Peter Loge

February 25, 2023

Event: ChatGPT, Ethics and Political Campaigns

Peter Loge

February 25, 2023

Registration and Details Here

When:
Friday, March 10th, 11:00 - 11:45am ET

Where:
Zoom - I will send a link the morning of the event

Who:

Zainab Chaudary - Senior vice president at New Heights Communications and an instructor in the graduate program in the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University.

Dave Karpf - Author of Analytic Activism: Digital Listening and the New Political Strategy and an associate professor in the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University.
Yvonne Liccione - Political Communication student in the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University.
Peter Loge, the director of the Project on Ethics in Political and communication and an associate professor the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University will moderate.

ChatGPT and related artificial intelligence bots seem to be everywhere - and they raise ethical questions everywhere they go. The Project on Ethics in Political Communication is excited to host a discussion about the ethical questions raised by the use of AI and bots on political campaigns.

Our panel will be: Prof. Dave Karpf, a leading expert on digital politics and historian of the digital future; Zainab Choudary, a strategic communication and campaign consultant who has been thinking about these questions a lot lately; and Yvonne Liccione, a political communication student whose coursework includes political communication ethics.

This is one of the first (if not the first) public discussion of the topic - but it most certainly will not be the last.

The event will be live on Zoom. We will record the conversation and post it on the Project on Ethics in Political Communication website shortly after the event. The event is open to the public, please share this with anyone you might be interested.

Vote ChatGPT '24: Artificial Intelligence Beats Actual Foolishness

Peter Loge

February 24, 2023

A couple of weeks ago I got a call from Jessica Nix, a graduate of the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University who is now a graduate student at Columbia University. While at GW Jessica took my political communication ethics class, and wanted to talk about ChatGPT, AI, ethics and political campaigns. I suggested she ask ChatGPT what it thought. While we were on the phone she typed in the question and several seconds later she got the below.

Peter Loge
Director

JN: What are the ethical implications of using ChatGPT in political campaigns?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I am designed to be neutral and do not have opinions on political issues or specific political campaigns. However, I can provide a general answer to your question about the ethical implications of using AI language models such as ChatGPT in political campaigns.

The use of AI language models like ChatGPT in political campaigns can raise a number of ethical concerns. One concern is that the technology could be used to spread false information or propaganda to influence voters. AI language models can generate text that sounds human-like, which could be used to create fake news or fake social media accounts that could spread misinformation.

Another concern is that the use of AI language models in political campaigns could raise questions about the use of personal data and privacy. Political campaigns often collect large amounts of data on voters, such as their voting history, social media activity, and other personal information. This data could be used to train AI language models, which could then be used to target voters with specific messages and advertisements.

There is also the concern that the use of AI language models in political campaigns could create a biased or unfair advantage for certain candidates or political parties. For example, if one political campaign has access to a more advanced AI language model than another campaign, they could potentially use it to create more persuasive and convincing messages.

Overall, the ethical implications of using AI language models in political campaigns will depend on how the technology is used and the specific context in which it is applied. It is important for political campaigns to be transparent about their use of AI language models and to use the technology in ways that are ethical and responsible.

Peter Loge

February 13, 2023

Heckling the SOTU - Experts Weigh In

Peter Loge

February 13, 2023

President Wilson gives the first in-person State of the Union address since the 18th Century.

We're trying something new at the Project on Ethics in Political Communication. From time to time we'll reach out to political and communication professionals, scholars, journalists, students and others for a quick reaction to events in the news that speak to political communication ethics.

Our first question is about the heckling during President Biden's most recent State of the Union address. We asked a range of experts for their 100 - 250 word take.

Heckling during the address isn’t unheard of. But as a number of media outlets have pointed out, when US Rep Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted “you lie” during President Obama’s State of the Union address, he was roundly criticized and apologized. Biden’s hecklers have struck a much more defiant tone. New York Magazine’s Ben Jacobs declared “the polite state of the union is dead.”

We asked if heckling matters and if there a way back to a more polite or respectful State of the Union addresses. Below is what we heard. Answers are cut and pasted verbatim, I picked one key quote and put it at the top of each answer. The answers are posted in the reverse order in which I received them.

Admiral (Ret.) Bill Subblefield, PhD, Founder of the Bonnie & Bill Stubblefield Institute for Civil Political Communications at Shepherd University

The 2023 State of The Union will unfortunately probably become the norm for future addresses, and we as a nation will suffer.

The previous acts of defiance during the State of the Union speeches were spontaneous, emotional outbursts. This time the defiance was a strategic tool. In my view, the President intentionally baited the Republicans knowing that they would respond as they did. And then instead of following the normal script of smiling, and making a few inconsequential statements, the President seized the opportunity to launch a well rehearsed counter argument. The result presented a strong Presidential persona while placing the Republicans on the defensive on social security and medicare. It was an impressive manipulation for a clear political gain. The 2023 State of The Union will unfortunately probably become the norm for future addresses, and we as a nation will suffer.

Scott Widmeyer, Founding Managing Partner/Chief Strategy Officer-Washington at Finn Partners, a strategic communications firm

…let’s ask a national panel of high school and college scholars to create a new model for SOTUs. Things can’t get much worse.

While prime time State of the Union addresses have been part of our world for almost 60 years, I think we have reached a crossroads and need to rethink what has become a dueling circus that often spotlights disrespect and incivility.

