Check out this partisan hit piece against President Bush from the "news" outlet the Associated Press:
Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches
"Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day," President Bush said recently.
Another time he said, "Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."
"There are some really decent people," the president said earlier this year, "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people."
Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.
Of course, many people believe the U.S. ought to implement a nationalized, single-payer health care system, i.e. that "the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people." The Clinton Administration actually tried to implement it. And many Americans, especially on the left, think we cannot win the war in Iraq, and that we should end the war immediately, or as soon as is logistically feasible, i.e. that "the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day." And there has been a lot of debate about whether Muslim culture is compatible with democracy. In short, this article is pure drivel from start to finish.
Later in the article, the writer calls the suggestion that the Democrats want to raise taxes a strawman:
The president has relied on straw men, too, on the topics of taxes and trade, issues he hopes will work against Democrats in this fall's congressional elections.
Usually without targeting Democrats specifically, Bush has suggested they are big-spenders who want to raise taxes, because most oppose extending some of his earlier tax cuts...
To repeat the obvious point, if the laws establishing current tax rates are not extended, then tax rates will go up, i.e. there will be a tax increase. The Democrats in fact want tax rates to increase from their present levels. This is a fact, not a straw man. AP "reporter" Jennifer Loven is a failure at elementary logic as well as objective journalism.
This piece is not labeled as an op-ed or "news analysis." It should be labeled "DNC press release." It is a prime example of egregious bias, even by AP standards.
Others:
Riehl World View
Sister Toldjah
Outside the Beltway
[...] AP peddling unvarnished partisan hit piece as “news” “This piece is not labeled as an op-ed or ‘news analysis.’ It should be labeled ‘DNC press release.’ It is a prime example of egregious bias, even by AP standards.” [...]
Pingback by Hyde Park » AP: Bush using “straw-man” arguments — March 19, 2006 @ 12:11 am March 19, 2006
[...] Washington Post reporter Dan Froomkin jumps on the AP/Jennifer Loven bandwagon, going so far as to drag in a George Orwell/1984 analogy, to support her silly assertions about President Bush’s alleged use of straw-man arguments, which we addressed in a post Saturday. [...]
Pingback by The Unalienable Right » “Some say” Washington Post reporter is a partisan flack — March 20, 2006 @ 3:45 pm March 20, 2006
I'm not surprised at all. The media, especially the AP, is
pro terrorist. They gloat and cheer when American citizens
or soldiers are killed. They are trying to use their stories
to incite civil war in Iraq. They run terrorist propoganda
on a daily basis. In comparison, running a hit piece on Bush
is small potatoes. Hatred of America runs long and deep to
the likes of elitist chickenhawk snobs like Loven.
Comment by Tony — March 22, 2006 @ 11:50 am March 22, 2006
Loven is on the money!
Comment by Tom Payne — March 22, 2006 @ 11:56 am March 22, 2006
Wow, what a new idea. The main street press never says
"Some Say..." or "Some people think..."
I love how this president has been put
so such differing standards than, hmmmmm, Clinton???
How about looking at ALL politicians and media (oh yeah, they ARE politicians)
and how this tactic is used EVERYWHERE. To put this on Bush as a new and bad
tactic is ridiculous!!!
Some people would say that the Main Stream media is biased against Bush, LOL!!!!
Hey I got an idea, let put a First Lady in the Whitehouse in '08...
Go Laura Go!!!!
Comment by Jim — March 22, 2006 @ 11:57 am March 22, 2006
It sounds like maybe the author of the AP piece just doesn't know what a straw-man even is. She seems to think that arguing against a position that is held by only some or very few of your opponents is making a straw man argument. In reality, a straw man argument is when you argue against a position that is not held by *any* of your opponents. This is illustrated well in the transcript at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11944054/
Here, you'll see how Keith Olbermann of MSNBC accuses Bush of "denying one of his primary reasons for going to war in Iraq." He followed this by playing a clip of Bush saying that he'd never said that Iraq was involved in carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The implication is not only that Bush *did* at some point say that Iraq was involved in 9/11, but that this involvement was a primary reason for going to war. Since, in reality, Bush never did say that Iraq was involved in 9/11, this is a classic example of a straw man.
Fortunately, we can determine this by simply reading a few more paragraphs of the transcript, in which Keith plays several clips of Bush NOT SAYING that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Tony
Comment by Tony — March 22, 2006 @ 12:03 pm March 22, 2006
Is the Loven article incorrect? Is the straw man argument a lie? Does Bush do as Loven
reports?
A hit piece? Please. Unless you answered the above 3 questions as yes, yes and yes,
you can't call it a hit piece.
Bush does practice this method of communication. He uses these vague references.
And then you have idiots commenting like:
"I’m not surprised at all. The media, especially the AP, is
pro terrorist. They gloat and cheer when American citizens
or soldiers are killed. They are trying to use their stories
to incite civil war in Iraq. They run terrorist propoganda
on a daily basis. In comparison, running a hit piece on Bush
is small potatoes. Hatred of America runs long and deep to
the likes of elitist chickenhawk snobs like Loven.
Comment by Tony — March 22, 2006 @ 11:50 am March 22, 2006"
Tony thinks the media is pro terrorist especially the AP. What does Tony base his
comments on? What evidentiary basis on the comments founded on? It's a regurgitation of GOP talking points, ala the likes of SeanHannity, etc.
I thought Loven's piece was right on. It may be a way of communicating that used by
many politicians, but if so, so what. How does it make Bush not guilty of such
tactics? He does just as she has written. But, let's see, instead of countering the
message with some sort of argument, let's just attack the messenger. Unbelievable.
