IMNASHO: Attacking *credibility* is legit. It's up against the line, but this side of it. One I think would be a bit *over* the line would be "You linked to Fox News, why should I believe anything YOU say?" Or more overtly, "Michael Moore supports that cause, therefore it must be a bad cause." (That's a double fallacy - also post hoc, ergo propter hoc, of a sort...)
The most blatant variety is "Fox News is always wrong, therefore when they say it's gonna be sunny today, it's gonna rain" (which ignores (a) that big ball in the sky and (b) the fact that bias != wrong). (That last is shocking, I know.)
But bias can shade the truth. As it's said, "the blackest lie contains a kernal of truth". Fox has been known to leave out inconvenient facts and remove context to further its agenda. Without context, anything goes. I could say that Barak Obama had sex with a 28 year old! Which he did ... on his honnymoon with Michelle back in 1992 when he was 30. Just leave out the context and you have a World Net News headline. (joke)
For example there was a person who claimed you can safely be exposed to more radiation than what the government says. What's left out is when the body first feels the radiation the cells increase their defense so more radiation isn't as painful. It's like getting shot with a 22 then putting on a kevlar fest that stops a 38. The larger bullet does less physical damage only because of the added protection.
Then you have times where Fox flat-out lied. Things like switching the party affiliation of politicans in scandels, flipping poll results, mislabeling healthcare reform as a "government takeover", calling Obama a socialist, etc.
On another board I frequent, a person's tag line is, "Saying 'I heard it on Fox News' is like saying 'I heard it from a pathlogical liar with Alzheimers'.
Bias != wrong all the time, but it shouldn't be trusted either.
It is up to us to not say "FAUX SNOOZE IZ DE DEBBILLLLL!!!111ONE!!ELEVEN!", but to sniff out that kernel of truth in other sources, or just go do our own damn reporting, and speak up and say what the truth is from our own (Kantian) POV.
The tag line you point to is ad hominem. The semantic line is "X *is* something" vs. "X *did* thus-and-so." There's a lot of syntactic sugar in the tag line, but when you take a machete to it, you're saying "Fox News == Alz victim", which frankly is not only false and ad hominem, it's insulting to Jimmy Doohan, runnerwolf's grandma, and a few other people.
*Everybody* is biased. You're biased against Fox News. I am too, but differently so. I am biased towards truth and beauty and peace and love and liberty and music. I think the key going forward is to be honest and up-front about those biases. Rupert Murdoch is not. I try to be as much as possible.
Another aspect of ad hominem attacks is their off-the-cuff, lump-sum power. It's basically throwing the first punch in a fight, what you do when you have no obvious retort, e.g., "Oh yeah!? Well, Michael Moore/Rush Limbaugh is fat!"
Is everything Fox News reports wrong? No. They just twist a lot of it to fit their political agenda. This is not something I'm making up; there are entire web sites devoted to documenting it. There is a tendency to question the accuracy and impartiality of Fox News, because they have repeatedly, demonstrably shown their lack of accuracy and impartiality.
Perhaps a more apt example: If I call Sarah Palin an idiot, and don't follow it up with anything, that is certainly an ad hominem attack. If I say she knows nothing about a certain subject or number of subjects about which she professes expertise, and I document them, and then call her an idiot based on that info, it's still insulting but it's not ad hominem.
Any observation upon her alleged idiocy must also be tempered by the fact that she turned her physical attractiveness and a couple of years as Alaska governor into a vice-presidential nomination, a presidential front-runner status, a lucrative speaking career, TV shows for her daughter, and an iconic status in popular culture. I believe the term is, "crazy like a fox".
So replace "Alz victim" with "forgetful" to avoid offense. The fact is still people on Fox News do lie. They say things they know are lies and they lie by omission. How is it wrong to call them out on that and attack their credibility and the credibility of those who think they are a valid news source?
Would this be less offensive, "Saying 'I heard it on Fox News' is like saying 'I have no ability to distinguish between truth and propaganda'." or 'I heard it from a child throwing a temper tantrum'?