The 2023 version of the SOTU was marred by a sharp decline in the 2Rs—respect and ratings. MTG [US Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-GA] was grand marshal of the disrespect flank, and viewership hit an all-time low of 27 million, down almost 30% from a year ago.

My recommendation—let’s ask a national panel of high school and college scholars to create a new model for SOTUs. Things can’t get much worse.

Kelly D. Johnston, a former speechwriter, blogs at Against the Grain was the 28th Secretary of the US Senate:

The path to respect starts with the speaker and the speech itself.

Someone I know texted me during the President’s State of the Union Address. “Well, the neighbors officially hate us,” he wrote. “We had (my wife and brother-in-law) yelling at the top of their lungs at the TV, volume high.”

The heckling seen in Congress during Biden’s speech last week primarily reflected what was being said in many American living rooms. The extraordinary amount of heckling by GOP members mildly reflects the views of many constituents.

And our parliamentary friends in London, Ottawa, and Canberra, thriving democracies all, are likely chuckling. Heckling has been a tradition of “question time” of the Prime Ministers there and elsewhere forever.

I’m also reminded of an occasional refrain from children everywhere. “So-and-so was mean to me.” I’m tempted to respond, “what did you do to invite it?"

The path to a more respectful State of the Union starts with a speech that is more respectful to audiences - humble, honest, and even self-deprecating. The path to respect starts with the speaker and the speech itself. It doesn’t help when they insult and sound more like campaign kickoffs than what was envisioned by our framers in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution.

But given the gaudy spectacles that State of the Union addresses have become, perhaps the best way is a return to George Washington’s first one - a letter to Congress.”

Jeff Harris, non-profit management consultant, former Executive Director of the Junior State of America

Practitioners of political communication know best that the modern SOTU speech is performance over policy.

While I deplore how the State of Union speech is devolving into a WWE pro wrestling event, an hour plus long speech full of wonky policy proposals probably isn't the "must see TV'' that will engage tens of millions of Americans on a Tuesday evening. I am betting that we'll see a full on fist fight on the floor of the House or Senate before we see a return to pre-2009 decorum (the year of Congressman Wilson's "You Lie" outburst).

Practitioners of political communication know best that the modern SOTU speech is performance over policy. Heckling reflects how Americans are being brought into political discourse and it matters only about as much as the performative standing ovations. The media coverage focuses us on who is sitting next to whom, what our elected representatives are wearing and the expressions on our representatives' faces. Post-speech analysis focused as much on the "energy" President Biden brought to the speech as much as the policy implications of the speech.

But, let's remember that the SOTU hasn't always been and doesn't need to be a formal speech. Could using the tools of the digital-age make the SOTU engaging and accessible for Americans beyond us political "junkies?" Bringing the SOTU into the 21st century could allow alternative viewpoints to be expressed without disrespecting the President of the United States - both the person and the office. Moreover, that might allow for the president to present "the receipts," evidence to support their claims, in real time.

I can feel you rolling your eyes as you read this, so, yes, we need to develop digital-age systems that promote civil, respectful and engaging online debate and discussion to support such an evolution for the SOTU.

As all aspects of our society are leveraging, for better or worse, the advanced tools of the digital age, our political institutions and traditions are stuck in the past and straining to deal with how Americans approach politics - we all have a voice, we all have an audience and we are incentivized to express our opinions as loudly as possible. That's not appropriate in the chambers of Congress, but there are ways to robustly and respectfully engage with each other digitally.”

Dan Hazelwood, Founder Targeted Creative Communications, a Republican media consulting firm.

Sadly the SOTU has been a broken performance event for many years.

Sadly the SOTU has been a broken performance event for many years. Presidents have long assumed they can freely score points with the public or versus attendees. Not to mention their use of questionable facts. The catalog of guests now rivals an Oscars party. Naturally attendees in this era of showmanship want in on the game. We’ve had refusals to stand, refusals to clap, high school cheering, colored attire with some meaning and all sorts of performances including tearing up the President’s speech. Don’t forget the varied rebuttal and concurring SOTU responses. This is the inevitable and ongoing escalation. It will keep getting worse and habitual and that is sad.

Peter Loge

January 10, 2023

Syllabus - Political Communication Ethics - Spring 2023

Peter Loge

January 10, 2023

Below is a lightly edited version of the syllabus for Political Communication Ethics in the School of Media and Public Affairs at the George Washington University for the Spring 23 semester. I’ve taken out some of the boilerplate GW language and also removed the names of the guest speakers.

DRAFT
Last updated 1-5-23

This is a DRAFT of the syllabus – it will change between now and when classes start, and then change more during the semester. The most likely changes are:
Names and dates of guest speakers (largely working political professionals) and I may add readings drawn from the popular press. The grading schema is unlikely to change.

Syllabus
Political Communication Ethics - SMPA 3348
Spring 2022
Mon and Weds 12:45p – 2:00p
MPA 307

Instructor: Peter Loge
ploge@gwu.edu

Office Hours:
Mon 11:00a - Noon
Weds 3:00pm – 4:00pm
Or by appointment.
I’ll probably be around a lot, drop by anytime.

I expect you to follow all of GW’s COVID rules. That means wearing a face mask in class until GW announces otherwise. If you don’t want to wear a mask in class, don’t take this class. I will treat COVID safety as I do plagiarism and cheating: follow the rules or fail the course.

"The world is still in want of clear-headed citizens, tempered by historical perspective, disciplined by rational thinking and moral compass, who speak well and write plainly."

