.jpg?itok=PA_rAqH2 "Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia")
Tim Walz’s son has a nonverbal learning disorder. The media carefully explained why it’s often misunderstood.
Source: Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia
Gus Walz, the son of Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz, was a breakout star at the Democratic National Convention with his emotional reaction to his father’s shout-out to his family. “Hope, Gus, and Gwen, you are my entire world, and I love you,” Tim Walz proclaimed from the convention stage. Gus was pumped up and leaped to his feet, shouting “That’s my Dad!” Many media stories about that heartwarming display included the fact that Gus has a nonverbal learning disorder.
Clarity in Journalism
We’ve previously written about a stellar example of a science writer correcting misinformation that he inadvertently shared in a post. The story of Gus Walz is a slightly different one: It’s a stellar example of journalists getting ahead of possible misconceptions by explaining the disorder as part of their reporting.
“Nonverbal learning disorder” seems to imply that someone is actually nonverbal—that they cannot speak. But that is not at all the case. The American Psychological Association dictionary defines nonverbal learning disorders as being “characterized by limited skills in critical thinking and deficits in processing nonverbal information.” The definition notes that the disorder can affect academic performance, visual-spatial and motor abilities, and social and emotional functioning.
The discussion about Gus Walz and nonverbal learning disorder has been, in many outlets, a wonderfully nuanced one. As Tim Walz and his wife Gwen told People magazine, “It took time, but what became so immediately clear to us was that Gus’ condition is not a setback—it’s his secret power.” The Walzes highlighted Gus’s strengths, noting that he is “brilliant, hyper-aware of details that many of us pass by, and above all else, he’s an excellent son and brother.” It’s heartening that so many news outlets included these details about Gus, and not just one aspect of his life.
Indeed, many journalists were careful to explain the disorder as part of their reporting. They also included details about Gus Walz’s strengths and details about him as an individual that went beyond his learning disorder.
As just one example (out of many, many examples), The New York Times reporter Callie Holtermann carefully explained, “Nonverbal learning disorders affect a person’s ability to process visual and social patterns. (It is a common misconception that people with nonverbal learning disorders do not speak.)” Moreover, Holtermann quoted the People article about Gus’s secret power.
The Power of Preemptive Explanations
Journalists like Holtermann weren’t issuing a correction, of course. But, perhaps, they were warding one off.
One study, a meta-analysis (a statistical technique that combines findings from many different studies, a research technique we have described before), emphasized that effective corrections can’t be subtle (Walter & Murphy, 2018). Again, this wasn’t a correction, but this example does fit with this research. The preemptive inclusion of the correct information wasn’t subtle. Journalists like Holtermann pointed out the common misperception just as they corrected that misperception.
They also, as in the People article, pointed out why that misperception occurs; a single sentence in that piece gets at the confusion in the name of the disorder: “‘Non-verbal’ in this case is not the same as ‘non-speaking.’”
In the words of the meta-analytic researchers, “If the information is retracted without providing an alternative explanation, people’s understanding of a topic may not feel coherent, leading them to deny the new information and reinstate the beliefs that existed before the retraction.” The preemptive inclusion of explanations of why confusion exists about nonverbal learning disorder, coupled with clear explanations about what it actually is, cleverly and clearly ward off the necessity for any future retractions or corrections.
