How To Inoculate People Against Donald Trump's Fact Bending Claims

Is it possible to combat disinformation spread by Donald Trump? EPA/Erik S. Lesser

By John Cook, The University of Queensland and Margaret Crane, The University of Queensland

A potential Donald Trump presidency terrifies people worldwide. His racism, bullying, and enthusiasm for violence are a great concern for onlookers.

But we see a positive in Trump’s candidacy: We can improve our critical thinking by using him as an example of how people spread misinformation.

And there is no shortage of material to work with, given Trump’s firehose of falsehoods.
Politifact found that 78% of Trump’s statements were Mostly False, False, or “Pants on Fire” (the most extreme form of false). Fact-checking websites, parody videos, and even a debunking speech by former governor Mitt Romney have highlighted his misinformation.

But pundits and political scientists are mystified that this hasn’t hurt his level of support, with fact-checking efforts sometimes helping Trump and energising his supporters.

When facts aren’t enough
Psychologists are quite familiar with the fact that die-hard supporters of an idea aren’t swayed by contrary evidence, which can backfire and strengthen preexisting attitudes. Indeed, trying to change the minds of headstrong Trump supporters may be largely futile.

Communicating to the larger majority who are still open-minded to facts is more effective. Psychological research on science denial provides a model for how to reduce Trump’s influence on the general populace: inoculation theory.

This uses the metaphor of vaccination. Vaccines stop viruses from spreading through inoculation, which is when when healthy people are injected with a weak form of a virus and then build immunity to the virus.

The inoculation theory applies the same principle to knowledge. Research has found we can make people “immune” to misinformation using the Fact-Myth-Fallacy approach. In this method, we first explain the facts, then introduce a related myth, and then explain the technique the myth uses to distort the facts. By understanding the technique used to create the myth, people are exposed to a “weakened form” of the misinformation.

Science deniers use five techniques to distort facts: fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking evidence, and conspiracy theories. The acronym FLICC is an easy way to remember these techniques.

FLICC: Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, Conspiracy theories. John Cook

FLICC away Donald Trump
Let’s take a look at some examples of Trump’s FLICC-laden arguments.

Fake Experts
The fake expert strategy occurs when people claim to be experts despite having little or no relevant expertise.

Trump has negligible relevant expertise to be President. However, Trump believes that presidents must be smart. He elegantly demonstrates his intelligence level in the following video:

Donald Trump comments on his level of education, and having “the best words”.

Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies cover a variety of techniques, from distracting red herrings to Trump’s favourite, ad hominem attacks, i.e. attacking a person’s character rather than their ideas (you’ll find many examples on Twitter and in his speeches).

A common fallacy from Trump is over-simplification: proposing overly simplistic solutions to wickedly complex problems. Trump’s explanation for how Mexico will pay for his infamous wall between the US and Mexico demonstrates this fallacy:

Trump’s oversimplifies how to convince Mexico to pay for the wall

Impossible Expectations
Impossible expectations involves demanding unrealistic or unreasonable standards of proof.

For example, while the planet has been warming for decades, that doesn’t mean winter will stop happening or that places will no longer experience cold periods. Arguing that cold weather disproves global warming is like arguing that feeling full after a large meal disproves global hunger.

Trump tweets disbelief in global warming after experiencing cold weather. Twitter

Cherry Picking
Cherry picking paints a misleading picture by selecting a few facts that support an idea and ignoring the larger body of evidence. Trump cherry picks isolated examples of Hispanic supporters to cover the fact that the vast majority of surveyed Hispanics disapprove of him.

Trump demonstrates that he has at least one Hispanic supporter

Conspiracy Theories
Conspiracy theories are a common feature of science denial. Deniers claim that the large group of people who disagree with them are part of a conspiracy. Trump often uses this logic to justify why the media speaks poorly about him.

Trump’s justification of his negative media coverage

Both climate science denialists and Trump are known to entertain a variety of conspiracy theories. For example, Trump has been a big proponent of the birther theory about Obama’s birthplace).

An example of Trump inoculation
Now that we understand the techniques Trump uses to spread information, let’s look at an example of inoculation using the Fact-Myth-Fallacy approach used by inoculation theory:

Donald Trump is highly unpopular among Hispanics. This should come as no surprise given his constant refrain for a wall along the Mexican border, as well as his characterisation that Mexicans crossing the border are drug traffickers and rapists. 