- Prof. Lee Pelton, former President of Emerson College

This course will raise the question of what, if any, ethical responsibility those who work in political communication have, and to whom or what they have those responsibilities. The course will be a mix of theories about what counts as ethical communication in politics in the abstract, and specific situations in which you may find yourself in a career in politics.

You will be expected to do the readings, think about their connections to events in politics, and participate in class discussions. Quality of insight is better than quantity of words, and challenging questions and questioning of assumptions is always more interesting than just tagging along.

The success or failure of this class rests largely on you and your colleagues. If you listen closely to your peers, make unexpected connections, and take intellectual risks, the spring will be a very interesting conversation.

Learning Outcomes
As a result of completing this course you will have formed a coherent, defensible, ethical position as it applies to the practice of political communication. Students will specifically be able to:

● Ethically critique political claims and campaigns;
● Identify ethical challenges in political communication and navigate through those challenges; ● Write short, clear and concise essays that boil complex ideas down to their most relevant component parts.

Grading
Short essays: Six worth 10% each (total 60%)
Final paper: 20%
Final: 10%
Participation: 10%

Exams
You will have a take home final exam. The final will likely present an ethical challenge to which you will be asked to respond.

The final exam will be a take home worth 10% of your final grade. It will be due at the end of the scheduled final exam period for the class.

Papers
You will have six short essays as indicated in schedule below. Your essay should be in Word or written in Google docs, no pdfs.

The first essay has a limit of 750 words, including the prompts.

The next five essays should be no more than 500 words each – I will stop reading at the 500th word and grade you on the essay to that point. Essays should be emailed and are due by the start of the class period.

Each short essay will be worth 10% of your final grade

You will also have a final paper due by the start of class on April 21. I WILL NOT GRADE LATE PAPERS. For your final paper you should construct and defend an ethical foundation for your work – to what standard(s) will you hold yourself accountable in your career? Papers should be emailed.

Your final paper will be worth 20% of your final grade

There are a lot of tools to help you improve your writing. In addition GW’s Writing Center, you might find the Hemingway App or Grammarly helpful. Two terrific books worth spending time with are The Elements of Style (Strunk and White) and On Writing Well (William Zinsser).

Participation
You are expected to constructively add to the conversation, which means you should do, think about, and be prepared to talk about the readings. You are also expected to pay attention to the political world around you and think about it in terms of the course. You should have ideas and opinions and be able to defend them.

You will not be rewarded for just talking a lot.

Participation will be worth 10% of your final grade

Readings
Required:
Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice, ed. Peter Loge, Rowman & Littlefield 2020

Recommended:
On Writing Well by William Zinsser – a great about how to write well
The Elements of Style by Strunk and White – the go-to for writing
Watch The Good Place

Other readings are listed in the course schedule below, most are on Blackboard. In addition I may email articles or essays during the week that strike me as interesting and guest speakers may ask me to send around readings ahead of their discussions.

Attendance
You are expected to come to class and participate in class discussions.

Course Ethics
You have several ethical responsibilities in this course. This is a small group, in a small space, for several hours at a time. For this to work for all of us, each of us needs to do the readings and think about them. We must respect each other’s positions on the readings, and honor intellectual experiments (the “what if….” positions); that means people should be willing and able to change their minds, to defend their positions, and challenge the positions of others. Critically, one should never confuse an argument with the person making the argument – positions are not people. This means you should not attack people, only their claims and you should do so based on reasoning. Similarly, you should defend your positions as if they were ideas to be kicked around, not children to be protected.

Cheating and plagiarizing are not acceptable. They will be punished to the greatest extent permitted by The George Washington University policy. All exams, papers, and other work products are to be completed in conformance with The George Washington University Code of Academic Integrity.

Misc
I work from the premise that you are all adults. You are responsible for everything that happens in class. If you miss a session, you should find a colleague from whom to get notes, readings, etc.

COVID
First, be kind. Second, don’t be stupid.

My COVID policy is the same as my other policies – follow the rules and stay home if you feel sick. If you miss class because of COVID, or for any other reason, get the notes from a colleague. You choose to be at GW and in SMPA. How you spend your time here is also your choice. You know that choices have consequences, and that you are responsible for those consequences.

Important Note about Guest Speakers: As you can see below, we have a number of guest speakers throughout the semester. These speakers are coming in to talk to us – and only us. Unless the speaker explicitly and clearly says otherwise, all of the conversations are off the record. The goal of these conversations is to have honest and frank conversations in the classroom. These are opportunities to learn. These are not opportunities to try to break news, embarrass people, or show off.

Each of the speakers is a of friend mine. They are coming in to talk to you because I asked them to. Any violation of the expectations of a keeping this conversation in the room violates a trust my friends and I have developed over a number of years.

Schedule
Jan 23 Introductions and discussion

Jan 25 Where we are
Read:
Yes, We Must Do Better (But It’s Not as Bad as You Think), Edward Brookover Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

“The Ethical Responsibility of Consultants in this Moment” Oren Shur and Susan Del Percio Campaigns & Elections Dec. 14, 2020

Jan 30 First essay due:
Answer the Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication. Answers should be short and concise – you have a 750 word cap, including the text of the questions.

These debates are very old
Read:
Ancient Democracy and Ethical Persuasion, Kenneth R. Chase in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

Ethics and the Ends of Rhetoric, Janet M. Atwill in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

Feb 1 The room where it happened
Read:
Federalist 1, the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. The Federalist Papers are here https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers.

