7 ms·

I am always impressed by the number of motte and bailey commentors here. The WSJ cravenly lets the most hated corporations write featured Op-eds and that's norm

I am always impressed by the number of motte and bailey commentors here. The WSJ cravenly lets the most hated corporations write featured Op-eds and that's normal? Ho-hum? Business as usual!? We need to seriously reconsider what we want out of journalism. I don't want to live anywhere where this sort of media is okay. I'm not sure why anyone else is suddenly okay with this either. The "Free Market" was supposed to be a tool to more efficiently organize labor and capital, not enslave us. It is supposed to work for us, it is our tool. But if readers are now _okay_ with literal shilling in media, then that's it. We've been captured by our own tools, slaves to our own machines. I keep questioning my decision to have a Washington Post subscription, but I'll sleep better tonight knowing it goes towards something that at least _tries_ to be journalism.

colordrops 9y ago
In case you were wondering like what "motte and bailey" means: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  I agree that the described debating tactic exists (thank you for sharing the explanation), what I find most interesting is the bailey example given isn't that controversial ("cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge"). I suppose it depends on the context in which it was used, but I can think of plenty of examples where such a statement would be banal.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    The question is not whether there is just as valid cultural knowledge, but whether culture as a source of knowledge is just as valid as science, which it is not. If cultural knowledge happens to align with sciencific knowledge, then it is valid as well, but what establishes validity is science/the scientific method, not culture.
    - mjburgess 9y ago
      > which it is not Yes, so you disagree with the prior commenter. You think science is the "validator" of knowledge. "I know that I am in pain" is not validated by science, and science has no role even to play in "validating" it. "I know that science works" is not validated by science and science has no role in validating it. etc. It would seem there are probably knowledge claims which belong in the domain of culture that are likewise orthogonal to science ("I know that we liked the new Star Wars").
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > Yes, so you disagree with the prior commenter. Possibly. > You think science is the "validator" of knowledge. Where did you get that from? > "I know that I am in pain" is not validated by science, and science has no role even to play in "validating" it. What is your justification for considering that an instance of cultural knowledge? > "I know that science works" is not validated by science and science has no role in validating it. So, how do you know that science works? Or are you saying that it doesn't work or that you don't know whether it works? > It would seem there are probably knowledge claims which belong in the domain of culture that are likewise orthogonal to science It would seem that something seeming to you to be the case is not a particularly convincing argument. > ("I know that we liked the new Star Wars"). Are you saying this claim is not derived from empirical observation of "we" and/or not accessible to falsification (like, you think it is impossible to ask a representative sample of "we" whether they like Star Wars)? If that is what you mean, how do you know it, then? If that is not what you mean, how is that application of the scientific method orthogonal to science?
        mjburgess 9y ago
        > but what establishes validity is science/the scientific method My examples were to show that there are knowledge claims where this fails. > seeming to you to be the case That isn't my argument. My argument is inductive over the prior examples.
        9y ago
- tomcooks 9y ago
  Thank you for not assuming everyone is from the anglosphere!
  - ams6110 9y ago
    I am and I had never heard this term before.
    - jcadam 9y ago
      Me neither. But now I really must find a way to work it into casual conversation.
darawk 9y ago
Why shouldn't someone publish their view?
- simonh 9y ago
  It can take a while to get used to the lingo: Professional person that agrees with you - expert. Professional person that disagrees with you - shill. I’m conflicted on this. I do not think the Obama era measures are the be all and end all of net neutrality legislation, but Trump’s blatant pro big business and anticompetitive instincts are always a threat to consumer interests. Whichever way we as individuals decide or lean, it’s always worth listening to both sides of the argument.
  - dd36 9y ago
    Is it disagreement if it’s paid for? How’s it any different than an ad?
    - simonh 9y ago
      Suppose an attorney for the Electronic Frontier foundation posts an article or opinion piece on a digital rights legal issue. This has happened many times and I don’t remember ever seeing anyone call them a shill, yet they are a professional person paid to argue on these issues in public and in court. How is that different from advertising? How about legal experts on human rights? Environmental activism? Is anyone working for Greenpace as a lawyer or scientific adviser an environmentalist shill? If not, then how can we use that slur against people working for energy companies? I’m not some corporatist shill making this argument. I’m just making a liberal plea for tolerance and respect in public discourse. Legal experts on many different sides of many different debates have a reasonable expectation to have their opinions and arguments heard in public without harassment, abuse and intimidation. However there is a reasonable expectation of disclosure of such interests. The argument in this specific case seems to be n the amount of detail in the disclosure, but the fact is he was a Democrat appointee and he works for a law firm that represents Comcast. There was an attempt at some level of disclosure and he wasn’t actually acting as an attorney for Comcast. I don’t think this is as big a deal as is being made about it.
ams6110 9y ago
> I keep questioning my decision to have a Washington Post subscription, but I'll sleep better tonight knowing it goes towards something that at least _tries_ to be journalism. I think you need to seriously consider whether "tries to be journalism" means "is more in line with my opinions." Furthermore, this was an op-ed piece. Agree with it or not, it isn't, in fact it is expicitly not, objective journalism.
- Afforess 9y ago
  This is exactly the motte and bailey argument that gets under my skin. The motte is "all media/opinions are biased", which is trivially true and easily defended, and the bailey is "this op-ed is acceptable", harder to argue, unless one uses the motte to advance it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mvkel 9y ago
    “...motte and bailey...” removes monocle Oh yes. Quite. Did you just learn what “motte and bailey” means or something? He’s saying look at the section the piece appeared in (op-ed; opposite the editorial page; the OPINION section) It’s the one part of the paper that is specifically meant for opinions. It has featured climate change deniers, flat earthers, and 9/11 truthers. Because it’s expected that people know what an opinion piece is and can use their own experience and wisdom to form their own opinion. Second, it’s easy/fun to crap on Comcast, but it’s possible to be pro-net-neutrality AND pro-repeal. See: Marc Andreessen.
bogomipz 9y ago
I'm not defending this person or the complete absurdity of his statements but an Op-Ed can be written by anyone, the only stipulation being that the not be affiliated with the newspapers editorial board and ethics dictate there should be a disclaimer if needed. The disclaimer here was certainly disingenuous at best though. A more disturbing trend is that these same Ed-Op pieces are then referenced and used by shills and politicians as "proof" that this is something that the average citizen wants. See the following: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/12/13/procter-gamble-placed-nearly-identical-op-eds-pushing-corporate-tax-cuts-different-authors-numerous/218832 https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/12/13/procter-gamble-...
unit91 9y ago
It seems like your statement was also a motte and bailey. With a softball statement that bad journalism is bad (non-controversial), you'd have us believe our whole economic system is also bad (highly controversial).

