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...

Elaborate Banksy Exhibition in New Museum in Amsterdam

BANKSY 'TORTOISE HELMET STEEL' 55 X 75 CM 2009 (PRNewsFoto/Moco Museum)

New museum on Museum Square in Amsterdam opens its doors with exhibitions of Banksy and Warhol

Moco / Modern Contemporary Museum will open its doors to the public the beginning of April. The opening exhibition will combine works of art by Pop Art-protagonist Andy Warhol and Street Art-legend Banksy. 

BANKSY 'CORRUPTED OIL - JERRY' 50 X 60 CM 2003 (PRNewsFoto/Moco Museum)

The new museum for modern and contemporary art located on the Museum Square in Amsterdam wants to reach out to a wide, international and young audience. During the exhibition there will be more than eighty works of art from both artist, among which the 3 x 4 meters painting "Beanfield" by Banksy, which was showcased last in 2009. A very important canvas that characterises Banksy as an activist artist.

BANKSY 'BEANFIELD' 250 X 350 CM 2009 (PRNewsFoto/Moco Museum)

Moco museum is a private initiative by Lionel and Kim Logchies, owners of LionelGallery on the Spiegelstraat in Amsterdam. For more than eighteen years the couple has worked with works of art by renowned names within the international art scene. From Picasso to Koons, from Hirst to Basquiat.

BANKSY 'FOUR MONKEYS' 75 X 75 CM 2001 (PRNewsFoto/Moco Museum)

The couple now gives Banksy, who has been at the top of the art world for more than two years, the unauthorised exhibition he deserves. Before the artist was known to secretly place his works of art in museums.

By establishing the Moco Museum they are able to show the top pieces of art which would normally stay outside the reach of the general public. Many artworks are given on loan to the museum by an international network of initiators.

WARHOL 'MARYLIN' 90 X 90 CM 1967 (PRNewsFoto/Moco Museum)

Moco Museum :
Exhibitions Banksy 'Laugh now' & Warhol 'Royal'
Address: Honthorststraat 20 / Museumplein, Amsterdam. The Netherlands

SOURCE: Moco Museum

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. 

UNICEF: Climate Change And Lack Of Sanitation Threaten Water Safety For Millions

A woman with a girl toddler fills a jerrycan at a community water point in Ouéréguékaha Village in Côte d'Ivoire. After four years, households again have access to safe, piped water, thanks to a UNICEF programme. (c)UNICEF/UNI94496/Guoegnon (CNW Group/UNICEF Canada)

#ClimateChain Instagram campaign will highlight water and the environment

On World Water Day, UNICEF said the push to bring safe water to millions around the world is going to be even more challenging due to climate change, which threatens both water supply and water safety for millions of children living in drought- or flood-prone areas.

In 2015 at the end of the Millennium Development Goal era, all but 663 million people around the world had drinking water from improved sources – which are supposed to separate water from contact with excreta. However, data from newly available testing technology show that an estimated 1.8 billion people may be drinking water contaminated by e-coli – meaning there is faecal material in their water, even from some improved sources.

"Now that we can test water more cheaply and efficiently than we were able to do when the MDGs were set, we are coming to terms with the magnitude of the challenge facing the world when it comes to clean water," said Sanjay Wijeserkera, head of UNICEF's global water, sanitation and hygiene programmes. "With the new Sustainable Development Goals calling for 'safe' water for everyone, we're not starting from where the MDGs left off; it is a whole new ball game."

One of the principal contributors to faecal contamination of water is poor sanitation. Globally 2.4 billion people lack proper toilets and just under one billion of them defecate in the open. This means faeces can be so pervasive in many countries and communities that even some improved water sources become contaminated.

Safety concerns rising due to climate change

When water becomes scarce during droughts, populations resort to unsafe surface water. At the other end of the scale, floods damage water and sewage treatment facilities, and spread faeces around, very often leading to an increase in water-borne diseases such as cholera and diarrhoea.

Higher temperatures brought on by climate change are also set to increase the incidence of water-linked diseases like malaria, dengue – and now Zika – as mosquito populations rise and their geographic reach expands.

