![]() ![]() This was, however, the first practical example of the public media being a “watchdog” of the government’s actions, becoming a Damocles’ Sword of sorts. Muckraking developed during the American Progressive Era where “investigative journalists” exposed shady government practices, albeit often exaggerated. There’s also muckraking, where you underhandedly post scandalous info about public notables and the government with a connotation of a complaint/critique, hence “raking the muck”. It’s not quite the same as fake news, which technically presents actually incorrect facts, but an article CAN have elements of both- they’re not mutually exclusive.ģ. Yellow journalism uses sensationalist headlines and partial truths to stir up a certain reaction to an issue. You can think of it as: false info is the means to an end goal of red herringĢ. Just an armchair philosopher but a fellow NSDA -extortion victim- debater:įake news uses incorrect or skewed facts to usually divert from an inconvenient issue but can technically be for any reason: She could be arguing for multiple different conclusions in the same speech. ![]() But do you expect that the lawyer has made all of her theses explicit? Probably not. ![]() The narrator assumes (creates) a thesis that makes death-by-chainsaw a red herring. I mean, look at the chainsaw argument in the vid. If your goal is to convince someone, this process may be counter-productive. And when you try to establish that structure to any given argument, many will become exasperated and judge you to be a pedant. How many arguments actually proceed in that fashion? Very, very few. This doesn't eliminate irrelevancy, but it allows us to see it more easily. This is part of the reason why it's important to treat arguments rigorously- to identify all of our premises, to specifically identify the exact position for which we're arguing, and to carefully define as many of the words that we're using as possible. It's almost always due to unexamined, unshared assumptions that make that irrelevancy relevant. Usually, irrelevant arguments seem relevant to the person making them. In my experience, the deliberate red herring is very much the exception. I'm not sure that red herrings are so easy to spot- and once you spot one, it's certainly not easy to convince the person with whom you're speaking. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |