Friday, November 15, 2013
Public Discourse and Bad Faith Argumentation is Fatal to American Public
Our current model of public discourse certainly rewards bad faith argumentation through the mutual relationship of the viewer and the reporter/debater/host/etc. The reporter wants to attract to the viewer through theatrical tactics of political debate to spark interest, entertainment, and viewers. The viewer wants to be entertained, and therefore the bad faith argumentation full of theatrical attacks and ad hominem is rewarded with viewers and the benefit of staying on air. I also believe bad faith argumentation is rooted in unfair bias- due to the corporation, their sponsors', the writers', and the reporter's own personal beliefs. These workers for a large cable news network often feel the need to express their personal beliefs to the public, instead of informing the public. In the Rush Limbaugh show, the radio host used the word “n—a” when discussing the case of Trayvon Martin. This ad hominem attack of bad faith argumentation sent a signal to his over 15 million weekly listeners that using the extremely offensive N word is acceptable. And although the word is completely unacceptable to be used, his followers will believe and repeat almost anything he says, therefore unethical rhetoric is encouraged in this situation. This is also similar to Bill O'Reilly's comments when discussing the Hawaiian drug issues "35% of the Hawiian population is Asian... ...Asians are usually more industrious and hardworking." His racial profiling comments slipped right by without notice, and the casualty of the racism only rewards bad faith argumentation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You wrote that press encourages bad faith arguments and that reporters feel a need to present their biased views. How can we change this? What alterations could be made to the state of the current journalist/media coverage of events so that a network would present unbiased news?
ReplyDeleteYou also said that listeners of Limbaugh's show "will believe and repeat almost anything he says." I disagree because although there are those who are gullible and do believe whatever they are told, there are others who can think for themselves and challenge the press. What can we do to discourage bad faith arguments?