I trust you have copies of the Declaration and Constitution.

Feb 6 Good trouble
Read:
Letter From a Birmingham Jail, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., available here and elsewhere:
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/letter-birmingham-jail

Bring in and be prepared to discuss another foundational American document (i.e., Washington’s inaugural addresses or farewell address, Lincoln’s inaugural addresses, Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream,” the Seneca Falls “Declaration of Sentiments,” etc).

Feb 8 The Conversation Continued
Read:
The Rhetoric and Ethics of Political Communication: Freedom Summer as a Case Study in Moral Leadership, Mark L. McPhail in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

Feb 13 Rhetoric is truth plus its artful presentation

Read
“The Phaedrus” and the Nature of Rhetoric by Richard Weaver in The Ethics of Rhetoric by Richard Weaver, Echo Point Books and Media, 1953

Second Essay Due:
Discuss something in the news that ancients would agree or disagree with.

Discuss Essays

Feb 15 Guest Speaker - Nationally recognized public relations ethics expert

Feb 20 NO CLASS: Presidents Day

Feb 22 Guest Speaker - Senior Republican Senate communications staffer

Feb 27 A flexible disposition
Read:
Communication Ethics in Machiavelli, Alexander S. Duff in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

March 1 In defense of the indefensible
Read:
Politics and the English Language – available here and elsewhere - https://faculty.washington.edu/rsoder/EDLPS579/HonorsOrwellPoliticsEnglishLanguage.pdf

March 6 Third Essay Due:
Use Orwell to explain why a piece of contemporary political rhetoric is or is not ethical.

Civil Religion
Read:

“Losing Our Civil Religion” John D. Carlson, Religion & Politics, Sept 26, 2017 http://religionandpolitics.org/2017/09/26/losing-our-civil-religion/

Optional reading - “Civil Religion as a Foundation for Political Communication” Peter Loge in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

March 8 Should you be civil?
Read:
“Civility and its Critics” Andy Smarick, The Bulwark, Jan 2, 2020 https://thebulwark.com/civility-and-its-critics/

“Civility is Overrated” Adam Serwer The Atlantic Dec 2019 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/adam-serwer-civility/600784/

March 13 No Class - Spring Break

March 15 No Class - Spring Break

March 20 Guest Speaker - SMPA and Ethics class alum

March 22 Fourth Essay Due:
Norms
Read:
“Norms Matter” Brendan Nyhan, Politco Sept/Oct 2017
“How the GOP Prompted the Decay of Political Norms” EJ Dionne, Norm Ornstein, and Thomas Mann, The Atlantic Sept 19, 2017 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/gop-decay-of-political-norms/540165/

“Does elite rhetoric undermine democratic norms?” Katherine Clayton, Nicholas T. Davis, Brendan Nyhan, Ethan Porter, Timothy J. Ryan and Thomas J. Wood https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/democratic-norms.pdf

March 27 Fifth Essay Due:
Write an essay attacking a candidate or elected official in ways that are substantive, strong, and that strengthen democratic norms or values.

TBD

March 29 TBD

April 3 Framing and agenda setting
Read:
Goalposts and Guardrails: A Mixed-Metaphor Guide to Ethics in Advocacy Campaigns, Elisa Massimino in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

April 5 Guest speaker - SMPA Terker Fellow

April 10 Digital Ethics
Read:
Overview of Digital Political Communication and Marketing
Jennifer Lees-Marshment and Vincent Raynauld in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

Identity Crisis: The Blurred Lines for Consumers and Producers of Digital Content, Cheryl Contee and Rosalyn Lemieux in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

April 12 Guest Speaker - Digital comms leader at a national advocacy organization

April 17 Lobbying
Read:
“Lobbying as a Legislative Subsidy” by Richard Hall and Alan Deardorff American Political Science Review Vol 100 No 1

The Ethics of Lobbying, Matthew L. Johnson and Israel S. Klein in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice
“Who’s Helping Who in the Lobbying Game?” Case study at https://mediaethicsinitiative.org/2020/10/27/whos-helping-who-in-the-game-of-lobbying/

April 19 Wash Your Hands
Read:
“Civic Responsibility or Self-Interest?” by Dale E. Miller and Stephen K. Medvic in Shades of Gray: Perspectives on Campaign Ethics ed. Candice J. Nelson, David A. Dulio and Stephen K. Medvic, Brookings Institution Press, 2002

April 24 Sixth Essay Due:
Make a case against one of the guest speakers

The limits of the law
Read:
Instructions Not Included: The Limited Function of Laws, Norms, and Political Incentives in Political Communications Ethics, Kip F. Wainscott in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

April 26 Paging Cyrano de Bergerac
Guest Speaker - Speechwriter who as written for top Republican officials
Read:
The Ethical Implications of the Presidential Speechwriter’s Metaphors: Michael Gerson’s “The First Sign of a Smoking Gun Might be a Mushroom Cloud” David A. Frank in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

Ethics in Political Speechwriting, Rachel Wallace in Political Communication Ethics: Theory and Practice

May 1 Codes of conduct
A number of business, professional, political and communications organizations have codes of ethics. Identify one such code and be prepared to discuss and critique it in class. Organizations with codes include:

The American Association of Political Consultants https://theaapc.org/

The Public Relations Society of America https://www.prsa.org/ethics/code-of-ethics/

Accenture https://www.accenture.com/us-en/company-ethics-code

The Society for Professional Journalists https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.

