Again, my thanks to "H" of TN for granting permission to quote verbatim from the exchange posted here.
The focus of this post will be comment made to "Frank," who had posted a comment to TN.
Here is the portion of the article that TN used, leading to the URL for folks who wished to read more:
Top Ten Power Brokers of the Religious RightWho they are, what they want, and why these American ayatollahs must be stopped.The United States is home to dozens of Religious Right groups. Many have small budgets and focus on state and local issues; the most powerful organizations conduct nationwide operations, command multi-million dollar bank accounts, and attract millions of followers. They have disproportionate clout in the halls of Congress, the White House, and the courts, and they wield enormous influence within the political system.
What follows is a list of the nation's Top Ten Religious Groups, as determined by publicly available financial data and political prominence. Additional information describes the organizations' leaders, funding, and activities.
(Source)
The story goes on to list, in order, CBN (Pat Robertson), Focus on the Family (James Dobson), Coral Ridge Ministries (D. James Kennedy), Alliance Defense Fund (Alan Sears), American Family Association, American Center for Law and Justice (Pat Robertson, Jay Sekulow), Family Research Council (James Dobson, Tony Perkins), Jerry Falwell Minstries (guess who), Concerned Women for America (Tim & Beverly LaHaye), and Traditional Values Coalition (Louis P. Sheldon).
Now, Frank probably figured that terrorism is something like the UN view of terrorism according to the "Academic Consensus Definition":
The connection with "terrorism news," in other words, was so tenuous that Frank decided not to waste his time on a site that had such an extraordinarily broad umbrella under the term "terrorism."
Here is what Frank wrote:
The reaction of the site hosts, "H" and "DJEB" is where things get interesting.
Does Frank sound like he's coming back, judging from his post? It doesn't sound like it, to me. Some might disagree, I suppose. Here is DJEB's response (I'll be focusing on DJEB in this post):
My reaction when I read the above was mild astonishment that the site hosts would bother to attack somebody whose comments had been rather mild, and who (in my view) wasn't likely to come back to defend himself. On top of that I was amused by the interpretative liberties apparently taken with Frank's post in order to try out Frank's supposed logic.
I replied:
Now, Frank probably figured that terrorism is something like the UN view of terrorism according to the "Academic Consensus Definition":
"Terrorism is the anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by a (semi) clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby--in contrast to assassination--the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and the main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought. (Schmid, 1988)Frank probably figured that it was a bit of a stretch to put those ten supposedly ayatollish organizations in common with folks who actually, say, saw people's heads off or set off bombs on double-decker buses.
(United Nations)
The connection with "terrorism news," in other words, was so tenuous that Frank decided not to waste his time on a site that had such an extraordinarily broad umbrella under the term "terrorism."
Here is what Frank wrote:
I'm sorry that you chose to include this article in your "Terrorism-news" blog. This does nothing but show your bias. Because of this, I sadly cannot take anything on your site seriously. I was hoping to find useful, scholarly information about terrorism .... but oh wellObviously, Frank had decided that TN wasn't his cup of tea.
(discussion thread)
The reaction of the site hosts, "H" and "DJEB" is where things get interesting.
Does Frank sound like he's coming back, judging from his post? It doesn't sound like it, to me. Some might disagree, I suppose. Here is DJEB's response (I'll be focusing on DJEB in this post):
Let's try your logic out Frank:
Terrorism News posted a story that offended my religious sensibilities.
And if a site makes a post that offends my religious sensibilities, it is incapable of 'useful, scholarly information about terrorism.'
Frank, I was hoping to find a useful, intelligent comment about the story in question, but .... oh well. [Please forgive my plagiarism there. Thanks.]
(discussion thread)
My reaction when I read the above was mild astonishment that the site hosts would bother to attack somebody whose comments had been rather mild, and who (in my view) wasn't likely to come back to defend himself. On top of that I was amused by the interpretative liberties apparently taken with Frank's post in order to try out Frank's supposed logic.
I replied:
Frank's comment was reasonable. You just absolutized it in order to attack it (straw-man style)
Placing this story did reveal more than a wish to reveal facts about terrorism. Frank is right to restrict himself from thinking that the presentation of facts will be done as fairly as possible.
You've got an agenda. There's nothing wrong with having an agenda, of course.
You run the risk of losing readers who want the straight dope on terrorism news when you broadcast the agenda.
Yeah, there might be some worthwhile nuggets (even quite a few of them) where space is shared with a strong agenda.