A recent Gallup survey found 77% of Hispanics view Trump unfavourably. This is the highest disapproval rating among all Presidential candidates. 

Contradicting these statistics, Trump falsely claims that Latinos love him. At one rally, Trump brought an enthusiastic Colombian woman on stage to share her support. 

Trump uses the cherry picking technique to distort the facts. He paints a misleading picture by highlighting a single example and ignoring contradicting information.

This inoculation approach gives people the critical thinking skills to assess arguments and determine what information to believe.

Is this the solution to stop Trump?
Given similarities between science denial and Trump support, could we apply inoculation theory to stop Trump? It’s difficult to say.

Inoculation research has mainly been applied to areas of knowledge that are quite different to the complicated political arena. Trump’s support is not as simple as distinguishing between a fact and a myth.

When it comes to voting patterns, political affiliations interact with ideology, religion and many other factors, including dissatisfaction with the political establishment — a dominant theme in this election cycle.

Promisingly, inoculation has been found to be effective in neutralising political attack messages. But whether inoculation would prevent Trump’s influence from spreading beyond his core followers is an unanswered question.

Even if examining Trump’s arguments using the inoculation approach has a minimal effect on the political landscape, at least Trump’s candidacy can help strengthen our critical thinking skills.


About Today's Contributors 
John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland and Margaret Crane, Research and Innovation Officer, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

  Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

Brussels Attacks: Callous Brexit Tweeters Will Lose The Battle For Hearts And Minds

Commuters react to the Brussels attacks. Anthony Devlin / PA Wire/Press Association Images

By Thom Brooks, Durham University

Within minutes of the first reports of the Brussels attacks hitting the internet the Twittersphere reacted – with grief at the reported casualties, speculation about the extent of the carnage and, sadly but predictably, political point scoring. While world leaders expressed shock and called for calm, some people thought this would be a good time to help promote their political causes in a shocking display of carelessness and a toxic mix of insensitivity and self-righteousness.

Quick off the mark was Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson, who tweeted at 7.45am – only about 20 minutes after news of the attacks had first started to emerge and before news of the attack on the Metro line had been reported – calling Brussels “the jihadist capital of Europe” and mocking what she called “Remainers”.

Pearson was not alone and her tweet was merely the first of many as others leaped at the chance to exploit a still unfolding painful tragedy for partisan political gain.

The UK prime minister, David Cameron, and other party leaders sent messages of support to the people of Brussels. Meanwhile UKIP leader Nigel Farage retweeted Pearson’s message on Twitter, noting his fears for the future just in case someone had the mistaken impression he could act like a statesman.

And, finally, no such moment could be overlooked by the Daily Mail’s columnist Katie Hopkins, who thought now was the time to blame the dead and injured for an unprovoked terrorist attack in a more chilling act of nonsensical chutzpah.

It’s easy to mock America’s pro-gun lobby for its mantra that: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” – maybe someone should remind Hopkins that innocent people don’t cause terrorist atrocities, terrorists cause terror. It should be an easy point to grasp, but it appears to have evaded her.

Morally bankrupt
The EU referendum is a very big deal – a once in a generation vote about Britain’s place in Europe, arguably the biggest single issue affecting the British people. As such it causes passions to run high on each side. It’s also an argument that cuts across traditional party lines.

But there is a time and a place for this debate – and most people would consider it morally bankrupt to try to exploit a tragedy such as this even while the body count was still going on. Nor is it appropriate to use such a human tragedy to satisfy personal, political ambitions.

No doubt Brexit campaigners such as Pearson, Farage, Hopkins and the rest will hope that their tweets will have resonated with some people. And make no mistake that there will be some that share their views about Brexit and the EU referendum. But these messages will not influence the way most people think. Such crass “dog whistling” is seen by most people for the political opportunism that it is.

For many people, these tweets are an irresistible – and regrettable – reminder of what can happen when cynicism trumps good sense, something famously seen in 2001 when a spin doctor sent out a message to her department in the wake of the 9/11 attack in New York that: “It is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.” There was more than a flavour of this in the Brussels tweets. Lessons have not been learned by all.