There are many, many others as well.

May 3 FINAL PAPER DUE: I WILL NOT GRADE LATE PAPERS

Peter Loge

January 1, 2023

Winter Update and Speaker of the House inaugural speeches.

Peter Loge

January 1, 2023

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) accepts the Speaker’s gavel from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Oct. 29, 2015

From Democrats promoting anti-democratic candidates, to endless and awful emails and texts, to the January 6th Commission, to George Santos, 2022 had no shortage of political communication ethics challenges (no, it is not OK to largely forge your resume, lie to voters, and potentially violate election laws).

Late in 2022 we lost Grant Wahl, one of the nation’s leading soccer journalists. Grant died suddenly covering the men’s World Cup in Qatar. One his last pre-World Cup appearances was with us to discuss sports journalism, human rights and the World Cup (you can listen to most of the conversation here). The New Yorker has a wonderful piece on Grant that’s worth a your time. Search for Grant Wahl in Twitter to read some of what his friends and colleagues had to say about him. We should all have such an impact on so many.

The Project on Ethics in Political Communication is returning to our regular look ahead at political communication issues about to hit the news. The first of the new year is below.

We also plan more online events, more case studies, more analysis, and more outreach. You can follow our work here, on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn (we’ll see what social brings in coming months, but for now that’s where we are).

The Week Ahead - The New Congress

The 118th Congress will be sworn in on Tuesday, January 3. It is mostly a day of photo-ops, receptions, and newly elected Representatives getting lost in the tunnels that connect the Capital to the House office buildings. It is also the day the House will elect a new Speaker. The remarks of the outgoing and incoming Speakers are opportunities to reinforce democratic norms and reaffirm faith in shared democratic ideals.

What We’re Reading
Speaker of the House Inaugural Speeches

The swearing in of the Speaker of House of Representatives is an under-appreciated political ritual. The remarks of the outgoing and incoming Speakers are opportunities to reaffirm a shared faith in shared democratic ideals (civil religion) and reinforce a commitment to democratic norms. The audience is Members of the House of Representatives and their staff. The general public isn’t allowed in the building (there isn’t enough room), and few watch the speech on CSPAN. The speech is for Congress.

I spent part of last week watching and reading recent Speaker of the House inaugural addresses. A few excerpts are below.

In 2019, the last time Ms. Pelosi was elected Speaker, she said, “Every two years, we gather in this chamber for a sacred ritual. Under the dome of this temple of democracy, the Capitol of the United States, we renew the great American experiment.” Later she said, “We have no illusions that our work will be easy, and that all of us in this chamber will always agree. But let each of us pledge that when we disagree, we respect each other and we respect the truth.” She concluded saying, “Guided by the vision and values of our founders, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and the aspirations that we have for our children, let us meet that responsibility with wisdom, with courage and with grace.”

In 2011, when Ms. Pelosi turned the gavel over to Mr. Boehner after the Democrats lost the House, she said “Today, as we take the oath of office to support and defend our Constitution, we do so as trustees of America’s best hopes and as custodians of America’s highest values. However we may differ, let us never lose sight of our common laws, love for this exceptional nation and our shared obligation to the way forward.” She concluded her introduction saying, “We now engage in a strong symbol of American democracy. The peaceful and respectful exchange of power.”

On January 3, 2017 Paul Ryan (R-WI) was re-elected Speaker of the House. In his opening remarks he said: “Just months ago, our country held a great electoral contest. At times it was a little intense…The clash of opinions, the hue and cry of campaigns, the rancor of the dissension, in the end, they all dissolve in the silent and peaceful transfer of power…For all of our arguments and all our differences, we are all united by a deep, abiding love of our country. It is this slender but sturdy thread that holds us together. We always seem to forget this. But it has never failed us. That is why when the votes are counted and the people have spoken, well all accept the verdict.”

In accepting the Speaker’s gavel for the fifth and final time on January 3, 1985, the late Tip O’Neill (D-MA) said, “Of course there will be disagreements. There always is [sic] in our two-party system. We all have a common love of this country and a respect for democracy…I hope that our actions will prove the correctness of Thomas Jefferson’s observation that the government is founded not on the fears and follies of man but on his dreams. I hope most of all that what we do here in this House over the next two years will result in increasing respect and appreciation of our constituents for this Congress and our government.”

These and other Speaker inaugural speeches articulate a civil religion, a symbolic and rhetorical construction of the United States as a special - even divine - place and idea. More on the topic is here and here. Philip Gorski’s 2017 book, American Covenant, is a longer look at the subject.

A recent study on elite political rhetoric is here.

What We’re Asking

Will the incoming Speaker continue the tradition of reinforcing norms and reaffirming faith in in shared democratic values, or will elite attacks on the institutions and ideals on which democracy relies continue?

Peter Loge

November 18, 2022

Reflections on 2022: Praise for concession speeches, criticism of amplifying extremists

Peter Loge

November 18, 2022

The debate over what the election was really about and what it all means for 2024 is well underway. We will leave that to others (mostly). We want to take this space to highlight one thing we would like to see less of in 2024, and one we would like to see more of: Democrats supporting election-deniers, and gracious concessions.