Comment by dan — March 22, 2006 @ 12:11 pm March 22, 2006
Loven's article does not cast Bush in a good light.
But I challenge anyone to show how any of the article's assertions are false.
Sometimes the truth is unpleasant, but don't shoot the messenger.
Comment by Paul — March 22, 2006 @ 12:16 pm March 22, 2006
As for the analysis above by the Editors, saying the "some people..." is a literally
correct term does nothing to pardon Bush's constant use of this sophomoric debate tactic.
Of course "some people..." is literally correct (who knows how many "some" is, after all).
The problem arises when the belief's of "some people..." are substituted via this tactic
for "most of my opponents". Duh. I'd be surprised if the Editors wrote the analysis above
with a straight face, assuming they have a basic understanding of what a straw man argument is.
Comment by Paul — March 22, 2006 @ 12:26 pm March 22, 2006
I think this was a fairly reasoned piece that explained the often misleading rhetorical devices that the President uses. If he has the evidence to back up his assertions why not name names?
Comment by Dirk Johnson — March 22, 2006 @ 12:26 pm March 22, 2006
Loven should have consulted real experts on strawmen arguments. No logicians or experts
in informal logic are referenced, and as a result the article is a bit of a puff
piece. Had she consulted and referenced experts in the field of logic, she would have
found that the determination of whether something is or is not a strawman argument is
itself complex and controversial. To illustrate this problem with regard to just one
example: Loven's assertion that "hardly no one in mainstream politics" has made the
arguments in question is itself vague: what exactly does she define as "mainstream"? In
a careful examination of a putative strawman argument, this would need to be rigidly
defined so that others could refer to Loven's claim and evaluate it.
Loven is not necessarily wrong, but the article suffers from a lack of expertise and
sophistication concerning the use of strawman arguments.
Comment by Fabio Escobar — March 22, 2006 @ 12:47 pm March 22, 2006
I'm glad this isn't similar to Demorats saying "republicans are questioning our patriotism".
I'm sure MSM would be all over something like that....
Comment by Shocked — March 22, 2006 @ 1:18 pm March 22, 2006
The President must have learned this trick from Noam Chomsky, it's master.
Comment by Bill Wager — March 22, 2006 @ 1:24 pm March 22, 2006
Howdy
The press is a virtual fourth branch of government, with the privelidges and power attendant to fulfilling such a crucial role in a Democracy, with the sole attending responsibility being impartial, objective reportage.
Sadly, the number of journalists worthy of their job descriptions has diminished to a level which invalidates their role in Democratic society, it is de rigeur that news per se is not reported at NBC, CBS, PBS, ABC, it's all filtered through the jaundiced perspective of obsolete marxist BS.
That being the case, a hit piece against President Bush masquerading as news will not lift a single eyebrow, it is the assumption when one tunes into network news or reads major newspapers that the work product we consume serves the interests of the far left, not the unbiased truth.
If the press had credibility, this story would be a Big Deal and we would need to explore alternative means to gain insight into the events of the day.
But the press has no credulity among objective minds, and alternative means to obtain news abound.
Saying journalists are predominantly intellectual prostitutes for an inferior, obsolete, discredited political school of thought is like saying the sky is blue. How's the average socialist country's per capita GDP these days? If the left cared about feeding the needy, for example seems they'd prefer the American Way over socialism, lots fewer needy folks to look after and vastly greater resources to do so. But if objective facts were the currency of political debate then lefties could afford principles.
But the left is peddling snake oil, and I never heard of a snake oil salesman who could afford to serve truth, hence, the Fourth Estate is corrupt to it's core and We The People ceased to grant them credulity a long time ago.
yawn, so what else is new?
Comment by Mike — March 22, 2006 @ 1:31 pm March 22, 2006
Is there no end to these people's quest to cover up thier true agenda. This article was a blatant attack, which goes right along side of every other article that attacks not only our President's character, but his integrity. Obviously this reporter can't research very well. If she did, she could easily see who the President is referring about. We don't have to guess who the "some" people are, we know who they are and they do too..right liberals, democrats, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Harry Ried, Dick Durben, Hillary Clinton, the entire group of "old media outlets" and on and on and on?
Comment by Richard Kugelmann — March 22, 2006 @ 1:33 pm March 22, 2006
"nationalized, single-payer health care system" is not even remotely equivalent to "the federal government ought to be the decider of health care" any more than supporting employer based insurance is equavalent syto supporting employers being the decider of health care.
Who are these people who allegedly say that Muslims cannot be free that you say exist within the mainstream of political debate? Why is it necessariy for the President to rebut them?
Why dont you provide concrete examples of people in the mainstream political debate for each of the assertions?
Comment by Catch22 — March 22, 2006 @ 1:47 pm March 22, 2006
Her editor defends this as an 'explanatory' piece. Yes.. The article explains her opinion!
Comment by George — March 22, 2006 @ 1:51 pm March 22, 2006
Does anyone expect more than liberal cant from the "mainstream" media?
Comment by Mike — March 22, 2006 @ 1:52 pm March 22, 2006
Wonder if any of the AP Washington girls, Jennifer Loven, Sandy Johnson or Kathleen Carroll, have ever used the "some say" or "some believe" straw man approach?
Comment by Patrick — March 22, 2006 @ 1:53 pm March 22, 2006
Right on, Jennifer. When you make the Bushies squeal like you just did, you know you've
shined a light where they don't want anyone to look.
Comment by David Fisher — March 22, 2006 @ 1:59 pm March 22, 2006
Bush's use of the logically faulty "Straw man" argument is still going on.
