What do you think?
Rate this book
Faking the News: What Rhetoric Can Teach Us About Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump's speaking and writing invite passionate reactions ― maybe he's a bluecollar, billionaire hero who speaks the language of the common man or maybe he's a gleefully illiterate, tremendously unqualified idiot. Whatever the case, he was persuasive enough to get himself elected President of the United States and he's been persuasive enough to keep a majority of his supporters behind him. In Faking the News: What Rhetoric Can Teach Us About Donald J. Trump, eleven prominent rhetoric experts explain how Trump's persuasive language works.
200 pages, Paperback
Published May 1, 2018
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 24, 2018
In concept, rhetoric may not be well-known to most. But it's everywhere, and it's important to recognize how rhetoric is used to get us to think, feel, act, even vote a certain way.
In this excellent and timely read, the authors, who are rhetoricians themselves, do well to explain how the various forms of rhetoric apply to Trump's methods of conduct so far throughout his presidency. What I found to be unique about this book is that the authors strike a balance between the basic and the technical, making the content accessible to a variety of audiences. It boasts a sort of guided tour effect without feeling like a For Dummies affair. Teachers and students of rhetoric may find themselves singing along with the choir, but at the same time, those new to rhetoric--or rather those whose eyes have been opened to it--are taken by the hand and not to be left behind.
And in a time where activism and justice are much needed, it is very important that we're armed with the knowledge of how, or perhaps why, arguments are presented to us. Armed with greater discernment so we can make informed choices on which arguments to believe. Armed with tools to make our own arguments more effective. Armed with the courage to break cycles of toxicity and oppression.
If you're hesitant to pick up this book out of concern for triggers, there's no denying that many subjects pertaining to the current sociopolitical climate can be triggering. Admittedly reading the news can make me feel like a paralyzed spectator. But I found I was able to read this book through a safe, objective lens thanks to its analytical approach. That isn't to say it's without bias, because the authors had to feel something in order to be compelled to write it. But the way events and ideas are presented left me feeling validated and refreshed.
In this excellent and timely read, the authors, who are rhetoricians themselves, do well to explain how the various forms of rhetoric apply to Trump's methods of conduct so far throughout his presidency. What I found to be unique about this book is that the authors strike a balance between the basic and the technical, making the content accessible to a variety of audiences. It boasts a sort of guided tour effect without feeling like a For Dummies affair. Teachers and students of rhetoric may find themselves singing along with the choir, but at the same time, those new to rhetoric--or rather those whose eyes have been opened to it--are taken by the hand and not to be left behind.
And in a time where activism and justice are much needed, it is very important that we're armed with the knowledge of how, or perhaps why, arguments are presented to us. Armed with greater discernment so we can make informed choices on which arguments to believe. Armed with tools to make our own arguments more effective. Armed with the courage to break cycles of toxicity and oppression.
If you're hesitant to pick up this book out of concern for triggers, there's no denying that many subjects pertaining to the current sociopolitical climate can be triggering. Admittedly reading the news can make me feel like a paralyzed spectator. But I found I was able to read this book through a safe, objective lens thanks to its analytical approach. That isn't to say it's without bias, because the authors had to feel something in order to be compelled to write it. But the way events and ideas are presented left me feeling validated and refreshed.
September 12, 2019
This book can be summed up as modern day sophistry. I read this book because it seemed either farcical — making fun of current literature whose authors take themselves too seriously in condemning anything perceived as unwholesome — or analyzing sophistry with rhetorical analysis. It entertainingly shows absolute idiocy, lies, and ridiculousness. I honestly laughed out loud quite a few times.
Unfortunately, the authors are serious. I love rhetoric, I've read, listened, watched, learned, and breathe rhetoric. This book is exemplary in its disgusting use of rhetoric. No wonder people use "rhetoric" disparagingly. It's enlightening to see how pathetic academia has become in the field of Rhetoric.
The book has ten chapter-essays from ten different academics authors, an example from all chapters, below, illustrate why the book is laughable in its aims of being taken seriously:
Chapter 1: "Ultimately, truly contesting Trump's claims to victimhood will require that he lose the sanction of media and political institutions." The media has overwhelmingly been again him, which is ironic given this book’s title.
Chapter 2: "...he referred to [Hillary] as "that nasty woman" and to Mexican men crossing into this [American] country as "bad hombres"." Hillary is a ruthless demagogue, examples are legion. "Nasty woman" is admittedly a childish thing to say, but is apt in reference to her ruthless demagoguery. Trump was referring specifically to rapists, gang members, murderers, drug dealers and extortionists; but sure, use a strawman.
Chapter 3: "His naming of terrorists as thugs and losers echoed...in his rallies wherein he implicated all people of Muslim faith as potential terrorists." Trump didn't want the citizens of certain Muslim countries to immigrate to the US. Those countries showed a history of inter and intra-national violence. It wasn't about Islam as it was about terrorism stemming from countries specified by legitimate terrorist watch groups. But hey, lump them all together so you can imply Trump as an Islamaphobe , and as a racist!
Chapter 4: ""But I'm not a racist" is the rallying cry of a defense that is at once dangerous and laughable, but it is also a sign of hope. The answer is always more or less the same: Yes, you are; or we wouldn't be having this conversation." This capped an author's anecdote about a personal incident. This is clearly a generalization...just like the generalization the author condemns as "racist". The author can think a person as a racist, and Bam! the person's a racist. This fighting fire with fire is stereotyping with stereotyping.
Chapter 5: "Judged on content alone, Trump is one of the least truthful major politicians in modern American history." Truth, for this (and likely all these authors) must be relative. And apparently, no citation of sources needed for this statement.