One read of the 2022 midterm elections is that they were a “clear victory for team normal,” to quote US Rep. Liz Cheney, and that Election Day was a good day for democracy. Election deniers mostly lost in most places, which is very good news. Voters, it seems, disapprove of people who say that votes don’t matter. One reason the 2022 midterms felt more normal is because losing candidates admitted they lost, when the whistle blew the losing team (mostly) left the field. This is in spite of Democrats helping amplify the voices of those most likely to deny electoral reality.

Less Please: Democrats supporting election-deniers

Some Democratic candidates promoted conservative Republican candidates during the primaries. The strategy appears to have worked, at least electorally. But effectiveness is not the only test of whether or not something is a good idea. Candidates of all stripes have been trying to pick their opponents for a long time. One example that gets a lot of attention (including from us) is Democrat Claire McCaskill appearing to support Todd Aiken in the 2012 Republican senate primary in Missouri. McCaskill painted Aiken as extremely conservative, which would theoretically both make him more attractive to Republican primary voters and less attractive to the general electorate. Aiken won his primary, and McCaskill won the general election. Whether or not behavior like McCaskill’s (and she is far from alone) is ethical is open to debate. (Also open to debate is whether or not it mattered - that A and B both happened doesn’t necessarily mean A caused B).

Less open to debate is whether or not candidates should promote anti-democratic candidates or conspiracy theorists. The approach might help get extremists on the ballot, making it easier for Democrats to win general elections. But, as a letter signed by 35 former Democratic elected officials put it, “it is risky and unethical to promote any candidate whose campaign is based on eroding trust in our elections.” In the short-term, the strategy appears to have worked - extremist anti-democratic candidates who won their primaries for the US House, Senate and other offices by and large lost the general election. But Democrats spent millions of dollars amplifying lies that undermine faith in democratic institutions. Democratic candidates and party organizations raised the voices of those who would bring down democracy. Those believers aren’t going away. They heard that the system is rigged and may believe close losses in places like Arizona or Pennsylvania are because of a secret cabal rather than the will of the voters.

Political campaigns should be competitive. The stakes are high, the attacks can often justifiably be sharp. Making sure voters know everything for which your opponent can be strategically smart. But no one in the political process should promote lies that undermine that process. If those in politics won’t stand up for elections, there is no reason for voters to believe in those elections.

As someone who has spent a career in Democratic politics I am pretty happy with the 2022 election results. As someone who is committed to promoting democratic ideals, I’m not entirely happy with how we got those results.

More Please: Concession Speeches

Political scientists often argue that two conditions for a healthy democracy are mutual toleration and forbearance. Steven Livitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, leading scholars in the field, write that mutual toleration means “politicians accept their opponents as legitimate. When mutual toleration exists, we recognize that our partisan rivals are loyal citizens who love our country just as we do.”

One way in which mutual toleration can be expressed is in concession speeches. A concession speech acknowledges the validity of the process and importance of the process continuing. A concession speech says that voters are more important than candidates. As losing Ohio Senate candidate Democrat Tim Ryan said: “I had the privilege to concede this race to J.D. Vance. Because the way this country operates is that you lose an election, you concede. You respect the will of the people.” Democrat Nancy Whaley lost the governor’s race in Ohio and told supporters, “Even when we don’t get the outcome we hope for, it’s vital that we respect our democracy.” In Pennsylvania, losing Republican Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz told his supporters, “This morning, I called John Fetterman and congratulated him. I wish him and his family all the best, both personally and as our next United States Senator. …we need everyone to put down their partisan swords and focus on getting the job done.”

In race after race, Democrats, Republicans and independents running for all sorts of offices, who got fewer votes than their opponent, acknowledged the will of the voters. Candidates who campaigned against Trump’s brand of politics, and others who were endorsed by Trump, said “thank you for your support, we got fewer votes, time to come together and govern.”

We often talk about democracy being the will of the majority. It is a system of government in which the people pick their leaders. We, the people, express our preferences and leaders act on those preferences. We almost never talk about the flip side - democracy also means people sometimes don’t get what they want. Democracy means not always getting your way. Concession speeches strengthen democracy by acknowledging getting outvoted is OK. Losing is proof that as long as there is another election, as long as opposition voices can be heard, the system works. It is much more fun to declare victory, but it is more important to concede defeat.

Peter Loge

November 8, 2022

The Week in Political Communication Ethics - November 8, 2022

Peter Loge

November 8, 2022

Today is the last day of voting in US mid-term elections. This is what we’re reading while waiting for final results.

Plus don’t forget our event next Tuesday about the FIFA men’s World Cup in Qatar, sports journalism and human rights - details and registration here.

Democracy depends on the honesty and integrity of those who lose elections. No election, no bill, no campaign is worth sacrificing the American experiment.

What We’re Reading - Respecting and Protecting the Process

Lynn Vavrek, UCLA political scientist in The New York Times Hillary Clinton Accepted Her Loss, but a Lot Has Changed Since 2016
”It wasn’t so long ago that candidates who lost elections — even narrowly or in unusual circumstances — understood the fundamental importance of a peaceful transfer of power. In 1960, Richard Nixon told supporters that “one of the great features of America” is that hard-fought political contests end, and people “unite behind the man who is elected.” Nixon, who presided in Congress over his own loss in the Electoral College, pledged his “wholehearted support” to his opponent, John F. Kennedy, and asked his supporters to do the same.”