You need look no further than his press conference this week (3/21/06)
"They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program."
Problem is, nobody is suggesting that. Everyone is in favor of intelligence gathering. Everyone wants those calls tapped. Where the difference is they want the laws requiring a warrant followed. Bush doesn't want to do that so he mistates "their message" as wanting to stop all surveillance. This is not only dishonest but a classic example of a straw man argument. The fact that his supporters see nothing wrong with it is amazing.
Comment by Cheney — March 22, 2006 @ 2:00 pm March 22, 2006
The AP sucks and Loven should be sacked.
Comment by David Wiseman — March 22, 2006 @ 2:06 pm March 22, 2006
“Loven is on the money!”
Maybe so Tom, personally I agree with Jim’s comment that this is simply a tactic which is used routinely by everyone in politics, especially members of the press.
Nevertheless, her OPINION concerning the matter such have been expressed in an identified opinion piece, not a straight news dispatch.
I just re-read the article again, and I can’t possibly see how any reasonable person could, with a straight face, call this anything other than an op-ed.
Comment by Jason — March 22, 2006 @ 2:06 pm March 22, 2006
Here's a sixth comment for those fine folks at Editor & Publisher, who appear to be counting. I agree that the piece is not news, it is opinion.
Comment by Steve Barton — March 22, 2006 @ 2:12 pm March 22, 2006
Loven should have the courtesy of marking opinion as such. Nobody has a problem with AP putting out opinion pieces. No one has a problem with AP putting out straight reporting pieces. But when they put out an opinion piece that mascarades as straight reporting, that is a problem. The question is, does Jennifer Loven actually believe that her opinions are fact? Sadly, I think she does. Poor journalism is passed off as "news" and the papers keep asking why no one buys their product. But at this point, the MSM is so invested in this fairytale, they are going to follow it all the way into the ground. Hopefully, here in LA, maybe something will grow from the ashes of the LATimes that is actually worth reading. Here's hoping, but not expecting.
Comment by Mike A — March 22, 2006 @ 2:12 pm March 22, 2006
Why is Loven making hay over the President's use of rhetorical devices the entire Washington press corps routinely uses? I can't turn on the TV without some liberal journalist asking the President or one of his advisors a question beginning with "Some say..." So why is this even news? The answer, obviously, is that it is yet another, silly partisan attack. Yawn...
Comment by Scott P. — March 22, 2006 @ 2:28 pm March 22, 2006
Why do the right wing media get so upset every time their big, tough, manly president is challenged in any miniscule way by the real press? When they're not whining that an 80-year-old reporter actually asked relevant questions about the president's job, they're whining that a news piece has the audacity to examine his rhetorical style.
The media need to point out when leaders are employing logical fallacies in their rhetoric. If the president doesn't expect to be challenged in this way, he shouldn't have run for office. I just wish the press hadn't been so remiss in this particular duty for so long. Exactly what logic is employed in an argument for the press swallowing his wishy-washy gobbledygook without question? Or is logic not something right wingers usually employ in their thinking? Is this why they're so outraged that a news article would attempt to educate the public on its tenets, and, horror, inform us when the president is not adhering to them. It's not a matter of opinion that he uses straw men, but fact. The right confuses the two too much.
Comment by Tony — March 22, 2006 @ 2:31 pm March 22, 2006
What I find interesting is the fact of comparison to different speech tactics or point verivication
The liberals LOVE polling. It is their bible.
I think they distort and twist polls to do what ever they want and then claim they have facts.
Comment by David — March 22, 2006 @ 2:42 pm March 22, 2006
Just about every time I read a story with an AP byline that leans left on President Bush, Jennifer Loven's name is on it.
Now I check the byline first, and when her name shows up, I don't read it.
Anchors like Katie Couric use the "some people say" as a device to frame a question as fact all the time. It's sad that
Loven and AP once again attribute something that's been around for years to President Bush in a vain attempt to disparage
his character. The man is an absolute genius with all the things he's invented to trick Americans and confuse reporters :)
Comment by Carl — March 22, 2006 @ 3:03 pm March 22, 2006
By saying "some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not
worth another dime or another day,." Bush is setting up a strawman. Jennifer Loven
My nomination for "Straw Man" is Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National
Committee. I seem to recall the chairman of the DNC saying in a radio interview that the
war in Iraq cannot be won. My recommendation to President Bush is that he name names and
dates because people like Jennifer Loven are too lazy to check or too dishonest to care.
Jennifer Loven is either an ignoramus who doesn't stay current with the news or a
dishonest political hack. I recommend to her that before she calls and argument a "straw
man," she does a Lexis-Nexis search. Not being a big fan of President Bush, I still am
appalled at the intellectual laziness or downright dishonesty of his detractors, who, by
the way, are all memmbers of the chattering classes who consider themselves
intellectually and morally superior to the rest of humanity. It has become a mark of
the true leftist that their hatreds have a religious-like fanaticism that is not
dispelled by facts. It is truly tragic that for some people, political disagreement
becomes demonization.
Comment by Kevin O'Reilly — March 22, 2006 @ 3:09 pm March 22, 2006
AP has nothing to do with news and everything to do with pushing their anti-war, anti-Bush agenda. They do not really need to label stories as "opinion" because they write little else. Facts are carefully selected to fit the themes, and might as well come straight from the DNC.
The internet will spell the death knell for this kind of overpaid propaganda masquerading as information.
