Logical fallacies pop up everywhere in the media. Usually they appear in ads or in political news. Logical fallacies are basically errors in reasoning that render an argument invalid. Usually, in a broader sense, all logical fallacies are mostly non-sequiturs, or arguments where the conclusion doesn't make sense. The most common types of logical fallacies are: Ad Hominem, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Force, Appeal to Humor, Appeal to Ignorance, Bandwagon, Hasty Generalization, Name-Calling, Non-Sequiturs, Poisoning the Well, Red Herring, Slippery Slope, Stacking the Deck, and Straw Man.
One example of logical fallacies in fake news is an article that I found called Trump is Fascinating...The Road Kill Effect. The author Debra Jane Campbell says that "As a professor of logic, I am deeply troubled by the lack of argument surrounding the issues of this campaign and the continual use of the ad hominem fallacy." The ad hominem fallacy is the argument or reaction is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Throughout the campaign, there was a lot of use of the fallacies to distract viewers from the real issues and divert attention away from real questions that needed answers. The news sometimes uses these fallacies to make a point, and it sometimes does not work because the readers or viewers know the truth.
Logical fallacies make the news less believable by diverting attention from where it should be, on the facts. For me, I would rather have all of the facts from the news and if I wanted opinions I would watch something other than the news.
I totally agree with you that logical fallacies often appear in ads. Just take a skim through the 2017 Superbowl ads. You'll see appeals to emotion, bandwagon, cherry picking, etc. And most often, viewers tend to ignore the flaws because of the shiny, pretty car or the good looking chip dip.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a very interesting article from The Huffington Post, a liberal publication (for the post part) that is parsing liberal ad hominem attacks on now-President Trump. I wonder, can you now dig back into those other examples of pure attacks on Trump the person and not Trump's policies? Those supporting points would really make this post stand out.