The New York Times Fears and Suspicion Hang Over Voting on Cusp of Election Day
”Even as voting goes smoothly, the 2022 midterm elections have exposed the toll Donald J. Trump’s falsehoods have taken on American democracy.”

The Brookings Institution Democracy on the ballot—will election-denying litigation succeed?
”Instigating mistrust and crisis are integral pieces of the election-denial movement’s apparent plan. A constellation of plaintiffs in the most closely divided states may be poised to use new and preexisting lawsuits—or appeal earlier decisions to different courts—to gum up the election certification process and sow doubt about the results.”

Al Jazeera Eroding trust: How election deniers endanger US democracy
”Experts say deniers may not be able to overturn elections but they weaken public confidence in democratic institutions.”

Katherine Clayton, Nicholas T. Davis, Brendan Nyhan, Ethan Porter, Timothy J. Ryan, and Thomas J. Wood in PNAS Elite rhetoric can undermine democratic norms
”Democracies depend on candidates and parties affirming the legitimacy of election results even when they lose. These statements help maintain confidence that elections are free and fair and thereby facilitate the peaceful transfer of power.”

What We’re Asking

Which candidates and elected officials will stand up for election results, even if the results are close or not the ones they want?
How will the press respond to meritless attacks on elections and democratic institutions?
How much more stress can American democratic institutions take before they break?

Remember: Wait for confirmed results before shouting at the internet, double check rumors, and keep standing up for democratic institutions even if your preferred candidate loses.

Let us know what you think.

Keep with all the goings-on on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Tell your friends.

Peter Loge

November 8, 2022

News from off the pitch in Qatar

Peter Loge

November 8, 2022

Covering the World Cup
and Human Rights in Qatar

Articles related to the World Cup in Qatar, sports journalism, human rights and sportswashing

Learn more about - and register for - our discussion
about the Qatar World Cup, sports journalism and
human rights here.

Below are links to a selection of articles about human rights in Qatar and the men’s World Cup. The list is incomplete, and loosely organized. This is not a comprehensive look at everything written about the Qatar World Cup, journalism and human rights, let alone the range of issues in human rights and sport. But they do give a sense of what some leading voices are saying about the topic.

These are worth perusing before the event, and can help inform our conversation. We will also share links on the Project on Ethics in Political Communication website and social media.

Sport Sensemaker - Paul Hayward
Qatar Parks the Bus
(registration required) Basically Qatar has said “enough criticism” and argued critics were using a double standard:
“The emir’s “double standards” reference is revealing. Qatar’s elite talk privately of a contradiction in the UK devouring petrodollars for Heathrow, Barclays, Sainsbury’s, the Olympic Village and Chelsea Barracks while recoiling at a sporting event being staged in a Gulf state with which it has deep ties.”

Hayward also notes the problems in Russia 2018 and Argentina 1978.

The New Republic
Will World Cup Reporters Let Qatar Get Away With Their Human Rights Abuses?

The Athletic
Gianni Infantino’s letter about the World Cup is lamentable, irrational and dumbfoundingly stupid

From Academics

Sport, Ethics and Philosophy (academic journal)
Sportswashing: Complicity and Corruption

Natasha Iskander
Does Skill Make Us Human?: Migrant Workers in 21st-Century Qatar and Beyond (book)

Players and Coaches

Jurgen Klopp

Peter Loge

November 1, 2022

Event: The Qatar World Cup, Sports Journalism and Human Rights

Peter Loge

November 1, 2022

Join the Project on Ethics in Political Communication and the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication for a conversation about if, and how, sports journalists covering the men’s World Cup in Qatar should report on human rights.

When:
Tuesday, Nov. 15, noon ET (US)
Where:
Zoom - Link sent to registrants the day of the event
Who:
Prof. Silvio Waisbord
Director of the School of Media and Public Affairs, The George Washington University
Grant Wahl
Soccer journalist
Prof. Neha Vora
Lafayette College

Register for the conversation here

The men’s World Cup kicks off in Qatar on November 20. According to FIFA, the sport’s governing body, the 2018 World Cup drew more than 3.5 billion viewers and the championship game was seen live by more than one billion people. According to the UN there are about 8 billion people in the world.

Not all of that attention is on the matches. The countries that host the tournament draw attention as well - and not all of that attention is positive. This year’s tournament has raised questions about human rights in Qatar, and “sports washing” in general.

Join the Project on Ethics in Political Communication and the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication for a conversation about how much attention journalists covering the most watched sporting event on the planet should pay to non-soccer topics - and if so, how they can get that coverage right.

Prof. Silvio Waisbord, the Director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University will lead a discussion with soccer journalist Grant Wahl and Arabian Peninsula expert Prof. Neha Vora of Lafayette College.

Grant Wahl is one of the top soccer journalists in the US. His pre-World Cup writing includes the need to pay attention to the human toll of constructing the stadia, hotels and infrastructure the World Cup requires. He has covered World Cups for Sports Illustrated, CBS and Fox Sports. His books include The Beckham Experiment and Masters of Modern Soccer.

Prof. Neha Vora, is an anthropologist at Lafayette College. Her writing includes the books Impossible Citizens: Dubai’s Indian Diaspora; Teach for Arabia: American Universities, Liberalism, and Transnational Qatar; and Beyond Exception: New Interpretations of the Arabian Peninsula (co-authored with Ahmed Kanna and Amelie Le Renard).