"Climate change is one of the greatest threats of our time, whose impact is being felt more acutely around the world," says David Morley, President and CEO of UNICEF Canada. "Children and young people are especially vulnerable to its destabilizing impact."

160 million children in areas at high risk of drought

According to UNICEF, most vulnerable are the nearly 160 million children under five years old globally who live in areas at high risk of drought. Around half a billion live in flood zones. Most of them live in sub-Saharan Africa and in Asia.

UNICEF is responding to the challenges of climate change by focusing on disaster risk reduction for water supplies. For example:

• Nearly 20,000 children in Bangladesh now have access to climate and disaster-resilient sources of water through an aquifer-recharge system which captures water during the monsoon season, purifies it, and stores it underground.
• In Madagascar, UNICEF is helping local authorities make classrooms for 80,000 children cyclone- and flood-proof, and provide access to disaster-resilient sources of water.
• In drought-prone Kiribati, new rainwater-harvesting and storage facilities are improving communities' access to safe drinking water.

Government of Canada tackles climate change

Last year, the Government of Canada committed $2.65 billion to take action on climate change. Canada is also providing humanitarian assistance funding to address climate related humanitarian emergencies. This includes a $4 million contribution to support UNICEF's efforts in Ethiopia to help improve access to safe water and sanitation for drought affected households, and protect children who face increased vulnerability due to drought.

"We are in a race against time to stop a bad situation from becoming worse," says Morley. "We're pleased by the Government's efforts to lead the charge against climate change, and encourage Canada to continue to support investments that prioritize children and young people, and strengthen the resilience of the poorest and most vulnerable."

A new agenda for action

In a recent publication, Unless We Act Now, UNICEF has set out a 10-point climate agenda for children. It sets out concrete steps for governments, the private sector and ordinary people to take in order to safeguard children's futures and their rights.

Starting on World Water Day and ending with the signing of the Paris Agreement on 22 April, UNICEF is launching a global Instagram campaign to raise awareness of the link between water, the environment, and climate change.

Using the #ClimateChain hashtag, UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake, UN General Assembly PresidentMogens Lykketoft, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres, and other prominent figures will figuratively join hands with members of the public in a chain of photographs intended to urge action to address climate change. The images will be presented at the signing of the Paris Agreement.

About UNICEF 

UNICEF has saved more children's lives than any other humanitarian organization. We work tirelessly to help children and their families, doing whatever it takes to ensure children survive. We provide children with healthcare and immunization, clean water, nutrition and food security, education, emergency relief and more. 

UNICEF is supported entirely by voluntary donations and helps children regardless of race, religion or politics. As part of the UN, we are active in over 190 countries - more than any other organization. Our determination and our reach are unparalleled. Because nowhere is too far to go to help a child survive. For more information about UNICEF, please visit www.unicef.ca.  

For updates, follow us on Twitter and Facebook or visit unicef.ca.

SOURCE: UNICEF Canada

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...

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Wins 14 NAVGTR Awards

The National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers, a 501(c)(3) non-profit media organization, has announced winners for its 15th annual awards program honoring video game art, technology, and production. 

The biggest winner is The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt with 14 wins, falling just short of The Last of Us' record 15 wins from two years ago.  Rise of the Tomb Raider and Tales from the Borderlands were the second biggest winners with 4 wins each. 

Three games won three awards each: Star Wars Battlefront, Splatoon, and Life is Strange.  Four games won two awards each:  Super Mario Maker, Rocket League, Crypt of the Necrodancer, and Bloodborne. 

By developer, CD Projekt Red led with 14 awards.  Nintendo won six.  Telltale, Gearbox, and Crystal Dynamics won four awards each.  Other top developers were Electronic Arts, Dontnod Entertainment, Psyonix, From Software, and Brace Yourself Games. 

By publisher, CD Projekt led with 14 awards.  Square Enix and Nintendo won seven each.  Other top publishers were 2K, Telltale, Electronic Arts, Warner Bros, Sony Computer Entertainment, Psyonix, and Brace Yourself Games.

Fifty-six creative, technical, and genre award categories recognize achievement in animation, art direction, character design, controls, game design, game engineering, musical score, sound effects, writing, and more as seen at navgtr.org

This year's Honorary Award recipients are Toru Iwatani, creator of Pac-Man, and Mark DeLoura, for developing programs for children to explore coding.