colordrops 9y ago

In case you were wondering like what "motte and bailey" means: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

ZenoArrow 9y ago
I agree that the described debating tactic exists (thank you for sharing the explanation), what I find most interesting is the bailey example given isn't that controversial ("cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge"). I suppose it depends on the context in which it was used, but I can think of plenty of examples where such a statement would be banal.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  The question is not whether there is just as valid cultural knowledge, but whether culture as a source of knowledge is just as valid as science, which it is not. If cultural knowledge happens to align with sciencific knowledge, then it is valid as well, but what establishes validity is science/the scientific method, not culture.
  - mjburgess 9y ago
    > which it is not Yes, so you disagree with the prior commenter. You think science is the "validator" of knowledge. "I know that I am in pain" is not validated by science, and science has no role even to play in "validating" it. "I know that science works" is not validated by science and science has no role in validating it. etc. It would seem there are probably knowledge claims which belong in the domain of culture that are likewise orthogonal to science ("I know that we liked the new Star Wars").
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > Yes, so you disagree with the prior commenter. Possibly. > You think science is the "validator" of knowledge. Where did you get that from? > "I know that I am in pain" is not validated by science, and science has no role even to play in "validating" it. What is your justification for considering that an instance of cultural knowledge? > "I know that science works" is not validated by science and science has no role in validating it. So, how do you know that science works? Or are you saying that it doesn't work or that you don't know whether it works? > It would seem there are probably knowledge claims which belong in the domain of culture that are likewise orthogonal to science It would seem that something seeming to you to be the case is not a particularly convincing argument. > ("I know that we liked the new Star Wars"). Are you saying this claim is not derived from empirical observation of "we" and/or not accessible to falsification (like, you think it is impossible to ask a representative sample of "we" whether they like Star Wars)? If that is what you mean, how do you know it, then? If that is not what you mean, how is that application of the scientific method orthogonal to science?
      - mjburgess 9y ago
        > but what establishes validity is science/the scientific method My examples were to show that there are knowledge claims where this fails. > seeming to you to be the case That isn't my argument. My argument is inductive over the prior examples.
        9y ago
tomcooks 9y ago
Thank you for not assuming everyone is from the anglosphere!
- ams6110 9y ago
  I am and I had never heard this term before.
  - jcadam 9y ago
    Me neither. But now I really must find a way to work it into casual conversation.

