The Top 5 Informal Fallacies on Cable News
In the age of polarized politics in mainstream media and 24-hour news networks, the battle to keep your eyes on the screen has never been fiercer. News channels on all sides of the political spectrum regularly resort to informal fallacies in their debates to keep viewers engaged and advertisers happy.
Compared to formal fallacies which break rules of logic to reach the desired outcome, informal fallacies can be tricky to identify because the arguments can appear relatively solid to the untrained observer. Arguments with informal fallacies can seem to deliver consistent and compelling points of view even though fundamental issues lurk within their reasoning. Without delving into the mind-numbing depths of academia, here are five common fallacies to watch out for on the news.
1. Argument to Moderation: Assuming the compromise is always correct
A speaker often deploys the argument to moderation when he or she wants to please everyone. While this may seem like a noble intention, it favors good intentions over the truth. This fallacy operates under the assumption that “meeting halfway” is the solution to all the world’s problems. While compromise may be the optimal solution for some things, it throws out the idea that there may, in fact, be a right answer to any given problem.
In a world where many people just want to get along, it can be tempting to fall victim to this fallacy, but doing so can result in troubling outcomes. As unpopular as it may be, there are some cases where the right position is far from a compromise.
2. The Naturalistic Fallacy: Assuming that the current state of affairs is the right way
“This is the way it is, so this is the way it should be.”
The naturalistic fallacy makes the assumption that because something is the way it is, that’s the way it should be. While it doesn’t necessarily have to be about the natural world, a good example of this fallacy often comes up in debates about genetically modified crops. A GMO opponent may say, “this isn’t the way the plant is found in nature, so it’s bad. It isn’t natural.” While there may be good, sound arguments against GMO products, saying they’re bad because “human intervention changes the natural state of a crop” relies on the same reasoning that implies that humans shouldn’t change anything from the state in which they found it. Something may be better or worse off from a change, but the argument shouldn’t rely on the idea that any change is inherently bad.
3. The Nirvana Fallacy: Rejecting solutions because they’re not perfect
The familiar saying “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” aligns closely with the nirvana fallacy. Debaters will often turn to this fallacy as a last resort. For example, someone may say, “Your idea only provides half the solution? It should address the entire issue, so based on this, your argument is terrible.”
There are a couple of significant issues with this fallacy: the first is that missing information doesn’t automatically negate the information that’s present, and second, with more than one worldview in a society, it may be practically possible ever to reach a solution to which everyone agrees. The nirvana fallacy is the perfect weapon for a lazy debater because it can never miss; nothing is perfect.
4. The False Dilemma: Your only choices are A or B, nothing else
This fallacy is a big one when it comes to polarizing the audience. No one wants to watch a debate where you disagree with both sides, right? A good example of this fallacy is something like, “Either you are a libertarian or you hate America because the founding fathers had libertarian ideals.” With a statement like that, the debater is neglecting the huge range of political ideologies that fall between hating America and being a libertarian. A good way to identify a false dilemma is to listen for the word “either” in the arguer’s statement. If someone gives you the option of either this or that, there is likely a false dilemma present.
5. Ad Hominem: Attacking the person, not the argument
What list of informal fallacies would be complete without one of the most common fallacies you’ll encounter on the news, or in fact, in any street-level debate? Ad hominem, which is Latin for “to the man,” means attacking the person and not the words they’re saying.
On a news debate, you may hear something such as “we can’t trust what you’re saying because you didn’t pay taxes for the last two years.” While not paying taxes may be an essential piece of information, it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the argument the person is making. People often use ad hominem tactics to distract from a well-reasoned, persuasive argument, so when faced with this fallacy, it’s important to remember that the message is more relevant than the messenger.
Fallacies? Fake News? What Now?
The use of informal fallacies to sway opinions is nothing new; this has been a political tactic since the days of ancient Greece and will continue to be a tactic in the future. The primary issue facing society is not how to stop these tactics, but how to counter them with critical thinking in mind. With some knowledge about informal fallacies, you can make sure that you’re one step ahead the next time you tune in to network news.