Comment by DaMav — March 22, 2006 @ 3:14 pm March 22, 2006
Remember "I have a billionaire friend that told me"
The AP has been putting up hybrid opinion pieces disguised as news for as long as I've cared about politics around 1989. I gave up on all of the media after their wildly blatant hatchet jobs done in favor of klinton. I haven't bought a newspaper since we had puppies. Thank god for the internet (don't thank algore) to get the straight story anymore.
BTW. What about the AP putting out completly opposite stories about the Sadaam taped meetings? You won't hear about that every half an hour for 3 days on CNN.
I'll have to thank the editor & publisher for turning me on to this website.
Comment by J Farnsworth — March 22, 2006 @ 3:22 pm March 22, 2006
Thanks Joe Strupp and thanks E&P (and, of course, thank you Matt Drudge). Granted I had to wade through your crap to get to the link to this site, but it was worth the journey.
Comment by Greg — March 22, 2006 @ 4:10 pm March 22, 2006
This is why I ran screaming from journalism. If you're not liberal, you're out.
Unprofessional.
Comment by Amy — March 22, 2006 @ 4:21 pm March 22, 2006
"Some say..." Is that a truism? Would he have been more accurate in saying, "All say..."?
Typical of the radical left, or more accurately, all of the left. They're devoid of ideas and original thoughts. But, they have become quite adept at building strawmen and then knocking them down.
Comment by T. Holmes — March 22, 2006 @ 5:17 pm March 22, 2006
It's a new low? How low will they go? The mainstream media has become so irrelevant, it doesn't surprise me that they now propogate as "news" obvious liberal mouthpiece articles. The proof, however, is plain for all to see. The NYT is slip sliding away, and CNN can't even get a good word from Gallup of all places...all signs point to MSM desparation and grasping at straws -- and in that context, the "strawman" argument actually becomes relevant!
Comment by Maureen — March 22, 2006 @ 5:36 pm March 22, 2006
I see the moveon crowd has weighed in on this media hypocrisy and hyperbole.
Comment by algor — March 22, 2006 @ 5:42 pm March 22, 2006
All of you are so silly - bickering between left and right. I am happy that you are all caught up in the false battle between 'right' and 'left' - instead of ever solving problems it is common for people to toss around meaningless debate.
The left is just as un-Christian as the right. The right is just as rigid as the left.
Comment by James — March 22, 2006 @ 5:45 pm March 22, 2006
If Bush said 'democrats say', or 'Pelosi said', or 'Reid said', then he would be attacked for making personal attacks, so he uses the generic 'some say', to not single out a specific person - and he is still attacked. This should not be a suprise, since the leftwing fanatics of the press simply hate him like poison. Sure Loven should be fired, but if you fired all the biased leftist democratic party mouthpieces working in the 'press' there would be no one left.
Comment by G Miller — March 22, 2006 @ 7:43 pm March 22, 2006
"Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not", Shaw, RFK, etc.
Comment by Diogenes — March 22, 2006 @ 8:08 pm March 22, 2006
Typical AP reporting.
All bread and no beef.
Comment by John Callaghan — March 22, 2006 @ 8:19 pm March 22, 2006
What is it that AP stands for anyway?
Arab Propogandists... Against the President... Ass ociated Pouters... Aggravated Pawns... Annoying Press... Anger Provokers... Angry People... Aledged Press...
Comment by J R Mitchell — March 22, 2006 @ 8:24 pm March 22, 2006
Oh my the Prez got a critical piece written about him.
My these republicans are thin skinned.
Cant imagine anybody believed the manly imagine
in the first place. The guy is not a cowboy
but an effete new englander poseur.
Real leaders say follow me; not U go fight there yourself.
Comment by Markangelo — March 22, 2006 @ 8:27 pm March 22, 2006
"Main"stream media? More accurate would perhaps be "Leftstream" media.
The MSM has long been dominated by leftists. What they print has more often than not been closer to propaganda than to objective reporting. The advent of Talk Radio and the Internet gave non-leftists an opportunity to fact- check and point out the omissions, outright bias (as in the Loven piece) and outright lies (e.g. CBS's TexANG 'memos' and Kerry's suspect Purple Heart band-aids, etc..) of the Left.
Whether they acknowledge it or not, the influence of the Alternative Media is growing as the MSM hemorrhages viewer- and readership. The MSM is rapidly losing whatever believeability they might have had.
Loven's piece is merely the latest example of propaganda from the Leftover Left, in this case, accusing their enemies of the very thing that they are guilty of. Her article is just the latest nail in their coffin.
Comment by Publius — March 22, 2006 @ 9:09 pm March 22, 2006
My response to an article in defense of Loven's biased article.
AP's Bush 'Straw Man' Story: News Analysis Or Unlabeled Opinion?
By Joe Strupp
Published: March 22, 2006 12:55 PM ET
Excerpt:
AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said the piece was "a good way to explain to readers what rhetorical devices people, in this case the president, use to make their point." She also did not believe the article should have been labeled opinion or needed to include any White House comment. "This was not a piece that was critical, it was explanatory," Carroll said.
In a statement, AP spokesman Jack Stokes wrote: "Jennifer Loven's story was one of an ongoing series of fact-checking stories that dig beyond the rhetoric. Editors tell us they want more of these stories." But Stokes did not comment on what kind of reaction the piece had sparked from readers or editors.
Dear Editor,
Based on the above two paragraphs of Mr. Strupp’s editorial, I can point out two points of bias, that Loven is not being held to account for. First, if she was just trying to explain the use of “straw man” rhetoric, she would have used both Democrat and Republican examples. Secondly, if it was fact-checking beyond the rhetoric, she might have pointed out instances where there was a basis in fact for Bush’s so-called “straw man” examples. She would have found many examples by Dean, Murtha, Schumer, Clinton, Carter, Reid, Feingold, etc. AP's Bush 'Straw Man' Story: News Analysis Or Unlabeled Opinion?