darawk 9y ago

Why shouldn't someone publish their view?

simonh 9y ago
It can take a while to get used to the lingo: Professional person that agrees with you - expert. Professional person that disagrees with you - shill. I’m conflicted on this. I do not think the Obama era measures are the be all and end all of net neutrality legislation, but Trump’s blatant pro big business and anticompetitive instincts are always a threat to consumer interests. Whichever way we as individuals decide or lean, it’s always worth listening to both sides of the argument.
- dd36 9y ago
  Is it disagreement if it’s paid for? How’s it any different than an ad?
  - simonh 9y ago
    Suppose an attorney for the Electronic Frontier foundation posts an article or opinion piece on a digital rights legal issue. This has happened many times and I don’t remember ever seeing anyone call them a shill, yet they are a professional person paid to argue on these issues in public and in court. How is that different from advertising? How about legal experts on human rights? Environmental activism? Is anyone working for Greenpace as a lawyer or scientific adviser an environmentalist shill? If not, then how can we use that slur against people working for energy companies? I’m not some corporatist shill making this argument. I’m just making a liberal plea for tolerance and respect in public discourse. Legal experts on many different sides of many different debates have a reasonable expectation to have their opinions and arguments heard in public without harassment, abuse and intimidation. However there is a reasonable expectation of disclosure of such interests. The argument in this specific case seems to be n the amount of detail in the disclosure, but the fact is he was a Democrat appointee and he works for a law firm that represents Comcast. There was an attempt at some level of disclosure and he wasn’t actually acting as an attorney for Comcast. I don’t think this is as big a deal as is being made about it.

ams6110 9y ago

> I keep questioning my decision to have a Washington Post subscription, but I'll sleep better tonight knowing it goes towards something that at least _tries_ to be journalism. I think you need to seriously consider whether "tries to be journalism" means "is more in line with my opinions." Furthermore, this was an op-ed piece. Agree with it or not, it isn't, in fact it is expicitly not, objective journalism.

Afforess 9y ago
This is exactly the motte and bailey argument that gets under my skin. The motte is "all media/opinions are biased", which is trivially true and easily defended, and the bailey is "this op-ed is acceptable", harder to argue, unless one uses the motte to advance it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mvkel 9y ago
  “...motte and bailey...” removes monocle Oh yes. Quite. Did you just learn what “motte and bailey” means or something? He’s saying look at the section the piece appeared in (op-ed; opposite the editorial page; the OPINION section) It’s the one part of the paper that is specifically meant for opinions. It has featured climate change deniers, flat earthers, and 9/11 truthers. Because it’s expected that people know what an opinion piece is and can use their own experience and wisdom to form their own opinion. Second, it’s easy/fun to crap on Comcast, but it’s possible to be pro-net-neutrality AND pro-repeal. See: Marc Andreessen.

bogomipz 9y ago

I'm not defending this person or the complete absurdity of his statements but an Op-Ed can be written by anyone, the only stipulation being that the not be affiliated with the newspapers editorial board and ethics dictate there should be a disclaimer if needed. The disclaimer here was certainly disingenuous at best though. A more disturbing trend is that these same Ed-Op pieces are then referenced and used by shills and politicians as "proof" that this is something that the average citizen wants. See the following: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/12/13/procter-gamble-placed-nearly-identical-op-eds-pushing-corporate-tax-cuts-different-authors-numerous/218832 https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/12/13/procter-gamble-...

unit91 9y ago

It seems like your statement was also a motte and bailey. With a softball statement that bad journalism is bad (non-controversial), you'd have us believe our whole economic system is also bad (highly controversial).