Fair-minded people who remain undecided on whether to support the UK’s continued EU membership may share concerns about security in light of events like today, but Brexit campaigners must keep in mind that it’s not just the message that wins, but the messenger. If the public views supporters of one side as political opportunists willing to exploit and twist any tragedy to suit their political ambitions, it will more effectively repel voters than win them over. There remains plenty of time left to draw conclusions about Britain’s place in Europe. But let’s first let the dust settle on this tragedy in Brussels and gather the facts so we can make an informed decision in our collective national interest.

Brexit campaigners have made a big deal out of the way the prime minister is using what they call “Project Fear” to scare people into voting their way. Judging from the Twittersphere, the Brussels attacks have made a lot of them hypocrites.


About Today's Contributor 
Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government, Durham University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Five Ways A Trump Presidency Would Impact Australia – For The Worse

A Trump presidency may be the right time for Australia to distance itself from the US. (Reuters/Joe Skipper)

By Benjamin Isakhan, Deakin University and Zim Nwokora, Deakin University

To Australians, American politics can appear to be a glitzy and protracted soap opera, played out on the other side of the world with few consequences for us “down under”.

But Australians ought to be deeply concerned – for five key reasons – about Donald Trump’s seemingly unstoppable rise to be the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

Immigration
Australia is facing complex challenges relating to immigration and refugees. What Australia and the world urgently need is compassionate but decisive leadership that is able to manage the mass humanitarian problem with financial and cultural sensitivity.

However, while Australian politicians have often used a “dog whistle” on immigration, Trump uses a loudspeaker. He zeroed in on immigration from Mexico in June 2015:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best … They’re sending people that have lots of problems … They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

A Trump campaign commercial claimed that, as president, he:

… will stop illegal immigrants by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for.

A Trump ad on immigration.

Following the San Bernardino terrorist attack in California last December, Trump called for:

… a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our county’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.

These statements suggest that, as president, Trump might like to see the US become more insular, to impose walls along its borders and to judge migrants on the basis of their religious beliefs.

This could matter in Australia too. Australia rightly prides itself on its peaceful multiculturalism, but its success in this area is fragile. In particular, it is threatened by fringe movements like Reclaim Australia (and pandering by mainstream politicians). Trump’s moves could embolden such movements and lend legitimacy to their aims.

Foreign and military affairs
The US is a vital strategic ally to Australia. The two countries have a long – if problematic – history of foreign policy collaboration, including joint military engagement. But they are facing two significant foreign policy challenges that require nuanced and delicate leadership – the exact opposite of Trump’s style.

In the South China Sea, China, the Philippines, Vietnam and others are locked in a dispute about who owns certain territorial waters and the resources below them. The Obama administration has taken on the role of assertive mediator and managed to prevent an escalation thus far.

For his part, Trump has made indelicate statements about China and its moves to build:

… a military island in the middle of the South China Sea.

China no doubt views such statements as provocative. But despite his concern over the South China Sea, Trump has said he wants to reduce America’s military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. That might encourage China to move ahead on its reclamation activities. It might also lead to further destabilisation if China’s rivals respond.

Any such destabilisation in the South China Sea would have serious consequences for Australia. It is not only in close proximity to Australia, but is also a major shipping route for Australian businesses. And China is Australia’s largest two-way trading partner.

The other key foreign policy challenge facing the US and Australia is their ongoing efforts to defeat Islamic State (IS) in the Middle East. Australia is a key player in President Barack Obama’s coalition to “degrade and ultimately destroy” IS.

Trump has said he:

… would knock the hell out of ISIS … when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families.

This is a possible future president advocating war crimes. IS targets innocent women and children. The suggestion by a presidential candidate that he might do the same ought to cause international condemnation. It will certainly fuel IS’s propaganda machine.

Australia has a problematic legacy of following the US into ill-conceived wars that end in disaster. During George W. Bush’s presidency, Australia committed to military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both failed to achieve their goals and the countries remain hotbeds of violence and instability.

Trump’s preference for indiscriminate force could create a real risk that Australia is dragged into another war in the Middle East. Past experience suggests that any such war is likely to be hugely costly and difficult to “win”.

Trade and economic ties
The US is one of Australia’s largest trading partners. The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement has eliminated barriers to trade between the countries, further deepening their economic ties.

