The headline of a recent link that was shared by numerous people on my Facebook timeline read, “Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City is Closing: The Republican Nominee is Having a Rough Week.”  The message is clear.  Or is it?

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President of the United States had had a rough week.  But the closing of the Trump Taj Mahal was not really one of them.   But Mother Jones made the connection.

“How,” someone might ask, “is it not relevant when assessing Donald Trump’s ability to serve as President that the Trump Taj Mahal is closing?”  The answer is simply.  Although the casino still bears the name “Trump,” it is actually owned by Carl Icahn; something Mother Jones acknowledges in the lead paragraph for the article: “The casino, which was originally owned by Trump but went bankrupt, only to be bailed out by billionaire-investor Carl Icahn, will close at the end of the summer.”  Donald Trump no longer has a financial stake in the building

The headline builds on the narrative that Donald Trump is not as good a businessman as he claims; something that may very well be true.  The bankruptcy of the Trump Taj Mahal while Trump still owned it could be rightly used as evidence to support this claim.  But the recently announced closing of the Trump Taj Mahal is a commentary on Icahn’s business abilities; not Trumps.

Unfortunately, too many people will simply read the headline and draw conclusions that support their pre-conceived biases.  I know that I was initially amused that, at this point in the campaign, Trump would have such a business failure.  However, I did not stop at the headline.  I clicked on the link to the article.

As I prepare for my Fall semester classes, one of the issues that I know will be addressed is teaching students to read beyond the headlines—both literally and figuratively.

I often bring examples of quality and not-so-quality research to my classes.  Had I been teaching when this article was published by Mother Jones and released on their Facebook page, I likely would have mentioned it in class.  It only takes a few minutes to bring such an example to the attention of my students and I find the time it takes to be well spent.

In addition to bringing such information to classes, I also teach students the value of broad based reading and even give them class time to advance their research.  Had Mother Jones not indicated that their headline was misleading in their first paragraph, I likely would have done additional research on the topic.  I know that anyone who relies on a single source is a fool.  Even careful researchers, I tell my students, can make a mistake.  I then cite an error in one of the books I wrote; an error where I am citing myself.  “What could be more credible,” I ask, “than an author citing himself?”  Yet I made an error which someone else picked up and published in his book.

As students begin their research projects, I take them to the library where I assist them in doing broad based reading.  I explain that unless they have a strong background on the socio-historic context for their topics, that they cannot hope to really understand what they are researching.  For example, I might have a student interested in first century Christianity do some research on Akhenaten.  What is the relationship between an Egyptian pharaoh and Christianity?  A student interested in Christianity needs to appreciate the development of monotheism.  The issue is so important that Bible Odyssey, published by the Society of Biblical Literature includes an article on “The Monotheism of Akhenaten.”

Reading a single article on first century Christianity is not sufficient for a student who is interested in the topic.  Furthermore, only reading articles about Christianity is equally insufficient.  And reading Mother Jones to appreciate Trump’s failure as a businessman and his rough week is even more problematic.

I do not ask students to read beyond the headlines because I want them to be cynical.  Thinking critically is something that is required to fully evaluate and appreciate even the best writing.

–Steven L. Berg, PhD

 

---

---