Offensive is just the icing on the cake. The point is to look at the actions, not the entity in question - to avoid *fallacy*, not offense. (Besides, you can't avoid offense. The trick is to avoid being *unintentionally* offensive.)
I think Tom has it right. Saying "LIAR" or even "childish" without citation crosses the line.
Truthfully, the metafallacy here is negativity; it's precisely what Keith was referring to. The individual in question is demonizing Fox News. What we want to do is accentuate the positive.
Peace and Love and Liberty... and Music. -- Bob Marley
All right then, how much citation is necessary? You don't want to give too much or else you lose your audience. If you give too little and it crosses the line.
If someone linked to a Fox News artile about climate change, how many examples do you have to give to discredit it?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-13 03:28 pm (UTC)The most blatant variety is "Fox News is always wrong, therefore when they say it's gonna be sunny today, it's gonna rain" (which ignores (a) that big ball in the sky and (b) the fact that bias != wrong). (That last is shocking, I know.)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-13 03:54 pm (UTC)For example there was a person who claimed you can safely be exposed to more radiation than what the government says. What's left out is when the body first feels the radiation the cells increase their defense so more radiation isn't as painful. It's like getting shot with a 22 then putting on a kevlar fest that stops a 38. The larger bullet does less physical damage only because of the added protection.
Then you have times where Fox flat-out lied. Things like switching the party affiliation of politicans in scandels, flipping poll results, mislabeling healthcare reform as a "government takeover", calling Obama a socialist, etc.
On another board I frequent, a person's tag line is, "Saying 'I heard it on Fox News' is like saying 'I heard it from a pathlogical liar with Alzheimers'.
Bias != wrong all the time, but it shouldn't be trusted either.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-13 04:06 pm (UTC)The tag line you point to is ad hominem. The semantic line is "X *is* something" vs. "X *did* thus-and-so." There's a lot of syntactic sugar in the tag line, but when you take a machete to it, you're saying "Fox News == Alz victim", which frankly is not only false and ad hominem, it's insulting to Jimmy Doohan,
*Everybody* is biased. You're biased against Fox News. I am too, but differently so. I am biased towards truth and beauty and peace and love and liberty and music. I think the key going forward is to be honest and up-front about those biases. Rupert Murdoch is not. I try to be as much as possible.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-13 04:21 pm (UTC)Is everything Fox News reports wrong? No. They just twist a lot of it to fit their political agenda. This is not something I'm making up; there are entire web sites devoted to documenting it. There is a tendency to question the accuracy and impartiality of Fox News, because they have repeatedly, demonstrably shown their lack of accuracy and impartiality.
Perhaps a more apt example: If I call Sarah Palin an idiot, and don't follow it up with anything, that is certainly an ad hominem attack. If I say she knows nothing about a certain subject or number of subjects about which she professes expertise, and I document them, and then call her an idiot based on that info, it's still insulting but it's not ad hominem.
Any observation upon her alleged idiocy must also be tempered by the fact that she turned her physical attractiveness and a couple of years as Alaska governor into a vice-presidential nomination, a presidential front-runner status, a lucrative speaking career, TV shows for her daughter, and an iconic status in popular culture. I believe the term is, "crazy like a fox".
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-13 04:21 pm (UTC)Would this be less offensive, "Saying 'I heard it on Fox News' is like saying 'I have no ability to distinguish between truth and propaganda'." or 'I heard it from a child throwing a temper tantrum'?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-13 04:52 pm (UTC)I think Tom has it right. Saying "LIAR" or even "childish" without citation crosses the line.
Truthfully, the metafallacy here is negativity; it's precisely what Keith was referring to. The individual in question is demonizing Fox News. What we want to do is accentuate the positive.
Peace and Love and Liberty... and Music. -- Bob Marley
(Now, *there's* a tag line.)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-13 05:10 pm (UTC)If someone linked to a Fox News artile about climate change, how many examples do you have to give to discredit it?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-13 07:32 pm (UTC)It would depend on the content of the article, but off the top of my head, one to three?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-13 07:56 pm (UTC)