent of lies; a more effective means of calling someone a liar with a pseudo-intellectual ring to it. No longer will a person be able to say anything along the lines of, “I have alternative information” when they disagree with or oppose a news story from the mainstream news media. Audiences favoring the networks will likely jump to “Oh, he’s lying or uninformed.” “Alternative facts,” in the hands of news outlets, will become the word friend of “conspiracy theorist” and “flat-earther,” or in the current dialogue, “Presidential apologist.” The term will force people to think that information alternative to the news media is inherently false and untrustworthy, and will reinforce the assumption that the mainstream news media is reliable, accurate, and truthful. For the corporate structure within the news outlets, “alternative facts” is a blessing from God – a tool incredibly useful in growing an audience and eliminating the opposition. “Alternative facts” may become the billion-dollar term that reinstates their influence.

Matt Howard

4/6/2017 07:09:30 am

I think the use of alternative facts can be very damaging and distracts people form the actual facts. Thankfully this didn't turn into a huge thing because it would have made this administration look even more silly and disjointed. I think it is important to not try to make the facts seem false or even wrong.
By saying alternative facts you are distancing yourself from what actually happened and instead just distancing yourself from reality. When you hold a public position it is important that you tell people what really happened and to have a high level of transparency. If you fail to do that people will begin to question you and start to lose trust in you too.

4/14/2017 10:17:58 am

This whole alternative facts thing is truly getting out of hand. Perhaps the person to blame the most for this as of late is Sean Spicer.

In a press conference on April 11th, Sean Spicer stated that Hitler "didn't even sink to using chemical weapons" during World War II and the Holocaust. This is entirely nonfactual as it is common knowledge that Hitler infamously used gas chambers to claim the lives of thousands.

Instead of owning up to the fact that he was simply wrong, Spicer attempted several times to clear up his statement; however, things just got worse the more he spoke. This led to one of the first apologies we have seen from Spicer despite the numerous other alternative facts that he has preached to our vulnerable nation.

Although Spicer did in fact make a public apology of sorts, he didn't apologize for making up facts he was using in the press conference. Rather than stating that he was wrong, what he apologized for is that he got off topic. "I was obviously trying to make a point about the heinous acts that Assad had made against his own people last week, using chemical weapons and gas. Frankly, I mistakenly made an inappropriate and insensitive reference to the Holocaust, for which there is no comparison," Spicer said. "And for that I apologize. It was a mistake to do that."

This would have been a great opportunity to add in the bit that what he was stating had no factual basis and that Hitler did in fact sink to the same level as Assad as both used chemical weapons to kill masses of people in extremely inhumane ways.

Everyone makes mistakes; humans are fallible and not everything we say is going to be factual despite how hard to we try to make it so. The problem doesn't arise until you get to the point where you have trouble owning up to the fact that you did make a mistake and that what you say was actually completely wrong from a factual standpoint. This is especially concerning when this is the man who many times speaks on behalf of both the Trump Administration and our nation as a whole.

David Creed

5/3/2017 10:38:12 am

I think this phrase shows the revolving nature of writing and language in a nutshell. This is an example of someone making up a phrase or slang on the fly as an attempt to cover up something they don't want people knowing. I feel as though "alternative facts" is a phrase used by Ms. Conway in an attempt to say that something isn't true, but by using a phrase that makes it sound true. "Alternative Facts" when I first hear it sounds like something is factual, not untrue. I found this exchange with Ms. Conway to be a bit strange and unusual.

Nollan link

12/23/2020 02:37:23 pm

Nice blog thanks ffor posting