Six Worthless Talking Points Aired Frequently On Cable News
PI Editorial

1. Concern with partisan money trails. So there are some powerful Communist organizations that donate vast sums of money to the Democratic party. We can feel the outrage already. But why is this news, again? The economic connection makes perfect sense, as the socialist ideals of the Communists are most in line with the Democratic party, so they naturally donate money to have their beliefs best represented.

It makes no difference how the parties are funded - both are mostly funded by those who generally benefit from their policies. The only way to judge a party should be through the actions they have taken in Congress to pass or reject certain legislation. If a Republican-held Congress passes bills which increases the role of the government, they too are guilty of collectivism, even if they aren't bankrolled by it.

The need for funding is universal in politics, and worth no further discussion. Dubious interests can bankroll beneficial policies.

Examples of specific talking points inspired by this fallacy: "Cindy Sheehan is bankrolled by the Marxist Left, therefore she is a political extremist"; "The Republican Party gets campaign contributions from Big Oil, therefore their energy policies only exist to enrich their cronies"; "The Democrats get money from Hollywood, therefore everything they stand for is fake, narcissistic and shamelessly utopian."

2. Discussion of non-issues. Despite all of the events in the world, its still very difficult to provide fresh content 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Or we should say, fresh comment that will attract the average American viewer. This is the challenge cable news networks face. It is more than reasonable to admit that there are times in which cable news programs are forced to fill the airwaves with less-than-critical pieces and commentaries. Often, cable news pundits, in their grandiloquent pontificating, are forced to make issues out of non-issues. This then forces them to offer commentary on these non-issues, which in turn metamorphoses last week's non-issues into this week's opening topic in CNN’s “Situation Room.” Mr. Blitzer is not to blame, though, it is the fault of the 24/7 format of the cable news network. It encourages pundits to discuss whatever they can find instead of applying a discerning eye to events and commenting only on those of relevance.

Examples of specific talking points inspired by this fallacy: "Oh my God! Where is [insert missing white girl]?!?"; "What is James Carville up to?"; "Like ohmigod, did you hear what Bob Novak said about Valerie Plame? Outrageous!"; "The right to pry into a public official's life is pretty much a Constitutional right, sir"; "Hey, check out this scandal!"

3. Failing to recognize there are winners and losers to every policy. Greedy businesses like tax cuts. Lazy workers like welfare. Midwestern farmers like agricultural subsidies and trade protectionism. Moralists like censorship and decency legislation. Blacks like affirmative action. None of these has any bearing on the virtues of the policies themselves. Politics shouldn't be a battle of legislating the selfish desires of politically-powerful interests. It should be finding the best policies for the country and implementing them, even if it may harm the interests of some or seem to benefit others. Frederic Bastiat once remarked that all special-interest politics is as foolish as candlemakers lobbying their government to block out the sun in order to avoid "unfair competition." How true.

Examples of specific talking points inspired by this fallacy: "Globalization puts American workers out of jobs, therefore is Great Satan"; "The bankruptcy of this Great American Business would ruin the lives of so many hard-working Americans that taxpayers should bail it out"; "Do you want to put teachers out of work with your wild voucher schemes, you heartless jerk?"; "Hey, I lost my job to a Mexican! Let's close our borders!" "Hey, I lost my job to a machine, technology sucks!"

4. Populism. Popularity has no bearing on the value of a political policy, period. Have we forgotten in the years since kindergarten that what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular? Successful societies should be able and constantly willing to override public opinion for the eventual greater good. France should have recently done so in the face of its reactionary CPE riots, the US rightly did so during desegregation, and the world rightly does so as it slowly globalizes and privatizes its industries, despite widespread public opposition whipped up by atavistic socialists.

Public opinion studies have confirmed that the average traits of the average citizen are political ignorance, apathy and disengagement; history has shown the dangerous consequences when this is exploited. Good policies should certainly be popular, and often are, but are not always.

The great irony is that both liberals and conservatives should recognize this. If you're a conservative, the public opposes you on gay marriage bans, flag burning amendments, abortion bans, school prayer, and bans on euthanasia. If you're a liberal, the public opposes you on your tax increases, political correctness legislation, immigration policy, and defense policy. Think about that the next time your local party shill trumpets the fact he has the Zogby poll in his corner on an issue.

More than that, to use popularity as a method of persuasion is a lame attempt to apply modified peer pressure. It basically says, in political rhetoric, "Come on, think like me, everyone's doing it..."

Examples of specific talking points inspired by this fallacy: "The American people have heard the arguments for this policy, and they don't like them, folks"; "Bob, the American people are opposed to what you say by large margins", "I don't care what your polls say, pal, my polls say the exact opposite," "The verdict is in, America loves the Democratic Party!"

5. Ad hominem attacks. The ad hominem logical fallacy, or attacking the person who is advocating a position instead of the position itself, is a common debate tool of the 21st-century cable news pundit, widely adopted by the Right and the Left. Unfortunately for the relevance, logic and general worth of their arguments, the correctness of a policy is not contingent upon the personal appeal of its promoter, legislator, or advocate. Poor politicians can craft great policies, and great politicians can craft poor policies. It is as simple is that.

The unnecessary concentration on the behaviors, characteristics and exploits of politicians instead of the issues and policies is a cancer in the political scene. It is to effective public discourse what tabloid magazines are to current events journalism. It is wise to remember the old adage: weak minds discuss people, average minds discuss things, and great minds discuss ideas.

Examples of specific talking points inspired by this fallacy: "Bush is a Nazi," "John Kerry is weak and effeminate", "Republican X is unethical, therefore the Republican Party is unethical," "What strategic tergiversation will Hillary Clinton engage in this week?"

6. Blaming media bias. Yes, the media are biased. Of course they are; there are humans behind the news stories and agendas behind the humans. However, there is no vast right-wing conspiracy, keeping its Machiavellian hand over various media outlets and changing phrases like “tax cut” to “tax relief.” Similarly, there is no leftist scheme censoring Hollywood or academia of conservative ideas. There just happen to be a lot of conservatives and liberals in each place, who naturally put their own spin on the reality they present to others.

News is the delicate art of picking a few stories out of a nearly infinite selection of world events. Naturally there some stories will be selected over others - the decisions must be made, and they will always offend some. This is par for the course. A true man of conviction is not duped by the liberal or conservative bias of his peers. Not only is he impervious to its effects, but he is also able to combat it with persuasion and debate.

We need to accept the fact that nearly every article, news commentary, and live TV broadcast will thus always some bias contained in it. Depending on the source, the bias can be liberal or conservative, but the bias will always be there, real or perceived. It is the informed viewer's (or reader's) job to carefully analyze the source and diction of each piece of information received to draw his own conclusions. Accepting anything at face value without proper scrutiny is a foolish proposition, indeed. Yet so many Americans fall in the trap of getting their news from just one news source and trusting that source unconditionally.

Those who disagree with a news medium and its biased reporting are free to provide a competing source of current events reporting. Otherwise, it is a notably Kafkaesque exercise when these pundits to blame their own failure to promote their own political perspective on the media's alleged promotion of its political perspective.

Examples of specific talking points inspired by this fallacy: "The only reason this position isn't popular is because The Media keep hiding the truth," "X isn't reported because The Media are biased and want to suppress the truth," "Liberal media"; "Corporate-controlled right-wing media" "Hey, check out this conspiracy, man! So it all starts in the media, man..."

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed