6 ms·

You’ve got about three levels of ad hominem attacks in this post.

slg 6y ago
These aren't ad hominem attacks because they get to the central issue we are discussing. Different news agencies have different reputations for verifying that authenticity of what they report. I'm not going to give a story in the National Enquirer the same credibility as a story published in the New York Times. It isn't an ad hominem attack to voice that opinion. Although I do notice that you did not address the merit of my post. There is a little irony there.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  No, they are ad hominem attacks because they only attack the credibility of the source and not the information. As I’ve said, the NY Post is hardly a bastion of journalism. The thing is, neither is The NY Times, the Washington Post, or basically any media source other than CSPAN. They are all biased and anyone paying the slightest bit of attention over the past four years has noticed this. So to somehow claim that the “real journalists” would have done otherwise is absurd, considering that they’ve done the exact same thing repeatedly. Everything is on the level of Fox News now.
  - slg 6y ago
    You are the one who brought up the credibility of the media. How it is ad hominem to say that there are different levels of credibility? It is not a binary in which every news organization is either "CSPAN" or "Fox News". Some organizations are more committed to real journalism than others. The Post is not one of those organizations. This story ended up there because of this fact. Even Fox News turned it down over concerns about credibility.[1] Refusing to ignore that aspect of this is not an ad hominem attack. [1] - https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-fox-news-passed-on-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns/ https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-fox-news-passed-on-hun...
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      I didn’t say they were all equal, I said they were all biased. My only point was that criticizing the Post for publishing unverified information should mean you criticize the “real journalists” for doing the same thing. This has happened numerous times in the last four years.
      - slg 6y ago
        I find it funny you were labelling my comments as ad hominem. I thought we were only allowed to discuss the merits of a specific story. We were talking about the New York Post and the documents from Hunter Biden's laptop. I don't know what unverified information you are referring to here or how that would be relevant to this discussion. What is clear is that many "real journalists" were not satisfied enough with the evidence to publish it. That even includes organizations like Fox News that have a bias that would seem to align with publishing the story.
        ceilingcorner 6y ago
        You seem more interested in personal attacks, insisting that I don’t understand journalism, etc. than discussing the story. I’m sorry but I really have no interest in that kind of conversation. I’ve already made my points clear.
        slg 6y ago
        I legitimately don't know what you are considering to be a personal attack. You said the media don't care about verifying their stories. I said you don't understand journalism if you think that is true. That isn't intended to be a personal attack. Maybe there is something else I said that you took offense to. I will happily apologize if you point it out and it truly crossed a line. You are free to ignore this since you said you have no interest in this conversation. If that is the case, I will take a cue from the upvotes I am receiving and the downvotes you are receiving that the HN community thinks I am in the right here.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    If you think these news sources are all operating under the same amount of good faith, then I think the disinfo campaigns have succeeded. I see quite a bit of daylight between Fox and CNN.
    - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
      The legitimacy of those networks are definitely still in question. I remember during the 2015 primaries, CNN got the nickname "Clinton News Network" because of the incredible amount of bias they showed. It seems to have only gotten more extreme (on both sides) since then. Not to say that it was an ad hominem attack. The comment above was extremely relevant and got to the point.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      Unfortunately I don’t see much difference anymore. CNN used to be the gold standard, but they have fallen into the partisan trap just as much as Fox. They just do a better job at presenting a polished viewpoint.
      - adamsea 6y ago
        I don’t think that is true. I’m not defending CNN, I’m calling out Fox. Fox is pretty bad. Really bad.
        jcadam 6y ago
        If you ask me, Fox News, aside from its evening opinion-based shows, has been moving toward the center since Ailes left. And CNN's home page looks more like an anti-GOP blog than a legit news site these days. Given that CNN was once my go-to news source back in the day, it's just sad. I remember when all the major news sites, including Fox, covered essentially the same stories, albeit with a different spin.
        adamsea 6y ago
        What is your point? What are you trying to say? Fox and CNN are not the same, whatever flaws CNN does have.

slg 6y ago

These aren't ad hominem attacks because they get to the central issue we are discussing. Different news agencies have different reputations for verifying that authenticity of what they report. I'm not going to give a story in the National Enquirer the same credibility as a story published in the New York Times. It isn't an ad hominem attack to voice that opinion. Although I do notice that you did not address the merit of my post. There is a little irony there.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
No, they are ad hominem attacks because they only attack the credibility of the source and not the information. As I’ve said, the NY Post is hardly a bastion of journalism. The thing is, neither is The NY Times, the Washington Post, or basically any media source other than CSPAN. They are all biased and anyone paying the slightest bit of attention over the past four years has noticed this. So to somehow claim that the “real journalists” would have done otherwise is absurd, considering that they’ve done the exact same thing repeatedly. Everything is on the level of Fox News now.
- slg 6y ago
  You are the one who brought up the credibility of the media. How it is ad hominem to say that there are different levels of credibility? It is not a binary in which every news organization is either "CSPAN" or "Fox News". Some organizations are more committed to real journalism than others. The Post is not one of those organizations. This story ended up there because of this fact. Even Fox News turned it down over concerns about credibility.[1] Refusing to ignore that aspect of this is not an ad hominem attack. [1] - https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-fox-news-passed-on-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns/ https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-fox-news-passed-on-hun...
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    I didn’t say they were all equal, I said they were all biased. My only point was that criticizing the Post for publishing unverified information should mean you criticize the “real journalists” for doing the same thing. This has happened numerous times in the last four years.
    - slg 6y ago
      I find it funny you were labelling my comments as ad hominem. I thought we were only allowed to discuss the merits of a specific story. We were talking about the New York Post and the documents from Hunter Biden's laptop. I don't know what unverified information you are referring to here or how that would be relevant to this discussion. What is clear is that many "real journalists" were not satisfied enough with the evidence to publish it. That even includes organizations like Fox News that have a bias that would seem to align with publishing the story.
      - ceilingcorner 6y ago
        You seem more interested in personal attacks, insisting that I don’t understand journalism, etc. than discussing the story. I’m sorry but I really have no interest in that kind of conversation. I’ve already made my points clear.
        slg 6y ago
        I legitimately don't know what you are considering to be a personal attack. You said the media don't care about verifying their stories. I said you don't understand journalism if you think that is true. That isn't intended to be a personal attack. Maybe there is something else I said that you took offense to. I will happily apologize if you point it out and it truly crossed a line. You are free to ignore this since you said you have no interest in this conversation. If that is the case, I will take a cue from the upvotes I am receiving and the downvotes you are receiving that the HN community thinks I am in the right here.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  If you think these news sources are all operating under the same amount of good faith, then I think the disinfo campaigns have succeeded. I see quite a bit of daylight between Fox and CNN.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    The legitimacy of those networks are definitely still in question. I remember during the 2015 primaries, CNN got the nickname "Clinton News Network" because of the incredible amount of bias they showed. It seems to have only gotten more extreme (on both sides) since then. Not to say that it was an ad hominem attack. The comment above was extremely relevant and got to the point.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Unfortunately I don’t see much difference anymore. CNN used to be the gold standard, but they have fallen into the partisan trap just as much as Fox. They just do a better job at presenting a polished viewpoint.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      I don’t think that is true. I’m not defending CNN, I’m calling out Fox. Fox is pretty bad. Really bad.
      - jcadam 6y ago
        If you ask me, Fox News, aside from its evening opinion-based shows, has been moving toward the center since Ailes left. And CNN's home page looks more like an anti-GOP blog than a legit news site these days. Given that CNN was once my go-to news source back in the day, it's just sad. I remember when all the major news sites, including Fox, covered essentially the same stories, albeit with a different spin.
        adamsea 6y ago
        What is your point? What are you trying to say? Fox and CNN are not the same, whatever flaws CNN does have.