I am a forensic linguistic analyst -- I analyze the words people use for deeper insights into the news -- and #3 resonates. In "The Secret Language of Pronouns", James Pennebaker talks about how people who are truthful tend to use "I" and "me" in their sentences, use bigger words, longer sentences, and more objectively verifiable data - basically, the data is proof itself; no emotions are needed.) By contrast, people who are lying avoid using "I" or "me"; sentences are shorter, the words simpler, and there is a lot more emotionality, like you described from Leavitt, or like we see from Hegseth, Vance, and Trump.
Separately, I published an article a few days ago dissecting how Howard Lutnick uses storytelling, hypnotic language, and myth archetypes to persuade people of his lies. You might find linguistic analysis interesting. (And I did one previously on Trump's 'repeated lie' strategy).
Thank you Shane for writing this. Find doing my own research and using critical thinking. If anybody tells me what I see, hear and feel as have always seen them as being cunningly trying to sway a lie, the fox in the hen house, so to speak. Have not ever believed in taking a long walk off a short pier..
I always start the day with exercise of my mind, body, and soul. Once again, you touched two of them. I look for articles/essays that truthfully inform, mindfully engage, and challenge me as a citizen of this complex world. As I was reading, I could felt encouraged, and energized knowing that even as an emotional being, I still check my sources. I believe less of what I hear (always have), and trust myself to analyze what I actually see. Thank you for sharing tools that we all should have when seeking to know the truth, particularly coming from people who manipulate for a living, and even our neighbors, family, friends, etc, who are ill informed. Please keep this going, and don't change.
I think your core warning is important and largely right: early narratives have outsized power, and stories often move faster than facts. Governments, media outlets, and political actors all have incentives to frame events quickly in ways that protect their interests, and readers should be sceptical of claims about motives, intentions, or moral certainty before investigations are complete. Your emphasis on watching for premature conclusions, emotional framing, and mind-reading is a useful lens.
Applying that same lens to this article, though, raised some questions for me.
You’re clearly emotionally invested in this event, which is understandable — but emotional proximity can also bias reasoning. The piece sometimes reads less like an open inquiry and more like advocacy for a particular interpretation.
It also seems to start from a theory — that the government is manipulating the narrative — and then builds evidence in support of it, rather than critically testing that theory against alternative explanations. Both the government AND the media released information early, before all facts were known, yet the critique is applied almost exclusively to government statements.
You caution against emotionally loaded language, but describing Alex Pretti as having been “executed in the street” already assumes intent and illegitimacy — exactly the kind of framing you warn readers to watch for.
There’s also an implicit assumption that video shows “what really happened.” Video can be strong evidence, but it’s partial, framed, and context-dependent, and shouldn’t be treated as dispositive on its own.
On the Kristi Noem example: while she couldn’t formally determine “domestic terrorism” without an investigation, she did know what Renee Good did — driving a car into an ICE officer. That fact isn’t disputed, and it seems at least plausible that such an act could meet the legal threshold, even if one disagrees with the characterisation.
Finally, additional information about Pretti emerged shortly after publication — prior altercations with ICE, property damage, and bringing a gun to both incidents — none of which appears here. Leaving that out strongly shapes how readers interpret his role.
My concern isn’t that your conclusion is impossible, but that the article doesn’t fully apply its own scepticism to its conclusions. If we’re serious about resisting manipulation, we need to interrogate emotionally compelling counter-narratives with the same rigour we apply to official ones.
“she did know what Renee Good did — driving a car into an ICE officer. That fact isn’t disputed...”
That “fact” is VERY MUCH disputed, as many videos from various angles show that Ms Good was turning right, away from the officer, and never hit him. He was beside her car when he shot.
He was also shown walking immediately after the shooting, and from his walk it appeared he didn’t have so much as a sore toe.
Fantastic essay, Shane. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and how you’re coping with this difficult chapter of America's history.
It’s easy to warn about manipulation and end up manipulating others or imposing one's views. You struck a rare balance: exposing how we’re being influenced while offering concrete ways to reflect on it. Bravo.
Fantastic essay, Shane! Loved this one.
One of the best articles I have read, thank you!
Kind of you to say. Glad it resonates!
Thank you Shane! This is wonderful. I’m sharing it now.
Everyone—regardless of party or profession—needs to read this essay. Even those of us who are writers & careful readers need these reminders.