By Joe Strupp
Published: March 22, 2006 12:55 PM ET
Excerpt:
AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said the piece was "a good way to explain to readers what rhetorical devices people, in this case the president, use to make their point." She also did not believe the article should have been labeled opinion or needed to include any White House comment. "This was not a piece that was critical, it was explanatory," Carroll said.
In a statement, AP spokesman Jack Stokes wrote: "Jennifer Loven's story was one of an ongoing series of fact-checking stories that dig beyond the rhetoric. Editors tell us they want more of these stories." But Stokes did not comment on what kind of reaction the piece had sparked from readers or editors.
Dear Editor,
Based on the above two paragraphs of Mr. Strupp’s editorial, I can point out two points of bias, that Loven is not being held to account for. First, if she was just trying to explain the use of “straw man” rhetoric, she would have used both Democrat and Republican examples. Secondly, if it was fact-checking beyond the rhetoric, she might have pointed out instances where there was a basis in fact for Bush’s so-called “straw man” examples. She would have found many examples by Dean, Murtha, Schumer, Clinton, Carter, Reid, Feingold, etc. Mr. Strupp actually might have tried that in his article. Further, Mr. Strupp might have shown his own bias by mentioning “The Web (sic: Federalist Journal) site also set up its own page seeking comment on Loven's work, but from critics. As of today, the page had received two comments.” This is especially apparent when I note that Mr. Strupp’s article seems have been posted at 12/22/06, 12:55 PM, where as there were at least 42 messages posted before 8:24 PM highly critical of the article.
Sincerely,
Vince
Comment by Vince — March 22, 2006 @ 9:15 pm March 22, 2006
This women is obviously a Deaniac.What is amazing is that liberal hacks still try to hide behind their noble journalistic armor.In the end
we have a new term a Deani-hack.
Comment by Larry Harris — March 22, 2006 @ 9:50 pm March 22, 2006
This does not come as a surprise to me. The AP is nothing more than an extension of the Democratic party. If you look at your local new papers, you will see the AP is behind just about ALL the negative news about the Bush administration, and I would go further to say they are complicit in covering up any good news that comes out of Iraq. I have spoken with many people on the ground in Iraq, and 95% of them say that the real story of Iraq is not being told....There are positive things happening all over Iraq, but of course the AP doesn't want to report on that, because that would be something positive for the Bush presidency. I would like to see a study done on the number of positive to negative stories the AP has done on Iraq and the Bush presidency.... I am willing to bet there are fewer positive things said about either... and the percentage rate is more than likely lower than the "fake" approval numbers that CBS has been putting out on the war and the President.... The AP and the Democratic party is willing to destroy this country to get Power back in the hands of the Democrats....
Comment by James — March 22, 2006 @ 10:03 pm March 22, 2006
I thought the strawman thing was off. She's marketing anti-Bush propaganda. I have heard many of Bush's statements, and always think he is stating what some of the 'opposition' IS saying. That's a rhetorical device, not a device of logic. 'straw man
n.
1) A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.
2) An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
3) A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow. '
Well his straw man must be hanging out with the Tin Man, Al Gore, or is he the woodsman?
Comment by janie — March 22, 2006 @ 10:28 pm March 22, 2006
First, during Clinton's years you never saw a piece like this other than 'the definition of Is is. S, why does the press get analytical over a politician's speaking techniques? A hit piece? Absolutely. The sadder part is that while this reporter goes after a politician using media space (political donation maybe) there are many stories going untold (i.e. mrsa infections killing thousands in hospitals).
A few decades ago there used to be a thing called slander, such that when the media got a little testy in their writings and got a little out of bounds with the truth, they could be sued. Somehow, today, they got that eliminated and can print what they like (truth or not).
Comment by Jim ears — March 23, 2006 @ 2:44 am March 23, 2006
All of us should know that the mainstream media is afraid of Bush and others like him. Bush tends to ignore them much more so than previous presidents have done. I think we should do the same. This article is not worth wasting time on.
Comment by Susan Kittrell — March 23, 2006 @ 3:29 am March 23, 2006
Follow the yellow brick road, and you'll end up at the same old, same old, place. Just another tool from the box of the Democratic whacky left. I think some people would say "this stinks" of bias - certainly not factual journalism. Thank you President Bush for staying on the high road showing character, dignity, faith, integrity in leading our nation. The left don't fool me, or most Americans.
Comment by Terre Wilson — March 23, 2006 @ 5:20 am March 23, 2006
Is the President using a straw man approach? That depends on what the meaining of "is" is. Maybe Loven will clear that up in her next op-ed article.
Comment by B. Swit — March 23, 2006 @ 5:24 am March 23, 2006
Cry me a river. The spoiled, little-minded Republicans are being picked on again.
BRAVO, Ms Loven and the AP. Maybe some real journalists will appear somewhere else. The media is the public voice of the people, not the Government. When no one questions the Government we have a dictatorship, totalitarianism, hmmm....American, Inc.?
...never mind.
Comment by Bob — March 23, 2006 @ 5:27 am March 23, 2006
I think Loven's commentary on the rhetorical methods being used is accurate but not newsworthy. Anyone who listens to politicos and talking heads realizes that this goes on all the time. To say that she is "shocked and appalled" is at the least disingenuous.
Comment by Dave Fleming — March 23, 2006 @ 5:47 am March 23, 2006
You people frothing about an item by the world's largest and finest newsgathering agency, The Associated Press, are the same folks in LOVE with Fox News -- which distorts news not only on a daily basis, and not only several times per day, but several times a program, EVERY PROGRAM!
