Heather Cox Richardson used a term in her 'Letter from an American' on 27 June to describe the rhetorical technique Trump used against Biden in their 'debate' last week. As she put it:
This was not a debate. It was Trump using a technique that actually has a formal name, the Gish gallop, although I suspect he comes by it naturally. It's a rhetorical technique in which someone throws out a fast string of lies, non-sequiturs, and specious arguments, so many that it is impossible to fact-check or rebut them in the amount of time it took to say them. Trying to figure out how to respond makes the opponent look confused, because they don't know where to start grappling with the flood that has just hit them.
As she explained, this is a form of gaslighting. There is no aim to tell the truth, or engage, or have any form of dialogue when gish galloping. The only aim is to swamp the other person with garbage, nonsense and outright lies that leaves them, as a rational person, unable to reply to what is being said, so overwhelmed are they by the meaningless drivel being sent their way.
It's a technique familiar to many trolls on this blog. Those trolls never make a substantial comment; they just make unsupported and meaningless accusations, many of which reveal no research having been done on their part.
I have only one problem with the term 'gish gallop'. I do not know why the term 'gishing' would not do just as well. Make it a verb, not a noun, because it describes an action, not a phenomenon.
How to deal with it?
I think there is only one possible response, given that no rational one is available. The reality is that no one can reasonably engage with irrational lies peddled with the deliberate intention to confuse, obfuscate, deny and close down debate. In that case the response has to be to call it out by saying 'you're gishing'.
Bu which you mean that the speaker is making no sense.
Or that they're talking drivel, deliberately.
That they are wasting everyone's time.
And, please do not abuse us with this nonsense, saying which, when they have something useful to say they might try again, but until then, might they leave the debate to those who want to seek solutions?
I can see no other way to deal with this.
I think such a term ‘gishing' might be of use. We have to call out this attempt to kill democracy, because that is what it is.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I maybe under a rock but it’s not a common enough ‘word’ to mean anything to most people. Ronald reagan would have ‘well that’s a pile of horse’ and left it at that. But it’s all in the delivery
Absolutely, why do we need a new word for bullshit, which has been known by most people for decades or longer? Used in a discussion it is just as likely to divert from the issue to what the heck gish means, the spillchucker doesn’t like it either!
Bullshit cannot be used in a lot of media
Fair enough if BS is not appropriate in polite company drivel or uninformed twaddle is fine. Using new or practically unknown words risks being dragged away from the message one is trying to develop and then onto the opponents agenda, from which point your original argument is lost in the noise.
“the spillchucker doesn’t like it either!”
Just add gishing to your dictionary as the “spellchucker” should “chuck” for you or get handed walking papers! LOL! LOL!
Excellent word. I may start using it.
B Johnson admitted to gishing though he did not use that term. At Oxford Union, he realised there was an advantage in putting out so many lies so quickly that the other side was swamped with them, left floundering for a response. And he used gishing during his political career.
Indeed….
Brilliant! Now we have a name for it. Farage gishes constantly. He did it on QT on Friday. When “quoting immigration and population figures.
But much to my (and I suspect others) delight, Farage has now said he’s boycotting the BBC because of the treatment he got on Fridays QT.
So off goes the sulky racist liar whining about an allegedly planted audience because he was shown up for the nasty piece of work that he is. Diddums! What a delicious irony that having got what he thought was his rightful place as an ‘oh so important party leader’, (as if he hasn’t had far too much exposure on QT over the years), it spectacularly backfired on him. And gave the Greens some decent media exposure for once, instead of them being ignored. Bigly, bigly good as the orange faced fascist would say.
Where does “Gishing” lie in the pantheon of “word salad”, “verbal diarrhoea” or just plain old BS?
It’s a single word
That helps
And we need synonyms
We do not need synonyms.
Gishing is a great word as a play on “Phishing”. Gishing meaning someone is “looking for a fight to start” or cause an unwarranted disturbance. Attention and media whores are always gishing.
Again, GREAT WORD!
Very illuminating, because it provides a single term to describe a general technique (the word ‘gish’, i understand comes from the video gaming world – and refers – if I may condense it – to a magician). It isn’t just Trump. All our politicians use it, even if not ‘gish’ exponents, depending on the depth of the hole they are in an interview ‘on air’. The cues are haw fast they speak (so the listener cannot focus on the substance); how loud they speak ( the louder the more authoritatively they assert the truth of what they say); the number of assertions accumulated in the shortest time; and the most confusing of all – the new assertion of truth about alleged decisive evidence never heard before. It relies on the fact that nobody efer systematically checks everything said, and the news bandwagon moves on to the next gish opportunity.
Gishing is the definition of the politics of our time. fraudulent, intended to mislead, and to tell you nothing at all about anything of substance. or that actually matters.
John S Warren
A bit like Sunak’s performance on Kuenssberg this morning?