Chapter 6: "Trump fired Comey because Comey was going to expose Trump's reliance on Russia having interfered with the election." Totally unsubstantiated statement. Prior to this statement, this author says it's not fair to compare Trump's misdeeds to any other politician, which is seemingly the basis of this book: treat Trump as a standalone politician and imply all the negative connotations of the word "politician". Strawman argument.
Chapter 7: "...Trump's presidency raises the concern that future politicians can similarly "disrupt" political norms of behavior in undemocratic ways..." Democracy has multiple connotations, and with no clear definition, the author can say this. It is not untrue, but it is sophistry. Even if Trump did "disrupt" (whatever this means) political norms, it's unlikely any American politician hasn't disrupted political norms in undemocratic ways.
Chapter 8: “There is increasingly little doubt that the 2016 election was marked by interference from outside agents.” Imply everything, source nothing.
Chapter 9: “On his account, golf is an “aspirational game,” one reserved for the better people, which basically means white and wealthy men.” You are a sick person if you think way to hear/read a statement and say that that person must have meant whatever you think in order to call that person a racist, classist, sexist, Islamaphobe, ad infinitum. Since Trump clearly didn’t say golf is for rich white guys, does that make this author a racist?
Chapter 10: “…Trump’s abhorrent press conference on Charlottesville violence, that antifa protestors are just as responsible for racist violence as the white supremacists…” This is the icing on the cake of why rhetoric is so frowned upon by the general public. To accept a lie (this source is a complete lie found in a news article — one need simply watch the press conference video), and use it as a comparison of another politician for denigration (chapter 10’s author didn’t get chapter 6 author’s memo about not comparing Trump with other politicians), is affectatious, classless, idiotic, unoriginal, ad infinitum; and this typifies the whole book.
Unfortunately, the authors are serious. I love rhetoric, I've read, listened, watched, learned, and breathe rhetoric. This book is exemplary in its disgusting use of rhetoric. No wonder people use "rhetoric" disparagingly. It's enlightening to see how pathetic academia has become in the field of Rhetoric.
The book has ten chapter-essays from ten different academics authors, an example from all chapters, below, illustrate why the book is laughable in its aims of being taken seriously:
Chapter 1: "Ultimately, truly contesting Trump's claims to victimhood will require that he lose the sanction of media and political institutions." The media has overwhelmingly been again him, which is ironic given this book’s title.
Chapter 2: "...he referred to [Hillary] as "that nasty woman" and to Mexican men crossing into this [American] country as "bad hombres"." Hillary is a ruthless demagogue, examples are legion. "Nasty woman" is admittedly a childish thing to say, but is apt in reference to her ruthless demagoguery. Trump was referring specifically to rapists, gang members, murderers, drug dealers and extortionists; but sure, use a strawman.
Chapter 3: "His naming of terrorists as thugs and losers echoed...in his rallies wherein he implicated all people of Muslim faith as potential terrorists." Trump didn't want the citizens of certain Muslim countries to immigrate to the US. Those countries showed a history of inter and intra-national violence. It wasn't about Islam as it was about terrorism stemming from countries specified by legitimate terrorist watch groups. But hey, lump them all together so you can imply Trump as an Islamaphobe , and as a racist!
Chapter 4: ""But I'm not a racist" is the rallying cry of a defense that is at once dangerous and laughable, but it is also a sign of hope. The answer is always more or less the same: Yes, you are; or we wouldn't be having this conversation." This capped an author's anecdote about a personal incident. This is clearly a generalization...just like the generalization the author condemns as "racist". The author can think a person as a racist, and Bam! the person's a racist. This fighting fire with fire is stereotyping with stereotyping.
Chapter 5: "Judged on content alone, Trump is one of the least truthful major politicians in modern American history." Truth, for this (and likely all these authors) must be relative. And apparently, no citation of sources needed for this statement.
Chapter 6: "Trump fired Comey because Comey was going to expose Trump's reliance on Russia having interfered with the election." Totally unsubstantiated statement. Prior to this statement, this author says it's not fair to compare Trump's misdeeds to any other politician, which is seemingly the basis of this book: treat Trump as a standalone politician and imply all the negative connotations of the word "politician". Strawman argument.
Chapter 7: "...Trump's presidency raises the concern that future politicians can similarly "disrupt" political norms of behavior in undemocratic ways..." Democracy has multiple connotations, and with no clear definition, the author can say this. It is not untrue, but it is sophistry. Even if Trump did "disrupt" (whatever this means) political norms, it's unlikely any American politician hasn't disrupted political norms in undemocratic ways.
Chapter 8: “There is increasingly little doubt that the 2016 election was marked by interference from outside agents.” Imply everything, source nothing.
Chapter 9: “On his account, golf is an “aspirational game,” one reserved for the better people, which basically means white and wealthy men.” You are a sick person if you think way to hear/read a statement and say that that person must have meant whatever you think in order to call that person a racist, classist, sexist, Islamaphobe, ad infinitum. Since Trump clearly didn’t say golf is for rich white guys, does that make this author a racist?
Chapter 10: “…Trump’s abhorrent press conference on Charlottesville violence, that antifa protestors are just as responsible for racist violence as the white supremacists…” This is the icing on the cake of why rhetoric is so frowned upon by the general public. To accept a lie (this source is a complete lie found in a news article — one need simply watch the press conference video), and use it as a comparison of another politician for denigration (chapter 10’s author didn’t get chapter 6 author’s memo about not comparing Trump with other politicians), is affectatious, classless, idiotic, unoriginal, ad infinitum; and this typifies the whole book.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews