Keith Olbermann and the straw man fallacy
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.Keith Olbermann's behavior during last Wednesday's "Countdown" is a case in point.
Olbermann took issue with the fact that Bill O'reilly mentioned Proposition 8 in California as an example of how Democrats, in his view, have a double standard with respect to non-blacks who oppose gay marriage and blacks who hold the same stance:
O'reilly: "The African American community came out for Obama. While they were in that booth, they said, you know what, gay marriage, I don't think so. So why aren't they protesting in front of the African-American church?"To which Olbermann replied that pro-Obama turnout among first-time voters was not the reason why Proposition 8 in California passed.
OLBERMANN: Our runner up tonight, BillO the Clown, again reading the conservative talking points, trying to pin the victory of Proposition 8 in California on black voters. "The African American community came out for Obama. While they were in that booth, they said, you know what, gay marriage, I don't think so. So why aren't they protesting in front of the African-American church?" Maybe because they're not racists and you are.
Our friend, Nate Silver, who relies on statistics rather than on things he heard in the hallway, has dispensed with this version of reality, simplified for the BillO's of the world. Nate writes, "the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters, the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama, voted against Prop 8 by a 62 to 38 margin. If California`s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin." Nate Silver, Bill--FiveThirtyEight.com. Learn something--well, try.
Here, K.O. sets up a straw man called "first time voters", which would represent position Y in the above-mentioned example. O'reilly at no point tried to "pin the victory" of Proposition 8 on African Americans. Nor did he blame "first-time voters" either. In fact, O'reily did not even mention first time voters.
O'reilly simply noted the high support of the proposition among African Americans in California and he wondered why the left condemns those groups that oppose gay marriage while making an exception with African Americans.
His point can be deconstructed like this:
The left condemns those who oppose gay marriage.
African Americans in California opposed gay marriage and the left did not condemn them.
Therefore there is a double standard.
One way to attack O'reilly's point would have been finding instances in which the left had criticized African Americans' behavior during the voting. I saw an article by The New Republic's senior editor, for example, slamming African Americans for their support to the proposition, although for the most part I've heard nothing from main liberal blogs.
But Olbermann, who earns $4 million a year to keep his readers well-informed, instead chose to commit the fallacy of the straw man.
Recommended reading: "Keith Olbermann makes an ass of himself"
Interesting that you slam Olbermann for a fallacy, but you give O'reilly the benefit of the doubt . . .
While we are on the topic of logical fallacies, let's talk about Ignoratio elenchi, or Irrelevant Thesis. O'reilly, being the dick that he always is, is using the passage of Prop8 to drive a wedge between various Democratic constituencies. He is saying "hey, high African American turnout is what led to Prop8 passing, so go and blame the damn black people." Sure, why not? The Republican Party is in shambles, why not use every opportunity to sabotage the Democratic Party, too?
Problem is, contrary to what O'reilly will have you believe, high African American turnout is not what led to the passage of Prop8. More importantly, what the hell does race have to do with anything? O'reilly is a blithering idiot who is trying to take the issue into the gutter where he spends all his time. Olbermann was just trying to get the discussion out of the gutter and back onto the street.
November 16, 2008 2:00 AM
O'Reily made n racist argument? Really?
Perhaps you failed to read your first quote:
"O'reilly simply noted the high support of the proposition among African Americans in California and he wondered why the left condemns those groups that oppose gay marriage while making an exception with African Americans."
Perhaps you missed it in your feeble efforts to undermine Keith's argument - which was spot-on.
Of course, the attacks on the LDS were because of their FUNDING OF PROPOSITION 8 SUPPORTERS - and not merely for their position on marriage. After all - most churches have the same position - black or white or tan.
But AA churches do not POUR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO POLITICAL PROPOSITIONS IN OTHER STATES in an effort to legislate morality. That seems to be confined to the LDS - at least at the moment.
Nice try, truth - but it would seem that YOUR argument is far more open to criticism on logical grounds than Keith's.
November 16, 2008 5:49 AM
In all honesty, while I agree with you (and am also homosexual), if you simply examine Olbermann's argument as a refutation of O'Reilly's, he fails miserably at doing so for precisely the reason the article suggests. The premise of O'Reilly's argument is flawed, but Keith didn't effectively argue against that, and used a straw man instead.
As for his Olbermann's general thrust, sure, he's right, and O'Reilly is a stupid ass.
Also the LDS doesn't have a state, and there are LDS people in california, so while alot of their offices are in UT, they're not pouring millions into "other states".
November 16, 2008 8:03 AM
Right. Olbermann should have cited statistics about the African American vote rather than his weird "first time voter" turnout statistics, which are useless for his purpose.
Anyway, Lisboa, the member who promised to give me "heat", and the reason I enabled comments, is nowhere to be seen.
Comments disabled again.
November 16, 2008 8:25 AM
turnout among first time voters. The hot potato that both of you and everyone else (except for Tom Wright) have ignored, and which is the main point of my post.
Random argues that Bill O'reilly is a racist. Duh. His history shows he is a racist, but his comments in this particular instance were not racist, because O'reilly AGREES with the way African Americans voted, because O'reilly is also a homophobe. He hates gays.
He tells the left to do something he knows they won't do: Go to African American churches and protest. He figures, well, you trash conservatives for it, why not African Americans, who are progressive voters who in this particular case voted for the conservative cause.
And Gaythacan seems to have taken his Tourette Syndrome pills today; he didn't curse once!
Why did Olbermann beat the first time voter turnout when O'reilly did not talk about first time voter turnout?
November 16, 2008 8:04 AM
Has "truthseeker" learned, finally and permanently, that his penchant for preventing two-way communication is cowardly and demagogic?
I doubt it.
November 16, 2008 8:20 AM
This coming from the man who has said nothing about Olbermann's "first time voter" blunder.
Yeah. There's so much to be afraid of when it comes to you, JNagara.
Learn how to debate. You have wasted your chance. Let me withdraw that. You never stood a chance.
November 16, 2008 10:33 AM