The AP did its job, went beyond Bush's insipid claims, and reported that there was nothing there.
You're all a bunch of crybaby hypocrites.
Buford Pusser
Comment by Buford Pusser — March 23, 2006 @ 7:25 am March 23, 2006
Buford,
Name-calling and CAPS are really no substitute for an argument. Loven's ridiculous claims have been thoroughly debunked at this point, on this site and many others. But thank you for visiting and commenting.
Comment by The Editors — March 23, 2006 @ 7:39 am March 23, 2006
Jennifer Loven, Ron Fournier,.... The Associated Press was, is and forever will be a a collection of leftist dupes, conduits and useful idiots.
Comment by Tom — March 23, 2006 @ 7:43 am March 23, 2006
Its over Boys... Your President jacked the deficit by 3 trillion dollars in 5 years and its still growing... I had a bunch more to say but felt it wouldn't had gotten through the editors here. Attack Jennifer Loven? "Some people" would think you all are quite childish and whiney. Point your fingers and cry until your little baby faces turn red as your stripes on your lapel flag. You all had 3 branches of government, little oppostion and this is what you all accomplish... Tax breaks for millionaires, wars and spending like drunken sailors on roads to nowhere. What a joke. BUt its all over starting November. Enjoy...
Comment by larry mezner — March 23, 2006 @ 7:44 am March 23, 2006
Just let the free market take care of the old media and the A.P. , those decomposing dinosaurs. Take heart though we could always use more oil. Handgun
Comment by Handgun — March 23, 2006 @ 7:55 am March 23, 2006
I had to laugh at the delicious irony of the AP "uncovering" the "devices" that President Bush uses to emphasize his points in his speaches. By explaining the use of these techniques, she has done the incredibly biased AP a huge disservice. She has exposed the methods that they themselves use in their "news stories" to undermine and attack anything this president (or any conservative for that matter) does or says. She did, however, neglect to mention some of the AP's favorite devices that appear as "news". For example: Does Mrs Ballentine (err Ms Loven) believe that the AP is ever so clever when they tell us "un-named sources say" or "some critics say"? These are "red flag" phrases that should inform the reader that the article they are reading should be lining their bird cage. Ms Loven tells us that the president is using the opinions of radicals, and insinuating that they are mainstream, to set himself up as an underdog. When we read an article that mentions "in the face of strong criticism" or "facing strong opposition", we should ask, who are these critics? Who is this opposition? The AP has been setting up stories for years to try to create a reality that simply does not exist. It is not by accident that journalists consistently rate near the bottom in "who do you trust" polls. Hear's a headline for the AP " Jennifer Loven faces strong criticism from many". Or "Stong opposition says AP is biased"
Comment by Matt Winder — March 23, 2006 @ 8:15 am March 23, 2006
well, if Loven and the AP must be abolished for biased reporting, then let them be hanged....right along side the Washington Times, which doesn't even bother disguising itself as anything but a partisan hack factory, and Fox 'news' (whose slogans should be "fairly unbalanced", or "we decide, you go, Baaaa",) the most egregious offender in this opinion disguised as news disguised as entertainment crap factory that "some people" (term deliberately used, but far more appropriate here than any time bush uses it) think is the salvation of the information peddling game.
Comment by george — March 23, 2006 @ 11:00 am March 23, 2006
You guys live up to your membership in the Wingnuttia.
Comment by lib — March 23, 2006 @ 11:07 am March 23, 2006
I find it incredible that, rather than address the issue of whether the President liberally uses straw man arguments as a rhetorical device devoid of proof or real-world justification, that the "issue" here has become the author of the article. I understand the notion of adopting the tactics of those you admire -- I suppose that would be Rove in this case, whose mastery at attacking the attacker appears unmatched in modern American political history -- but this is basically Stockholm Syndrome. Do the Conservatives reading this not see that eventually, and presently, the twine will unravel and that your passionate beilef regarding the right-ness of Bush will sequentially be refuted, dismantled and ultimately completely discredited when the history of this Administration is written. Wash your hands of this. This man is neither a conservative, nor certainly a liberal. He is a power consolidator and cheerleader for dangeroud beliefs, who has placed the United Stated in the most precarious position I have witnessed in my lifetime, vis à vis the rest of the world, and , as a result has lessened our standing in the world as well as the security of all Americans. Think.
Comment by Marc Leandro — March 23, 2006 @ 12:53 pm March 23, 2006
I'm embarrassed to actually be spending the time to write into a website like this, but here goes. Loven's analysis -- whether "partisan" or not -- is logically correct. It is far from "drivel." If it is, as some have characterized, a "hit piece," then the hit was deserved. Perhaps she could have cited to more authority, but her reasoning was essentially sound.
What is most striking is the response to her piece. Indeed, this website's critique of her analysis, aside from failing to illustrate how she erred (other than to disparage her for undertaking the analysis), is laden with irony, in that it engages in several logical fallacies of its own.
"It is an example of egregious bias" -- actually, no. The critique offered by this website leading up to its conclusion was that Leven was incorrect in her assessment of Bush's rhetoric. Bias traditionally describes a predisposition or inclination toward a particular outcome. Nothing in the critique of Leven's analysis supports the ultimate claim that she was predisposed to the conclusion she drew, so the conclusion that she was "biased" is itself flawed. Physician, heal thyself.
As for the other comments, the most prevalent rhetorical fallacy is the use of ad homs in the place of a serious consideration or critique of her argument. And, of course, the use of overbroad generalizations imbedded with arguments that themselves err, ignoratio elenchi. Here's a hint: whenever someone responds to your argument with a broad-based generalization (e.g., "all liberals" or "the Democrats in fact want tax rates to increase from their present levels"), a blithe simplification of a complex issue (the characterization of Clinton's health care program), a vague, and therefore unprovable, assertion ("liberals love polling"), simple-minded gibberish ("the media is pro-terrorist"), or ipse dixit dismissals of your argument (they are "silly"), you are winning the argument.
Comment by James Badwater — March 23, 2006 @ 1:42 pm March 23, 2006
Parse the examples given in the article all you like, straw man articles are a routine feature of Bush rhetoric. It does not matter for the purposes of this discussion that you might sometimes find people who fit the straw man's clothes, Bush's intent is to convince the naive that all of his critics speak with the voice of the most idiotic among them. One might (naively) wonder why he resorts to this device (a.k.a. LYING) if he believes his own arguments to be sound.
Just the other day we got to hear that some don't think we should have a "terrorist surveillance program". We could have an intelligent discussion of the legitimate question of the legality and wisdom of the program in question, but Bush doesn't want to have that discussion -- he doesn't want anyone to have it -- so he pretends (again, this is LYING) that the question is a choice between his program and no program, not a choice between his program and one that would require oversight; and for good measure he implies that anyone who becomes a target of NSA spying is a terrorist (and who wouldn't want terrorists spied upon?) -- never mind that it would be impossible for him to believe that these things are true. I mean, really, isn't it truly impossible? Who is that, again, who is advocating that terrorists not be spied upon? I can't recall and Bush didn't say; since he leaves me to guess, I'll venture that it is Bush's enemy of convenience, champion of the indefensible, the Man of Straw. But of course I am biased -- biased against LIARS -- so nevermind.
I get it: Pointing out that Bush told a lie is reporting news; pointing out that he has a pattern of lying is offering analysis, analysis being the illegitimate practice of applying reason to facts. And so to hell with the truth.
Comment by David Rosenak — March 23, 2006 @ 6:42 pm March 23, 2006
Dear Editors: I have reviewed post #65, which I wrote, and based on an application of your CAPS test I find that my arguments are all false. Sorry about that!
Comment by David Rosenak — March 23, 2006 @ 7:13 pm March 23, 2006
Hmmmm,
The erudite rational explanations of the definition of a strawman argument behing presented by liberals while the knee-jerk hate messages being provided by conservatives.
Some would say that it's descriptive of the closeminded and uneducated nature of conservatives on-line (do you get the irony of this straw man argument (or would you propose that its true (ala Bush)
Good luck in life ya'll
Comment by Ben — March 23, 2006 @ 7:57 pm March 23, 2006
Like many others on this thread, I believe Loven's criticism of Bush is essentially correct. My problem is with the publication of the piece as straight news when it is is patently not (i.e. the writer expresses her own opinion in her own voice, and no opposing comments are included). That's a big step toward no straight news at all, a a la Fox "News." Is that what we want? Not me. Slanted though many, many news stories are, they still have to play the game, and it's a good game.
Comment by Doug Sherman — March 24, 2006 @ 2:36 am March 24, 2006
It seems to me that Loven is one of many journalists who are finally getting it right. The crop of White House stenographers we've had to endure since Bush came into office have been detrimental to getting the truth out there - no, not "truthiness", the rightwing version - but the hard, bitter, blinding truth.
Now when the journalists actually start doing their job and investigating the merits of what Bush and company are saying, suddenly it's trashed by rightwing outrage. Understandable, I suppose, since the curtain is finally being pulled on the little man behind the big-talk rhetoric (lies). If it gets too hot in the kitchen, the Bushies blame the media. How typical.
Comment by Kim — March 24, 2006 @ 6:08 am March 24, 2006
If you don't realize the direct relationship between the MSM and DNC you are either brain dead or eyes wide shut. Since at least the CBS docs to Katrina to Iraq to the Economy, it's all spin. As the media taunts their "polls" you'd think they'd pay attention to their own approval ratings, eg. plummeting sales, plummeting stock prices, and low viewership. No business would ignore these market indicators, unless the business isn't the main objective. The main objective is power, getting dems back in power so we can all go back to making believe the world is peaceful and all is well so long as we stay out of everyone's way.
Comment by Jay — March 24, 2006 @ 6:34 am March 24, 2006
Several people have said here that "everybody does it," referring to the straw-man argument. Well, that may be so, but it is still a service on Loven's part to show readers exactly how they are being manipulated...by Bush or anybody else. The critical examination of logical fallacies isn't the stuff of everyday discourse, unfortunately, so most regular readers haven't thought about manipulative rhetorical techniques since high school, if then. Loven's article opened my eyes to how Bush gets away with his slippery arguments. He routinely sets up two polarizing options--his own solution to a problem and the impossible "solution" offered by an unnamed "some." Of course unwary listeners choose his solution, which sounds reasonable compared to the straw man he has set up. It's very clever. He does it frequently (and Cheney and Rumsfeld do it, too).
I would like to see a similar analysis of the other common logical fallacies in relation to Bush's rhetoric. Was Loven just scratching the surface?
Comment by Em — March 24, 2006 @ 9:31 am March 24, 2006
Bush makes fallaceous arguments all the time, the strawman being just one. He and his administration repeatedly link Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence, yet later deny there was a link. The right wing media trashed Kerry over
Vietnam, ignoring 2 basic facts: John Kerry was indeed in Vietnam and Bush and Cheney were not in Vietnam. Quite simple, actually, but not to the SwiftBoaters. And anyone who believes that the media is Left ignores conservative radio (Hannity, Limbaugh, ...), television (Fox), print media and the internet.