I appreciate that so much
I am a forensic linguistic analyst -- I analyze the words people use for deeper insights into the news -- and #3 resonates. In "The Secret Language of Pronouns", James Pennebaker talks about how people who are truthful tend to use "I" and "me" in their sentences, use bigger words, longer sentences, and more objectively verifiable data - basically, the data is proof itself; no emotions are needed.) By contrast, people who are lying avoid using "I" or "me"; sentences are shorter, the words simpler, and there is a lot more emotionality, like you described from Leavitt, or like we see from Hegseth, Vance, and Trump.
Separately, I published an article a few days ago dissecting how Howard Lutnick uses storytelling, hypnotic language, and myth archetypes to persuade people of his lies. You might find linguistic analysis interesting. (And I did one previously on Trump's 'repeated lie' strategy).
And thanks for an interesting essay!
Excellent.. Thank you for this, I will be sharing it widely.
I appreciate that!
Thank you for speaking out, and for teaching us all to be better humans and to use our brains before we jump to conclusions.
Thank you Shane for writing this. Find doing my own research and using critical thinking. If anybody tells me what I see, hear and feel as have always seen them as being cunningly trying to sway a lie, the fox in the hen house, so to speak. Have not ever believed in taking a long walk off a short pier..
I always start the day with exercise of my mind, body, and soul. Once again, you touched two of them. I look for articles/essays that truthfully inform, mindfully engage, and challenge me as a citizen of this complex world. As I was reading, I could felt encouraged, and energized knowing that even as an emotional being, I still check my sources. I believe less of what I hear (always have), and trust myself to analyze what I actually see. Thank you for sharing tools that we all should have when seeking to know the truth, particularly coming from people who manipulate for a living, and even our neighbors, family, friends, etc, who are ill informed. Please keep this going, and don't change.
What a thoughtful comment! Thank you Kyt
I thank you!
I think your core warning is important and largely right: early narratives have outsized power, and stories often move faster than facts. Governments, media outlets, and political actors all have incentives to frame events quickly in ways that protect their interests, and readers should be sceptical of claims about motives, intentions, or moral certainty before investigations are complete. Your emphasis on watching for premature conclusions, emotional framing, and mind-reading is a useful lens.
Applying that same lens to this article, though, raised some questions for me.
You’re clearly emotionally invested in this event, which is understandable — but emotional proximity can also bias reasoning. The piece sometimes reads less like an open inquiry and more like advocacy for a particular interpretation.
It also seems to start from a theory — that the government is manipulating the narrative — and then builds evidence in support of it, rather than critically testing that theory against alternative explanations. Both the government AND the media released information early, before all facts were known, yet the critique is applied almost exclusively to government statements.
You caution against emotionally loaded language, but describing Alex Pretti as having been “executed in the street” already assumes intent and illegitimacy — exactly the kind of framing you warn readers to watch for.
There’s also an implicit assumption that video shows “what really happened.” Video can be strong evidence, but it’s partial, framed, and context-dependent, and shouldn’t be treated as dispositive on its own.
On the Kristi Noem example: while she couldn’t formally determine “domestic terrorism” without an investigation, she did know what Renee Good did — driving a car into an ICE officer. That fact isn’t disputed, and it seems at least plausible that such an act could meet the legal threshold, even if one disagrees with the characterisation.
Finally, additional information about Pretti emerged shortly after publication — prior altercations with ICE, property damage, and bringing a gun to both incidents — none of which appears here. Leaving that out strongly shapes how readers interpret his role.
My concern isn’t that your conclusion is impossible, but that the article doesn’t fully apply its own scepticism to its conclusions. If we’re serious about resisting manipulation, we need to interrogate emotionally compelling counter-narratives with the same rigour we apply to official ones.
“she did know what Renee Good did — driving a car into an ICE officer. That fact isn’t disputed...”
That “fact” is VERY MUCH disputed, as many videos from various angles show that Ms Good was turning right, away from the officer, and never hit him. He was beside her car when he shot.
He was also shown walking immediately after the shooting, and from his walk it appeared he didn’t have so much as a sore toe.
Best insight whether right or left.
Very informative article, Shane. Really made me think! Thanks for sharing.
I didn't know about this history. I always learn something new when I read your articles, Shane. Thank you for writing it!
Fantastic essay, Shane. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and how you’re coping with this difficult chapter of America's history.
It’s easy to warn about manipulation and end up manipulating others or imposing one's views. You struck a rare balance: exposing how we’re being influenced while offering concrete ways to reflect on it. Bravo.