Register for the event here

Want to learn more?
Check out the below (to which we will keep adding). This is far from an exhaustive list of articles. A lot of smart people are offering a lot of thoughtful perspectives on the complicated questions of the intersections of sport and society.

Grant Wahl
World Cup host Qatar enacted new laws that it said would improve conditions for migrant workers. But are those laws being followed? We went to Qatar and spoke to workers at 14 FIFA hotels in Doha.

Neha Vora and Natalie Koch
The World Cup and Immigration: Looking Ahead to Qatar 2022

The New Republic
Will World Cup Reporters Let Qatar Get Away With Their Human Rights Abuses?

Amnesty International
FIFA should match $440m World Cup prize money to fund major compensation programme for abused migrant workers

The Athletic
U.S. Soccer approaches Qatar World Cup with a focus on human rights issues

The Guardian
Qatar World Cup accused of imposing ‘chilling’ restrictions on media

Human Rights Watch
FIFA World Cup: All Sponsors Should Back Remedies for Workers

ESPN
World Cup: Denmark kit to protest Qatar's human rights record at 2022 tournament

AP
Fox to avoid World Cup off-field controversy in Qatar

Sport, Ethics and Philosophy (academic journal)
Sportswashing: Complicity and Corruption

Sport Sensemaker - Paul Hayward
Qatar Parks the Bus

Doha News
Australia’s national team urges ‘lasting legacy’ in Qatar ahead of World Cup

Reuters
Exclusive: Thousands of workers evicted in Qatar's capital ahead of World Cup

Marc Owen Jones
Well documented thread on the popular, and incorrect, claim 6,500 migrant workers have died building World Cup stadia.

Natasha Iskander
Does Skill Make Us Human?: Migrant Workers in 21st-Century Qatar and Beyond (book)

Peter Loge

November 1, 2022

The Week in Political Communication Ethics - November 1, 2022

Peter Loge

November 1, 2022

With one week to go until voting ends in a critical midterm election we’re looking at political violence and negative ads.

Plus: Join us on Tues Nov 15 at noon ET for a conversation about the World Cup in Qatar, sports journalism and human rights with Prof. Silvio Waisbord (GW), Grant Wahl (soccer journalist) and Prof. Neha Vora (Lafayette College). Cosponsored with the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.
Register here.

What We’re Reading - Political Violence

“…fear and anger raise money, turn out votes and get you on television. They also have real world consequences…it’s not enough to condemn the violence afterwards. You have to act in ways that make that violence less likely to happen.” - Project Director Peter Loge on “Morning Rush”

The brutal attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has led to a predictable round of “this shouldn’t happen but it’s their fault remember that time when…” rather than an honest assessment what causes political violence and how to keep it from getting worse.

The New York Times Pelosi Attack Highlights Rising Fears of Political Violence
”The assault of the House speaker’s husband inside their home comes as threats against members of Congress have increased in recent years.”

Rachel Kleinfeld in the Journal of Democracy, The Rise of Political Violence in the United States
”Recent alterations to violent groups in the United States and to the composition of the two main political parties have created a latent force for violence that can be 1) triggered by a variety of social events that touch on a number of interrelated identities; or 2) purposefully ignited for partisan political purposes.”

New America Preventing Political Violence in America
”Political Reform's research suggests four kinds of interventions that can prevent and mitigate political violence.”

What We’re Asking

What should candidates and campaigns be saying this week to prevent more violence from happening next week?

What else can be done to ensure sharp rhetoric doesn’t turn into violence?

What We’re Reading - Going Negative

Promoting or creating the conditions for political violence is antithetical to democracy. But playing hard (and sometimes dirty) is as old as the republic.

Voters deserve to know the good, the bad and the ugly about candidates - if it is true and relevant.

CNN, Fact check: The GOP’s dishonesty-filled barrage of ‘defund the police’ attack ads
”Republicans have been running ads around the country that use a variety of dishonest tactics to try to create the inaccurate impression that the Democratic candidates they are targeting support defunding the police.”

The Hill, Air Force improperly released records on GOP candidate’s sexual assault
”…the file was actually improperly released to an opposition research firm, which is how they were presumably later given a Politico reporter.”

PBS NewsHour The ethical dos and don’ts of opposition research (video)
”there are legal lines and then there are also just decency boundaries…”

Hilary Krieger interview with Alan Huffman in FiveThirtyEight, An Introduction to the Dark Arts of Opposition Research
”People have been doing oppo for centuries. It’s just what you do: You try to find out the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent. I don’t really know when it sort of morphed into also finding out your own strengths and weaknesses. But the attacks that were made on political candidates go back to the origins of the country.”

What We’re Asking

What personal information, if any, does the public deserve to know about candidates?

What responsibility do the media have to ignore personal information, or information about candidates that don’t obviously have anything to do with their fitness for office?

Let us know what you think.

Keep with all the goings-on on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Tell your friends.

Event: ChatGPT, Ethics and Political Campaigns

Registration and Details Here

Registration and details here

Further Reading

Vote ChatGPT '24: Artificial Intelligence Beats Actual Foolishness

Heckling the SOTU - Experts Weigh In

Syllabus - Political Communication Ethics - Spring 2023

Winter Update and Speaker of the House inaugural speeches.

The Week Ahead - The New Congress

What We’re Reading
Speaker of the House Inaugural Speeches

What We’re Asking

Reflections on 2022: Praise for concession speeches, criticism of amplifying extremists

The Week in Political Communication Ethics - November 8, 2022