NAVGTR strongly supports the IGDA Developer Credit special interest group (SIG) at igda.org/devcredit to improve crediting practices.

NAVGTR AWARDS logo. (PRNewsFoto/NAVGTR CORP.)

The general voting body of reviewers, journalists, analysts, and writers includes contributors for such varied outlets as Austin American-Statesman, Break, Chicago Sun-Times, CNN, Futurenet, Gamespot, GamesRadar, Gaming Illustrated, Geek, IGN, Los Angeles Times, Machinima, MMO PRG, Moody's, NBC, New Gamer Nation,New York Times, Nintendo World Report, The Ottawa Citizen, PC Gamer, Polygon, Salon, San Jose Mercury-News, Terminal Gamer, USA Today, The Vancouver Sun, Wired News, and hundreds more.

SOURCE: National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers

Michael Mann, Oscar-nominated Filmmaker And Bestselling Author Don Winslow Team Up For Mann Books' First Project

Michael Mann (The Insider, Heat, The Last Of The Mohicans)

Mann / Winslow Tell Epic Organized Crime Tale In A Novel; Major Film To Follow

In his multi-media project under the Michael Mann Books imprint, Mann has teamed up with internationally bestselling author, Don Winslow, author of The Cartel, to co-create an original novel about the complex relationship between two Organized Crime giants, Tony Accardo and Sam Giancana. Mann will produce and possibly direct the film. The film will be based on the novel and a pre-existing screenplay Mann co-wrote with Shane Salerno. The novel's anticipated breadth will be on the scale of Winslow's Cartel.

Winslow will begin work late spring after delivering his next book.

Discussions with publishers will begin shortly and the book will be released in 2017. 

Tony Accardo ran the Chicago Outfit – an efficient, unified and massive organization that was the single most powerful criminal enterprise in America.  In 1959, LIFE magazine estimated that the Chicago Outfit's revenue constituted 6% of the U.S. national income. From Frank Nitti's suicide in 1943, Accardo ran the Outfit. His extraordinary career spanned eight decades from the 1929 St. Valentine's Day Massacre through the Reagan era.

Giancana – mentored and installed by Accardo to front the Chicago Outfit from 1957 to 1966 – elevated the Outfit onto the New Frontier with bold moves that converged national commerce and industry with politics, Vegas, the music industry, Hollywood, and co-ventures with the CIA.

His megalomania elevated him to heights never dreamed possible and to exposure that became radioactive. Giancana was brutally murdered in 1975.

Mann has acquired rights and previously undisclosed material from the Accardo family.

Mann has directed, produced and written or co-written the crime genre classics Heat, Public Enemies, Thief and Manhunter as well as the Oscar-nominated dramas Ali and The Insider and the classic The Last of the Mohicans. 

Winslow's The Cartel is a major international bestseller and was named one of the best books of 2015 by numerous publications, including The New York Times. It was sold to Twentieth Century Fox in a multi-million dollar package and is to be directed by Ridley Scott. In addition to The Cartel, Winslow's The Power of the Dog, Savages, and The Winter of Frankie Machine have won major writing awards, including the Raymond Chandler award in Italy, the Maltese Falcon Award in Japan and the RBA International Prize for crime writing in Spain. 

SOURCE: The Story Factory

Was Jesus Really Nailed To The Cross?

Peter Gertner Crucifixion Walters.

By Meredith J C Warren, University of Sheffield

Jesus’s crucifixion is probably one of the most familiar images to emerge from Christianity. Good Friday, one of the holiest days in the Christian calendar, marks the event. But what was crucifixion? And why was Jesus killed that way?

Crucifixion was a Roman method of punishment. Suspended from a large cross, a victim would eventually die from asphyxiation or exhaustion – it was long, drawn-out, and painful. It was used to publicly humiliate slaves and criminals (not always to kill them), and as an execution method was usually reserved for individuals of very low status or those whose crime was against the state. This is the reason given in the Gospels for Jesus’s crucifixion: as King of the Jews, Jesus challenged Roman imperial supremacy (Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19–22).