Trump, a brash New York real-estate mogul and entrepreneur, might seem like the perfect fit for a US economy still recovering from the 2007-08 global financial crisis. But appearances can be deceiving. He inherited a fortune from his father and early successes escalated his net worth.

Since then a series of failed start-ups has repeatedly crippled Trump. Overall, his business empire survives on a diet of risky investments. Economic brinksmanship may pay off for a private individual, but it is not the approach of a prudent president looking to steer a massive economy.

Some of Trump’s economic thinking was laid bare when he announced his income tax proposal. He declared that he would significantly reduce taxes for those earning under US$100,000, but left it unclear how the shortfall in revenue would be made up. The plan would reportedly cut federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over a decade, presumably leaving the states to fill this gap with new borrowing or unprecedented spending cuts.

It is easy to see why the prospect of a Trump presidency is causing alarm on Wall Street. One only has to look back at the ripple effects of the global financial crisis across Europe to see that a Trump presidency might have disastrous economic consequences for Australia.

Climate change
World leaders continue to fumble in their attempts to confront climate change. In Australia, political leadership on this issue has ranged from denying the problem exists to short-sighted election promises followed by little concerted action.

It is hard to imagine a Trump presidency that contributes positively on climate change. In one of his Twitter tirades, Trump announced:

The statement is not only offensive to the Chinese, but it flies in the face of scientific consensus that climate change is happening, and that the US is a major contributor.
Having a climate-change denier in the White House would provide a crutch for Australian politicians desperate to avoid taking decisive action on this issue.

Popularity and polarisation
The final reason Australia should worry about Trump is simply that he is so popular.

Millions of Americans back Trump despite – or perhaps because of – his style and policies.
 Some hold placards that say:

I’m ready to work on the wall.

Others read:

Thank you Lord Jesus for President Trump.

Trump represents, more than any other candidate, both the fears and aspirations of white working-class Americans who are exhausted by dramatic changes to their country over recent decades.

These Americans certainly want no more prudence in economic affairs and pragmatism in foreign policy. They want to call December 25 “Christmas”; they want to win wars; they want Americans to speak English. They want, in the words of Trump’s campaign slogan, to “make America great again”.

These ambitions may sound appealing, but they could lead to deeply problematic policies.
It is impossible to know for sure what a Trump presidency would be like. But there are sensible reasons to suspect it could be disastrous – not only for the US but also for Australia. A Trump presidency may prove to be a unique opportunity for Australia to carefully distance itself from the US.


About Today's Contributors 
Benjamin Isakhan, Associate Professor of Politics and Policy, Deakin University and Zim Nwokora, Lecturer in Politics and Policy, Deakin University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

 Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

How Donald Trump Gets Away With Saying Things Other Candidates Can't

Donald Trump fires up the crowd during a campaign rally in Warren, Michigan. Carlos Barria/Reuters

By Jennifer Mercieca, Texas A&M University

In an interview last month, George Stephanopoulos asked Donald Trump about his retweet of a follower who insisted that both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were ineligible for the presidency.

Trump dismissed Stephanopoulos' question with “it was a retweet” – as if to say that retweeting someone else’s claim meant that he wasn’t responsible for the content.

When pressed, Trump continued:

I mean, let people make their own determination. I’ve never looked at it, George. I honestly have never looked at it. As somebody said, he’s not [eligible]. And I retweeted it. I have 14 million people between Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, and I retweet things and we start dialogue and it’s very interesting.

It’s a response that can be reduced to I’m not saying it, I’m just saying it.

As a scholar of American political rhetoric, I’ve previously written about the ways that Donald Trump’s rhetorical style mirrors that of polarizing figures like George Wallace and Joseph McCarthy.

But it’s becoming increasingly clear that what sets Trump’s campaign apart is his reliance upon paralipsis, a device that enables him to publicly say things that he can later disavow – without ever having to take responsibility for his words.

Just saying…
The art of rhetoric – or persuasive communication – can include any number of forms: speeches, essays, tweets, images, films and more.

Paralipsis (para, “side” and leipein, “to leave”) is a Greek term that translates to “leave to the side.” It’s thought to be an ironic way for a speaker to say two things at once.

For example, say you wanted to imply that your coworker takes too many coffee breaks without actually accusing him wasting time at work. You might say something like, “I’m not saying that he drinks more coffee than anyone else in the office, but every time I go to the break room, he’s in there.” You might also shrug and make a “something seems kind of off” facial expression.