Yes
Gishing is an ugly and pathetic attempt to win votes when you see through it. I certainly follow the excellent part of the argument up to there. Where I disagree is that it is not an attempt to deny anyone the vote. With the exception of Americans abroad, no-one in the UK is being denied the vote because it’s something that we already don’t have.
The American War of Independence result was a win for America and not for Great Britain and Ireland.
There is more to subverting democracy than just denying people a vote. In the case of gishing, it is denying people the necessary information required to make an informed choice.
I’ve never heard of Gishing before, however I recognise it as a technique that Andrew Neill frequently used, most memorably for me when interviewing Nicola Sturgeon some years ago (before Brexit, when she was riding high in the polls and public opinion). About two minutes before the end of the interview AN hit Sturgeon with a string of spurious ‘facts’ about Scottish independence which, given the time remaining Sturgeon had no chance of answering. Her best response would probably have been to call out Neill for Gishing. Hardly anyone would know what that meant at the time but that itself would have been very useful because it would have exposed the technique.
Another form of gishing is to deliberately inject a personal insult or insults. In slang terms this is known as dissing.
Only slightly tongue in cheek, Scotland, Glasgow in particular, already uses a very similar expression, except for a single letter in the spelling. “Gish!” or “you’re talking gish,” might serve as a more genteel alternative here.
FWIW, talking about Trump specifically, I did see a US commentator wonder if focussing on a single lie and repeatedly attacking it might work where an audience required a comabtive response. That said, I do recall the efffect of “Sleaze” as a single word that, as much as perhaps a single word can, sealed a Conservative government’s fate.
I am familiar with the alternative
The only answer to calling out lies and gish in a debate is for the moderator to do so.
Moderation in our debates has been poor
More gishing by Sunak. He claims Britain would suffer “irreversible damage” from Labour. That is a triple gish:
1) The claim is made by one of the worst PM’s in British history; ‘eat out to help out the virus’ Sunak; an unelectable individual who has brought us to this predicament. His authority of office has gone, because everybody can see he has failed comprehensively; he has no credibility sufficient to stand up a believable forecast. He can’t even choose an election date without botching it. Here is his irreversible damage, and we do not need to wait for the 4th of July. Scottish school holidays are different from rUK; Sunak’s election date has disenfranchised unknown numbers of Scottish voters – and that is an irreversible fact.
2) He does not offer, or possess sufficient evidence to make such an uncompromising prediction. Indeed on that basis, and on a similar evidence base, exactly the same claim can be made of the improbable outcome that if Sunak wins the election he will inflict more irreversible damage than he has done already; for an independent view, ask the IFS; they are confident the manifestos of both Conservative and Labour fail for the same basic reason; nobody knows where they are going to find the money without ‘borrowing’.
3) There is “irreversible damage” that has already been inflicted on Britain, and he is one of the principal culprits. It is called Brexit. Delivered by Johnson; botched by Sunak. He really is going down in history as a cause of irreversible disaster.
Gish Gallop comes from Duane Gish, a notorious American creationist debater who perfected the technique against scientists defending evolution theory. The term is really only well-known there. The term has value as a way to find techniques to counter it:
https://ncse.ngo/confronting-creationism
I would rather use ‘flooding the zone with shit’ which is felon, tomorrow prison inmate, Steve Bannon’s name for same.
Shot cannot be used in many media
The term ‘Gish Gallop’ is a debating technique named after the creationist Duane Gish. Rather than use the verb ‘gishing’, which is not likely to be understood by many of those who hear it, why not refer to ‘gish galloping’, which carries an element of meaning when used and also can be looked up online for an explanation?
As a member of the climate advocacy community the phrase is often used, as it applies to the way so many deniers put their misguided points across.
I gave to at gish galloping means nothing to me, and is confusing. What has it to do with galloping?
” ‘gish galloping’ ”
Too may characters to type! LOL!
I came across “Gish Gallop” at least twenty years ago as a term used to describe the arguments of young earth creationists, in particular Duane Gish. Wikipedia has a description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop crediting anthropologist Eugenie Scott for coining it.
Some of the creationists are particularly skilled at this, but it seems to be an approach common among ideological zealots on weak ground who can develop an array of persuasive lies to try to overwhelm their opponents.
The origin of gish gallop, an evolution denier:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Thanks
People have suggested ways of dealing with this. I suggest, like a Boy Scout be prepared. Catch one “fact” to deal with. “Sorry, Mr Liar, I think most of our viewers won’t have caught that, so let’s just deal with one of those inaccuracies”. And take back control.
Surely these people are coached in debating techniques and how to counter gishing?
The whole point is countering one does not work
It suggests the others might be credible
The rejection has to be of the narrative as a whole
Might we also seek a word or phrase to classify those who are paid and assumed to referee such political discussions/arguments equitably, objectively and effectively and do not do so for reasons/purposes associated with ineffectiveness, bias, egotism or whatever?
Useful idiots?
Wallpaper?