In all reality, our current administration is hardly conservative, at least not by historical standards. Conservatives should care about the environment (not the big businesses that pollute it), the budget (as in a balanced budget) and reduced government (we are now $9,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and growing due partially to our nation building in Afganistan and Iraq).
Bush campaigned as a compassionate conservative. He is neither. Just another lie.
Comment by Jeff — March 24, 2006 @ 11:02 am March 24, 2006
Is it an opinion that Bush used the straw-man device? Not so - it is a fact that he took a generalization of opposing opinion, crafted it so that it would succumb easily to his retort, assigned it to his perceived opponents, and then delivered that scripted retort. Opinion would be "Bush is lying scum, and should be impeached and imprisoned forthwith". I would better understand all this uproar had Loven delivered such a combination of fact (lying scum) and opinion (impeach and imprison) - but she did not.
Comment by Conley Gwinn — March 24, 2006 @ 11:40 am March 24, 2006
Jay, in post #70, responds by drawing a connection between the MSM and DNC, saying that one must be "brain dead" not to agree with him about that. But what does agreeing or not agreeing have to do with the question of whether or not Loven's charges are true? It does please me, though, that Jay is so defensive about Bush's approval ratings that he would point to the MSM's ratings for comparison, much the same way that others defended Bush by comparing him to Clinton. The comparison to Clinton is downright funny. Clinton is the Right's whipping boy, but when Bush is accused of lying some of you defend him by saying, in essence, that it's excusable because Clinton did it too. And of course, he did. But my saying that is not a concession -- it has no bearing on Loven's article or this discussion. When you answer Loven's charges by attacking her, the AP, the DNC, Clinton, or otherwise changing the subject, you appear to be conceding that Loven's charges are true, or at least that you don't know how to refute them. You may not be making those concessions, but that is the appearance. And if the charges are verifiably true and Bush routinely misrepresents the arguments of his critics in a deliberate attempt to misleasd the public, that is news and should be reported as such, whatever you may think about Loven or Bush or me or anything else.
With Bush's poll numbers as low as they are you ought to expect that there are going to be a lot of articles that explore the reasons for that, whether you like it or not. And if you're going to defend him by changing the subject you should expect that you're not going to convince anybody.
Comment by David Rosenak — March 24, 2006 @ 12:53 pm March 24, 2006
what Loven wrote is entirely accurate and backed up by documentation.
Face facts Gentlemen.....
Given the oppertunity 66 per cent of Americans would fire Bush and his entire squalid tean tomorrow.
DaveGood
Comment by DaveGood — March 25, 2006 @ 4:01 am March 25, 2006
"Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day,” Bush said recently. Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions. - Jennifer Loven
I think it's fair to say that when people use the word "quagmire" with respect to Iraq, they mean that the war is not winnable. So, I think that you're not giving Jen her due. She is really only saying that all those like Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, etc. who use the term "quagmire" are outside the political mainstream. Hooray for Jennifer for indirectly saying that those folks from the left wing fever swamps are irrelevant.
Comment by Tom Miller — March 25, 2006 @ 7:42 am March 25, 2006
What Loven wrote was biased and inaccurate, as we described in the original post above. Given the opportunity, a majority of America's voters re-elected President Bush.
Comment by The Editors — March 25, 2006 @ 7:42 am March 25, 2006
America has lost more men in the first three years of the Iraq War, then it did in the first three years of the Vietnam war....
America is currently loseing, through death or wounds so serious the men cannot return to active duty.... 15 men a day...
That's the equivalent of a full infantry battalion every 30 to 40 days..... a division every three months....
Bush chose to start this war with only ten combat ready divisions....
Want to know how many you have left?
DaveGood
Comment by DaveGood — March 25, 2006 @ 12:33 pm March 25, 2006
And a majority of Americans would fire Bush and everyone associated with him tomorrow... given the chance....
Wants his approval ratings again...?
34 per cent?
or less?
DaveGood
Comment by DaveGood — March 25, 2006 @ 12:36 pm March 25, 2006
Hey, everybody, the discussion is over! George Bush won the 2004 vote (one out of two -- not bad! a much better success rate than he had as a businessman), as The Editors so cunningly remind us in Post #77. I guess there's no answer to that!
signing off.
Comment by David Rosenak — March 25, 2006 @ 11:29 pm March 25, 2006
Too bad the MSM missed this little gem-
"I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem
diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council. That's why it
was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed.
And the world said, Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences. And
therefore, we worked with the world. We worked to make sure that Saddam
Hussein heard the message of the world.
And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose,
then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did. And
the world is safer for it.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Secretary Rumsfeld ...
BUSH: You're welcome.
I didn't really regret it. I kind of semi-regretted it.
QUESTION: (inaudible)
BUSH: That's right"
Of course, everybody knows the inspectors were removed at the behest of the US. Maybe you morons can explain that away.
Comment by Monte Haun — March 26, 2006 @ 3:20 pm March 26, 2006
I regret that many commentors view Loven's piece as partisan. Instead, she pointed out how a politician has a track record of employing a common tactic used anyone unable to mount a substantive and fact-based debate to defend their position. Yes, this politican won the previous election, but tens of millions of people did not vote for him. We are a nation that was founded on the mutual respect for differences of opinion - to degenerate into partisan depiction of factual arguments based on skeptical principles is to turn one's back on the foundations of American freedom.
Comment by Abel PharmBoy — April 1, 2006 @ 4:47 pm April 1, 2006