Skip to main content

Hannity's missing argument with Koppel

Ted Koppel and Sean Hannity talked about the state of news and news commentary in early 2017.  Ted Koppel expressed the idea that Hannity and Fox News was "bad for America" because "you have people who are determined that ideology is more important than facts."

Hannity has written a complaint about the interview as presented by CBS; in his view it was too heavily edited.  But Hannity never tells us what was edited out that he would want us to see.  What points did Hannity raise with Koppel that would have made Hannity's position more convincing?  Hannity suggests the full interview would show him making valuable points, but never tells us in his written complaint what those points were.

It would seem that Hannity is trying to direct our attention away from the points that were made by Koppel and himself.

Besides this, Hannity makes a "genetic fallacy" when he claims that because Koppel works for CBS, and because Dan Rather worked at CBS, and because Dan Rather made claims based on faulty evidence, Koppel and the edited interview are dealing with faulty evidence.  Hannity writes:

Now, beyond this interview being a total waste of my time, it is a flagrant example of what I call “edited fake news.” Remember, CBS News is the former home of Dan Rather. Remember him? He was forced to resign after reporting an inflammatory fake news story about President George W. Bush.  Rather used fake documents to bolster his story.

He avoids the merit of the content of their debate by associating Koppel with a Dan Rather's error from 2004.  Hannity suggests that Rather didn't just make an error, but intentionally lied (we are not considering that point at present).

As defined here, "this fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit."

Hannity should, at least, state clearly what he said in his interview with Kopell that was taken out so that we can judge the merits of his position and compare it to Koppel's.  Otherwise, his claims about this interview are, as he put it, "a total waste" of our time.



Image: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Healthcare, Tom Price, Insurance, Cost, Ecomomics

Tom Price here claims the new American Health Care Act will "bring down costs" and "will allow for more individuals to be covered".  The Congressional Budget Office projects that the number of uninsured under the AHCA will increase from 31 million this year to 52 million by 2026.

If the number of insured people decreases, costs for insurance should increase -- that is, at least, according to the traditional economic axiom of supply and demand.  If there will be greater demand for healthcare as people age and the population grows, and less available supply of coverage through insurance, one would expect prices to increase.

How can the bill "bring costs down" if the number of uninsured goes up?


Raul Labrador, Health care coverage, Death

Congressman Raul Labrador said "Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care."

This statement is false given that if you have cancer it can kill you unless you get care.  Consider some other scenarios in which access to health care could prevent death:


Snake biteCrocodile biteEbola virusWolf attackGunshot woundBroken neckDehydrationShark attack

Without access to health care, people suffering from any of the above may die.  Clearly, then, people do die when they don't have access to health care.

Karl Oliver, Confederate Monuments, New Orleans, Lynching, Mississippi

Mississippi State Representative Karl Oliver said that if the leadership of "Louisiana wishes to... burn books or destroy historical monuments... they should be lynched."



Oliver has a problem here, in that lynching is the illegal or extralegal torture, murder, and mutilation by a mob.

If he is serious in his assertion that people who destroy monuments should be lynched, then he is actually calling for their extralegal torture, murder, and mutilation.  Because he posted this on social media to a public audience, he may even be inciting mob violence.  That may be grounds for charging him under 18 U.S. Code § 2102.

It is hard to believe that a public office holder, a State Representative, would be serious about calling for the torture, murder, and mutilation of those who remove monuments.

Oliver has to clarify -- was he serious, or was he just throwing around inflammatory language to express his anger?

{{Update}} Oliver has deleted the post as of 22 May 2017.