Crucifixion could be carried out in a number of ways. In Christian tradition, nailing the limbs to the wood of the cross is assumed, with debate centring on whether nails would pierce hands or the more structurally sound wrists. But Romans did not always nail crucifixion victims to their crosses, and instead sometimes tied them in place with rope. In fact, the only archaeological evidence for the practice of nailing crucifixion victims is an ankle bone from the tomb of Jehohanan, a man executed in the first century CE.

So was Jesus nailed to the cross?

Gospel accounts
Some early Gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas, don’t include the narrative of Jesus’s crucifixion, choosing instead to focus on his teaching. But Jesus’s death by crucifixion is one of the things that all four canonical Gospels agree on. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all include the crucifixion event in their own slightly different ways.

None of the Gospels in the New Testament mentions whether Jesus was nailed or tied to the cross. However, the Gospel of John reports wounds in the risen Jesus’s hands. It is this passage, perhaps, that has led to the overwhelming tradition that Jesus’s hands and feet were nailed to the cross, rather than tied to it.

Caravaggio, The Incredulity of Saint Thomas. Wikimedia Commons

The Gospel of Peter, a non-canonical gospel from the first or second century CE, specifically describes in verse 21 how after Jesus had died, the nails were removed from his hands. The Gospel of Peter also famously includes the cross itself as an active character in the Passion narrative. In verses 41-42 the cross speaks, responding with its own voice to God: “And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, ‘Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?’ And an obeisance was heard from the cross, ‘Yes.’” Tradition is clearly of paramount importance to this text.

Over the past few years, several people have claimed to have found the actual nails with which Jesus was crucified. Each time, biblical scholars and archaeologists have rightly pointed out the assumptions and misinterpretations of evidence behind these claims. Curiously, this fixation on the nails persists, despite the fact that the earliest gospels make no mention of Jesus being nailed to the cross.

Depictions of the crucifixion
It isn’t surprising that Christians took a while to embrace the image of Christ on the cross, given that crucifixion was a humiliating way to die. What is surprising is what the earliest image of the crucifixion turns out to be. Rather than the devotional icons with which we are familiar – pictures that glorify Jesus’s death – this earliest image appears to be some late second-century graffiti mocking Christians.

Alexamenos Graffito, Vector traced from Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (1898) by Rodolfo Lanciani Wikimedia Commons

Called the Alexamenos Graffito, the image shows a figure with the head of a donkey on a cross with the words: “Alexamenos worships his God.” This was apparently a common accusation in antiquity, as Minucius Felix (Octavius 9.3; 28.7) and Tertullian (Apology 16.12) both attest. Since the graffito was clearly not made by a Christian, this image suggests that non-Christians were familiar with some core elements of Christian belief as early as the second century.

Gemstones, some used for magical purposes, also provide some of our earliest depictions of the crucified Jesus. This second or third century piece of carved jasper depicts a man on a cross surrounded by magic words.

Magical gem. British Museum CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Another very early image of the crucifixion is found carved into the face of a carnelian gemstone made into a ring.

Constanza gemstone with the crucified Christ, surrounded by 12 apostles. British Musem CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Scholars think that the Constanza gemstone, as it is known, dates from the fourth century CE. In this depiction, Jesus’s hands do not appear to be nailed to the cross, since they fall naturally, as if he is tied at the wrists.

Since the evidence from antiquity doesn’t provide a clear answer as to whether Jesus was nailed or tied to his cross, it’s tradition that dictates this common depiction. Those who have seen the film The Passion of the Christ will recall how much time the director, Mel Gibson, devoted just to the act of nailing Jesus onto the cross —- almost five whole minutes.

The Passion of the Christ.

Given the relative silence on the act of crucifixion in the Gospels, this stands out as a graphic expansion. One of the only films that does not assume that crucifixion involved nails is Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which shows multiple crucifixion victims, though not Jesus, tied to their crosses.

Eventually, Emperor Constantine put an end to crucifixion as a method of execution, not for ethical reasons, but out of respect for Jesus. But in the end, it is the enduring image of the cross, and not the matter of whether nails or ropes were used, that most firmly evokes the death of Jesus in art and tradition.


About Today's Contributor 
Meredith J C Warren, Lecturer in Biblical and Religious Studies, University of Sheffield

This article was originally published on The Conversation.