I don't think that's what Frank was talking about. He was, I think, talking about the issue of trust (as in trusting you to sift the information).
(discussion thread)
So, I felt that the charitable interpretation of Frank's note indicated that he was using hyperbole in saying that he couldn't trust anything at the TN site; he meant that he would prefer a site that chose information about terrorism over commentary that broadened the term "terrorism" along ideological lines (James Dobson and Jay Sekulow "ayatollahs"?).
DJEB would not have any of that, however.
First, DJEB seems to be under the false impression that one cannot be guilty of committing a straw man fallacy without an intent to commit a straw man fallacy (or intentionally alter a premise such that the fallacy is created). I've looked at quite a few descriptions of the straw man fallacy without encountering that particular take; I'll leave that as something for DJEB to establish someday.
logic resource
DJEB claimed an inability to detect the straw man he was charged with creating. DJEB took what was probably hyperbole ("can't trust anything") and turned it into an extreme position that Frank supposedly held literally, and added on a premise that Frank had never uttered, that is, that his "religious sensibilities" were offended. On the face of it, Frank was offended by the expanded notion of what constitutes "news" about terrorism, not by any religious dimension. An atheist would be equally justified in reacting as did Frank.
Since I did not suggest that there was anything wrong with having an agenda (I said explicitly otherwise, in fact), nor with posting stories that went beyond the strict definition of terrorism, I consider DJEB's latter two paragraphs irrelevant except perhaps to illustrate a higher-than-average state of defensiveness.
Since we were all agreed that TN has an agenda, and I stated that there was nothing wrong with having an agenda, my original statement could have been the end of it.
My point was merely that Frank had said his piece; it was a reasonable statement if taken charitably, and there was no real sense in attacking his reasoning (especially via straw man tactics). More on DJEB later, and _H_ after that.
Previous posts in this series:
The role of bias in news and commentary
DJEB would not have any of that, however.
Bryan, for me to have made straw man fallacies, I would have had to consciously misrepresent one of the premises in the syllogism, assuming that I did not neglect a premise. Could you point out my error, because I don't see it. If I did, it certainly wasn't conscious. I consider the use of straw man arguments such a part and parcel of right-wing thought that I avoid making them at all costs out of fear of copyright infringement.
As for the story going beyond the scope of terrorism, so do stories on global warming which have been published here. When they have been published, however, no one came on saying that they therefore ruined the integrity of the site.
We've got an agenda, you say. Thanks for pointing out what _H_ has said publicly: that this is "[a] site about terrorism viewed from a more global perspective. Are George Bush and Tony Blair 'terrorists'? well many in the world think so I try to present the 'other' side to the global war on terror." Digging that up from topblogsites wasn't even necessary. One merely need read the scrolling text at the top of the screen. Who does not have some agenda when they go to the trouble of creating a website, particularly a political one. Have a look at your site, I see you have an agenda too.
(discussion thread)
First, DJEB seems to be under the false impression that one cannot be guilty of committing a straw man fallacy without an intent to commit a straw man fallacy (or intentionally alter a premise such that the fallacy is created). I've looked at quite a few descriptions of the straw man fallacy without encountering that particular take; I'll leave that as something for DJEB to establish someday.
logic resource
DJEB claimed an inability to detect the straw man he was charged with creating. DJEB took what was probably hyperbole ("can't trust anything") and turned it into an extreme position that Frank supposedly held literally, and added on a premise that Frank had never uttered, that is, that his "religious sensibilities" were offended. On the face of it, Frank was offended by the expanded notion of what constitutes "news" about terrorism, not by any religious dimension. An atheist would be equally justified in reacting as did Frank.
Since I did not suggest that there was anything wrong with having an agenda (I said explicitly otherwise, in fact), nor with posting stories that went beyond the strict definition of terrorism, I consider DJEB's latter two paragraphs irrelevant except perhaps to illustrate a higher-than-average state of defensiveness.
Since we were all agreed that TN has an agenda, and I stated that there was nothing wrong with having an agenda, my original statement could have been the end of it.
My point was merely that Frank had said his piece; it was a reasonable statement if taken charitably, and there was no real sense in attacking his reasoning (especially via straw man tactics). More on DJEB later, and _H_ after that.
Previous posts in this series:
The role of bias in news and commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remain on topic and keep coarse language to an absolute minimum. Comments in a language other than English will be assumed off topic.