Paralipsis is a powerful rhetorical device because it can also allow someone to make a false accusation – or spread a false rumor – while skirting consequences.

And Trump has become a master at wielding this tool.

For example, after he was widely condemned for retweeting a graphic of homicide data delineated by race, FactCheck.org found that “almost every figure in the graphic is wrong.” His response on the Bill O’Reilly Show was:

Bill, I didn’t tweet, I retweeted somebody that was supposedly an expert, and it was also a radio show…am I gonna check every statistic? …All it was is a retweet. And it wasn’t from me. It came out of a radio show, and other places…This was a retweet. And it comes from sources that are very credible, what can I tell you?

In other words: I’m not saying, I’m just saying.

Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly used paralipsis to deflect criticism that he’s courting white supremacists.

In January, Trump retweeted a photoshopped image of Jeb Bush from a user with the handle WhiteGenocideTM. In response to the backlash he received for retweeting a white supremacist, Trump simply shrugged: “I don’t know about retweeting. You retweet somebody and they turn out to be white supremacists. I know nothing about these groups that are supporting me.”

Likewise, he blamed a faulty earpiece for his unwillingness to disavow David Duke and the KKK in a CNN interview:

I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So I don’t know. I don’t know – did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists.

I’m not saying, I’m just saying.

And when Gawker tricked Trump into retweeting a quote from Benito Mussolini, his response was “What difference does it make whether it’s Mussolini or somebody else? It’s certainly a very interesting quote.”

Accountability and responsibility
Certainly it’s a good thing to “start dialogue.” Trump knows that “interesting” content attracts retweets, followers, audiences, media attention and, it seems, votes.

However, there’s danger in circulating accusations and rumors, even if the purpose is to “start dialogue.” Research shows that once an accusation or a rumor begins to circulate, it’s very difficult to retract. Often, a retraction or clarification doesn’t receive as much attention as the initial accusation. Meanwhile, the mere act of retracting misinformation can reaffirm the deceptive assertions as facts, even after the clarification.

So what does it mean when a presidential candidate gains a devoted following and rises to prominence – yet consistently avoids taking responsibility for the content of his public messages?

Political theorists, rhetoricians and historians have grappled with this exact problem since the rise of the “demagogue” in Athens in 429 B.C., when Pericles' death created a vacuum for “unofficial” leaders of the people to rise to power.

The danger, according to political scientist Ernest Barker, was that “such a leader – having no official executive position – could exercise initiative and determine policy without incurring political responsibility, since it was not his duty to execute the policy which he had induced the assembly to accept.”

In the Greek context, Barker described the danger of demagogues who weren’t tasked with implementing the policies for which they advocated. In our current political context, Trump can argue that he can’t be held accountable because he wasn’t the one who originally posted the tweet. He can shrug and claim that he’s simply giving a voice to an idea.

In both cases, the defining feature of demagogues is their refusal to accept responsibility for their actions.

Yet Donald Trump (the television star) routinely fired people on his show “The Apprentice” for failing to take responsibility for their team’s failures. And he’s often given lectures on “responsibility” to his Twitter followers, like on February 14, 2013 when he invited his followers to “take responsibility for yourself – it’s a very empowering attitude.”

To use the candidate’s brand of paralipsis: I’m not saying that Trump’s a hypocrite and a demagogue. I’m just saying that he doesn’t exactly follow his own advice.

About Today's Contributor
Jennifer Mercieca, Associate Professor of Communication and Director of the Aggie Agora, Texas A&M University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

'Underground' Premiere Shatters Records As The Most-Watched Program In Nearly 18 Years On WGN America

Jurnee Smollett-Bell as Rosalee, Alano Miller as Cato and Renwick Scott as Henry (PRNewsFoto/WGN America)

On the heels of rave reviews, the premiere of WGN America's critically acclaimed hit series "Underground" shattered records as the most-watched program in nearly 18 years on the network, since the Cubs vs. Cardinals game on 9/8/1998 where Mark McGwire famously hit his 62nd home run beating Roger Maris's single season record.  

