4 ms·

Right, so "he said, she said" is the argument from authority that I referred to. (I'm not sure about Fox's intentions, but even they have to present their stuff

by zeteo 16y ago

Right, so "he said, she said" is the argument from authority that I referred to. (I'm not sure about Fox's intentions, but even they have to present their stuff in this format.) What this amounts to is that the (inherently lazy) audience picks and matches based on their previous opinions about the speakers, and on how rhetorically convincing the case is made each time. True science is fundamentally incompatible with this cognitive mode.

jbooth 16y ago
"He said she said" isn't argument from authority - it's blind dictation. If one side is telling the truth, and the other is deliberately lying (the health care bill will form death panels), then by reporting a "he said she said", you're telling half of the lie. I saw an article in the NYT last week on the fact that 25% of the country apparently thinks Obama is a muslim. Not once in the article did they clarify that the man is, in fact, not a muslim. "Teach the controversy".
- zeteo 16y ago
  I disagree. "Authority" in "argument from authority" does not necessarily mean an expert, just that it's an argument whose validity depends on the character/reputation of the person making it. E.g., "he said/ she said" with a police officer, in front of a judge, is a losing proposition.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  They do that all the time, since it makes them seem more neutral. Take, for instance, this story on climategate: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.ht... "Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information." [Notably missing: quotes from Phil Jones asking people to delete emails and hide data.] The pressthink blog discusses this a lot. In short, reporters want to appear objective and savvy, and "he said she said" makes them look that way. http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/ http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/
  - jbooth 16y ago
    "Some skeptics" is exactly what I'm talking about. Regarding the whole climate thing -- it's a fact that the earth's temperature is rising. Whether CO2 is the primary driver is debatable, although it seems to make the most sense. Yet in articles about the thing, you see the idea of whether the earth's temperature is rising treated as a controversy. No. It's a fact. Splitting the difference between a fact and a lie isn't "teaching the controversy", it's enabling lies. EDIT: You're complaining about something different. They can't report every fact in every story, and they similarly didn't say anything about what various industry shills are contributing to the debate. Omitting very important facts is of course very serious - but it's a different class of screwup. Agree very much on the "objective and savvy". Hence you'll see some georgetown douchebag who hasn't left the beltway in 20 years lecturing people about what the "heartland" thinks, because it seems to play well in the media.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Concerning your edit, I'm not complaining that they ignored a person ("industry shills" or whoever). I'm complaining they ignored the primary source. I.e., they said "some skeptics asserted" rather than "the hacked emails included requests from Phil Jones asking scientists to delete emails, and saying he would delete emails if he received an FOIA request." They are following the "he said, she said" model, rather than just quoting the primary source.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        Gotcha, in that case, agreed. Although this guy being dishonest doesn't disprove global warming any more than Al Gore's electricity bill does.
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I wasn't making a point about global warming at all. I was pointing to a similar example "on the other side" (of modern political divides) and linking to a fantastic blog on the topic.

by zeteo 16y ago

jbooth 16y ago

"He said she said" isn't argument from authority - it's blind dictation. If one side is telling the truth, and the other is deliberately lying (the health care bill will form death panels), then by reporting a "he said she said", you're telling half of the lie. I saw an article in the NYT last week on the fact that 25% of the country apparently thinks Obama is a muslim. Not once in the article did they clarify that the man is, in fact, not a muslim. "Teach the controversy".

zeteo 16y ago
I disagree. "Authority" in "argument from authority" does not necessarily mean an expert, just that it's an argument whose validity depends on the character/reputation of the person making it. E.g., "he said/ she said" with a police officer, in front of a judge, is a losing proposition.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
They do that all the time, since it makes them seem more neutral. Take, for instance, this story on climategate: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.ht... "Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information." [Notably missing: quotes from Phil Jones asking people to delete emails and hide data.] The pressthink blog discusses this a lot. In short, reporters want to appear objective and savvy, and "he said she said" makes them look that way. http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/ http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/
- jbooth 16y ago
  "Some skeptics" is exactly what I'm talking about. Regarding the whole climate thing -- it's a fact that the earth's temperature is rising. Whether CO2 is the primary driver is debatable, although it seems to make the most sense. Yet in articles about the thing, you see the idea of whether the earth's temperature is rising treated as a controversy. No. It's a fact. Splitting the difference between a fact and a lie isn't "teaching the controversy", it's enabling lies. EDIT: You're complaining about something different. They can't report every fact in every story, and they similarly didn't say anything about what various industry shills are contributing to the debate. Omitting very important facts is of course very serious - but it's a different class of screwup. Agree very much on the "objective and savvy". Hence you'll see some georgetown douchebag who hasn't left the beltway in 20 years lecturing people about what the "heartland" thinks, because it seems to play well in the media.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Concerning your edit, I'm not complaining that they ignored a person ("industry shills" or whoever). I'm complaining they ignored the primary source. I.e., they said "some skeptics asserted" rather than "the hacked emails included requests from Phil Jones asking scientists to delete emails, and saying he would delete emails if he received an FOIA request." They are following the "he said, she said" model, rather than just quoting the primary source.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Gotcha, in that case, agreed. Although this guy being dishonest doesn't disprove global warming any more than Al Gore's electricity bill does.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I wasn't making a point about global warming at all. I was pointing to a similar example "on the other side" (of modern political divides) and linking to a fantastic blog on the topic.