Opinion: Sean Spicer’s Dishonest Arguments Have a Point
By Caleb Yip
Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer spoke at Georgetown University on September 17 as part of a promotion tour for his new book, The Briefing. The event was hosted by the Institute of Politics and Public Service at the McCourt School of Public Policy and was moderated by Mo Elleithee. Spicer is a polarizing figure in Washington and has not always been truthful in his press briefings. While most of his claims during the event were true, several of them were either exaggerated or misrepresented. Throughout the discussion, Spicer made several valid points, but the way he presented his argument perfectly demonstrates how facts and truth are increasingly politicized in a way that detracts from the actual issue at hand.
The conversation began with Spicer’s tenure in the Trump White House, with Elleithee asking him why he enjoys working in communications. He responded that most political positions are focused on elections. In contrast, Spicer called a press position a daily battle where you knew “whether or not you got the coverage you wanted or killed the story” by the next day. It was clear that he relished that daily battle and the intensity of the job, and throughout much of the conversation, he had the same combative attitude when making arguments.
The topic soon shifted to bias in the media, which Spicer claimed is endemic. As proof, Sean Spicer cited a recent Pew Center study and claimed that it found “92 percent of coverage [of Trump] was negative.” The study, in fact, does not say this. It compares coverage from President Barack Obama’s first 100 days of office to Trump’s and concludes that only 5 percent of coverage was positive, which would seem to corroborate Spicer’s claim.
This, however, ignores the fact that 33 percent of coverage was rated neutral, meaning that only 62 percent was negative. The fact of the matter is that Spicer makes a valid claim—coverage of this administration has been far more negative than previous administrations, and that should raise questions. However, in misrepresenting the data, Spicer not only undermines the trustworthiness of studies and research in general, he also makes it more difficult to genuinely discuss the problem. By making claims that skew people’s perceptions of data to score political points or advance an argument, he contributes to an environment where trust in scientific data is no longer guaranteed, hamstringing any attempt to discuss the underlying issue in an intellectually honest way.
In a similar manner, when asked whether or not the press was the enemy of the people, he resolutely disagreed. However, he then followed up with a call for a fair and free press and condemned the media’s refusal to condemn other networks for making mistakes. This led to a strong rebuttal from the moderator, who gave the example of news organizations like the Washington Post criticizing the New York Times for an inaccurate story about Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley’s drapes.
Again, Spicer made a reasonable argument that news organizations should do more to fact-check prior to publishing articles, since efforts to correct misleading stories cannot repair the damage created by an inaccurate story. Once again, his underlying argument was weakened by the evidence that he used. By claiming that news organizations do not call out their own, he detracts from the perfectly reasonable arguments he should be making instead.
There is no question that the role of media in politics today needs to be carefully examined, but Spicer’s dangerous cocktail of truth, half-truth, and falsehood does more to contribute to the problem than the solution. Spicer may relish the intense battles with the media, but the fact of the matter is that people like Spicer are creating an atmosphere that makes frank discussion increasingly difficult.