In Live + 3 delivery, "Underground" amassed 3.5 million Total Viewers (+43% vs. 2.5 million) and 1.5 Adults 25-54 (+51% vs. 983,000), last Wednesday night (premiere and three encores) to become the highest rated original scripted program ever in the network's history.  When adding digital platforms and encores, "Underground" continued its winning streak, outpacing all originals on the network with 4.9 million Total Viewers on premiere night and 5.7 million Total Viewers across the week.  

The 10 p.m. airing drew 2.3 million Total Viewers (+60% vs. 1,421,000) and 985,000 Adults 25-54 (+68% vs. 585,000), outperforming the network's prime average season-to-date by +948% in the demo. 

The Full-Length Trailer

"We couldn't be happier with the outstanding performance of 'Underground,' but the overwhelmingly positive response of the audience to this story about the unsung American heroes of the Underground Railroad is even more gratifying," said Matt Cherniss, president and general manager, WGN America and Tribune Studios.  "The talented creators Misha Green and Joe Pokaski, along with the producers and an amazing cast and crew, have created something truly special."

The commercial-free premiere of "Underground" aired Wednesday, March 9 at 10 p.m., and ranks an impressive #6 in Total Viewers among all scripted cable series premieres this broadcast season and #8 among Adults 25-54.

Lauded for its vivid and thrilling portrayal of the revolutionaries of the Underground Railroad, "Underground's" 3.5 million Total Viewers on the night improved on the premiere nights of the network's popular originals "Outsiders" by +25% (vs. 2.8 million) and "Salem" by +9% (vs. 3.2 million).

From creators and executive producers Misha Green and Joe Pokaski, and executive producer and Academy Award®-winner John Legend, the 10-episode, hour-long program tells the unflinching story of a group of courageous men and women who band together for the fight of their lives – for their families, their future and their freedom.  In all-new episode of "Underground," "War Chest," airing WEDNESDAY, March 16 (10:00 p.m. ET/PT), a plantation dance becomes the perfect distraction for a heist while John and Elizabeth step into a strange new world.

"Underground" has fast amassed a passionate fan base, and trended on Twitter in its premiere night as the second highest trending topic of the night, only after the Democratic debate.  The series was recently honored at the White House with a screening and panel discussion as part of the Office of Public Engagement's Black History Month program.  Additionally, "Underground" has been screened at a number of revered institutions, universities and events, including National Civil Rights Museum, 2016 Sundance Film Festival, NAACP, Schomburg Center, DuSable Museum of African American History, Howard University, New York Comic-Con, and more.

Cast of WGN America's "Underground" and Executive Producer John Legend (PRNewsFoto/WGN America)

The celebrated cast of "Underground" includes: 

• Jurnee Smollett-Bell ("True Blood," "Friday Night Lights") 
• Aldis Hodge ("Straight Outta Compton") 
• Christopher Meloni ("Sin City: A Dame to Kill For")
• Alano Miller ("Jane The Virgin") ‎
• Jessica de Gouw ("Arrow," "Dracula") 
• Marc Blucas ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer") ‎
• Adina Porter ("The 100") 
• Mykelti Williamson ("Justified," "24") ‎
• Amirah Vann ("Girls," "And So It Goes") 
• Johnny Ray Gill ("Rectify")
• Chris Chalk ("Gotham") 
• Reed Diamond ("Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.")
• Theodus Crane ("The Walking Dead") 
• James Lafferty ("One Tree Hill")
• Renwick Scott ("Treme")
• Jussie Smollett ("Empire")

WGN America Logo (PRNewsFoto/WGN America)

Hailing from Sony Pictures Television and Tribune Studios, "Underground" is created by Misha Green ("Sons Of Anarchy," "Heroes") and Joe Pokaski ("Daredevil," "Heroes,") who executive produce alongside Academy Award-winner Akiva Goldsman ("A Beautiful Mind," "I Am Legend") of Weed Road Pictures; and Joby Harold ("King Arthur," "Edge of Tomorrow") and Tory Tunnell ("King Arthur," "Holy Rollers") of Safehouse Pictures.  Visionary artist and producer John Legend, an Academy Award, Golden Globe® and multi-Grammy Award winner, and his Get Lifted partners Mike Jackson and Ty Stiklorius executive produce.  Additionally, Get Lifted oversees all elements of the show's music.  Anthony Hemingway ("The Wire," "Treme") directs and serves as executive producer for the first four episodes. 

SOURCE: WGN America