Some arguments work better than others, and lately, I've seen a couple of bad ones. Actually, they probably looked pretty good at first to the person making the argument, but, upon reflection, they don't really hold up.
The first is an argument I've seen occasionally from pro-choice supporters. It goes like this, "If you're really pro-life, don't have an abortion. But if you don't support abortion, then you better adopt all those unwanted babies that will be born."
This argument is flawed for a couple of reasons. First, the idea that all issues are only personal (that is, if you disapprove of behavior, just don't engage in it) leaves out the idea that some ideas are morally repugnant for all people, not just the individual. I doubt that anyone with this opinion would agree to this philosophy concerning, say, segregation or slavery. After all, if one were personally opposed to slavery, just don't own slaves, right?
The second problem with this argument is sort of the flip side. It concerns the idea that if you oppose some behavior, then you must take personal responsibility for any resulting consequences. So, for example, if you are a vegetarian, then you'd better own a lot of land because you will now be personally responsible for all those cows that aren't gonna get ground up for hamburgers.
Abortion is a rare issue this way, in that the arguments made in its defense require suspension of disbelief on a variety of fronts. The above are only 2 examples.
The second lousy argument I've seen lately regards criticism of the liberal media. What intrigued me about this argument is that I've actually heard it used by conservatives and now by liberals. The latest comment came on this thread from someone who doesn't like Newsbusters.
Note his (the writer's) lack of any news credentials whatsoever save "a national weekly Christian news magazine" - hardly a hard-news credential.
In other words, there can't be liberal bias noted by this author because he doesn't have the proper credentials to notice liberal bias. Or something.
I found this argument rich because I saw it about 10 years ago...from conservatives. An author had written a book about corruption and abuse by a defense contractor. The contractor had overcharged the government millions of taxpayer dollars. The author, appearing on the Diane Rehm Show, explained how he tracked the malfeasance of the evil corporation, complete with documentation of prices and overcharges. Several callers into the show asked similar questions: What experience did the reporter have in mechanical engineering or aerospace technology? Huffily, the reporter explained that his expertise was in writing, not in engineering. Then why, the callers asked, should anyone listen to a reporter about such a subject?
Now, of course, we have the same argument from the other side. How can anyone listen to a writer discuss media bias if said writer has no experience as a working journalist?
One of the wonderful things about being a reporter is that there is no license required. If you can convince someone, somewhere to hire you to write for them, bingo! You're a reporter. So, the argument fails on its face simply because one needn't have experience at the New York Times to write about it.
But this argument fails on the basis of logic, as well. As I pointed out in the comments, if my neighbor notes that the sky is blue, I don't reject his statement because he isn't a meteorologist. I can take his statement and my own observations together to recognize a blue sky. Media bias is similar. I don't need Rush Limbaugh to tell me there's a liberal bias to most modern media. My own experience in the newsroom, coupled with observations from other people, helps me recognize bias when it rears its head.
You don't have to have a masters degree in journalism to recognize bias when supposedly objective journalists behave like groupies at a rock concert when Barack Obama appears at their convention. Ordinary Americans recognize this, whether they work as journalists or not. So, while liberals think the MoveOn.org-backed Media Matters is a really objective (and fair!) source of reporting, most people would look at Newsbusters as just a counterpoint.
|