Mission Statement

This blog provides a regular critique of the editorial segments produced by Sinclair Broadcasting, which are "must-run" content on the dozens of Sinclair-owned stations across the country. The purpose is not to simply offer an opposing argument to positions taken by Boris Epshteyn and Mark Hyman, but rather to offer a critique of their manner of argumentation and its effect on the public sphere.

Showing posts with label post hoc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label post hoc. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Sinclair Spokesman's Dishonest Argument about Healthcare






Mark Hyman’s recent commentary on healthcare is especially grotesque in its use of invalid arguments, misleading phrasing, doctored evidence, and flat-out falsehoods.

The argument being made is essentially that the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”) is, at best, unhelpful and, at worst, deadly.

Hyman begins by saying “we have the greatest healthcare in the world”-- an example of the “glittering generality” fallacy—using nice-sounding words that don’t mean anything specific.

The truth? The United States has the best healthcare in the world by exactly one metric: the cost we spend per person.

The World Health Organization, using a range of metrics measuring actual health outcomes for a nation’s citizens, ranks the U.S. 37th in the world.

Hyman then says, “To suggest people are turned away from life-saving treatment over their ability to pay is just not true.”

This is an attempt to phrase the problem in a narrow way that obscures the reality. Yes, if you collapse due to a heart attack, you will be admitted to the hospital regardless of your insurance. However, if you don’t have insurance (or have bad insurance), you will not be covered for checkups, medication, and other preventative care that would keep you from having the heart attack in the first place.


In fact, the claim that no one dies because of lack of access to healthcare was rated as a “Pants-on-Fire” lie by nonpartisan Politifact when it was recently made by a Republican politician at a town hall event.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Cherry Picking the Minimum Wage Issue



Mark Hyman’s recent commentary on the alleged negative side effects of Seattle’s experiment with raising the minimum wage is a fine example of a fairly typical argumentative technique: when wishing to attack a general principle, choose a single specific instance to stand in for the whole—preferably one that appears particularly vulnerable.

This allows one to narrow a complex topic down to one concrete, simple (and sometimes simplistic) instance. And if this instance is atypical of the norm (and therefore much more susceptible to attack) but can be made to seem typical, so much the better.

It’s true that Hyman does not overtly use the Seattle instance to call into question the concept of the minimum wage as a whole, but it is no stretch to assume this is what he has in mind, given that the minimum wage is anathema in most uber-conservative circles.