Michael Fabricant used a similar technique in our local hustings on Friday.
I dont think ‘gish’ will easily stick; perhaps for now “false fact diarrhoea” or similar British alternative. In Wales ‘caci’ would suffice.
Words have a a wonderful way of surviving and flourishing if they are useful, and of dying out when they are no longer required. Gish? Who knows, but I like it.
Sounds a good idea to me! Is there a term for when someone repeats a line which sounds plausible but is in fact incorrect?
Lying?
Yes that probably sums it up! Or being economical with the truth!
Truthiness
What, I wonder, is the difference between gishing and filibustering?
Very few people know what filibustering is
And it is a very specific parliamentary technique
Gishing is the only language Trump knows so, as Geejay says, we have no excuse for not being ready for it.
It does remind you of filibustering but that’s much more serious. That’s an institutionalised method of undermining Parliament akin to the prorogation condemned by the Supreme Court. It should also be illegal along with whipping. Both seek to undermine Parliamentary democracy, which, under FPTP, is depressingly vulnerable anyway.
Whipping is the enemy of democracy, I agree
Along with FPTP
Not sure if this is much related to gishing but George Lacoff’s research on framing is quite illuminating. https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/jul/20/the-power-of-framing-its-not-what-you-say-its-how-you-say-it
As a matter of interest I looked out some of the debates Duane Gish was involved in in the 70s and 80s. Although I remember him as firing off all sorts of unsubstantiated assertions, his behaviour seemed quite mild compared with much of what one sees today.
That’s how we progress, or maybe regress
I loved it when Heather Cox Richardson pointed out that Trump was using the Gish Gallop— but she suspected he wasn’t using it intentionally! I did have to laugh.
If more people find out about the Gish Gallop/gishing it will become less effective as a technique. Debaters can recognise and counter the technique during a debate by naming it when it happens and explaining how it works. People can certainly deliver falsehoods and a load of waffle slowly, if they choose, but the Gish Gallop specifically refers to spouting a huge number of lies, half-lies and unconnected waffle at a rate of speed that can’t begin to be addressed in the time allotted for rebuttal.
I read the whole article by Ms Richardson; it was excellent from start to finish. Especially when she discussed how the media allows Gish Gallopers to ‘win’ debates. Why is the post-debate discussion all about Joe Biden’s age, rather than the word salad Trump offered up? As she said, the proof that Biden is capable of running the country is the fact that he’s doing it now.
The more often we hear Gishing or Gish Galloping spoken about, the better. We know what gaslighting is. The Gish Gallop is a form of gaslighting, specific to debates. Gishing should become as familiar a term as gaslighting, I reckon.
I suspect ‘galloping’ refers to the technique’s ultra-fast delivery, and the trampling effect it has on an opponent.
Her newsletter is on my reading list every day
And it’s free, if you want
I think she has 2 million subscribers
Mendacity works because the intended audience hears what it wishes to hear. It’s quite irrelevant what you call it, although my preference is for ‘bullshit’.
It has a secondary benefit in that it irritates those who know the lie for what it is but this isn’t it’s primary purpose.
I also suspect that it isn’t intended to sway the undecided. Particularly when the lies are often exposed in the following days.
Political debating, perhaps all debating of current affairs, has become a performance art.
Firstly debates aren’t really that anymore, they are stages available to make carefully crafted sound bites. They are games when the participants attempt to repeat the killer messages that have been prepared.
£2000 tax rise, sleepwalking, crashed the economy, cost of living crisis, etc.
Questions remain unanswered and evidence presented is unchecked.
Instead of surprising the participants, provide the questions in advance. Secure the detailed answers in advance so that they can be fact checked. Then when they are delivered live, qualified moderators can apply any qualifying context or corrections. Then the benefits of ‘Gish galloping’ would be greatly reduced.
The ability to think on your feet can be a valuable attribute for any person in a senior position but it is not the main requirement for successful policy development and delivery.
Leaders should be elected on policy, past and future, not on whether they are a smart arse or good with a quip and definitely not on whether they can hit a golf ball.
Mehdi Hasan has tackled this and suggests three steps to beat the Gish gallop, of which I best love the third: “ Call out the strategy by name, saying: “This is a strategy called the ‘Gish Gallop’ — do not be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have just heard.”” I’m definitely going to start using this – time for some fresh narratives.
Agreed
I can recommend Mehdi Hasan’s book: “Win Every Argument: The Art of Debating, Persuading and Public Speaking” (Feb 2023) https://amzn.eu/d/08QPbFn9
Hasan does indeed have a section on the Gish Gallop
I have the book
I should check that
I like something I saw a while ago, inspired by BJ: testiculation – the art of waving one’s arms around whilst talking bollox .
But not possible to say….
Why not look the offender straight in the eye and respond simply with something like ” That is a Gish Gallop ,as you well know. Ask me an adult question and I will give you an adult answer”
If said often enough in interviews it would soon become common parlance.