Epshteyn Again Says "The People" Said Something They Didn't

In his recent commentary on media coverage of Trump, Epshteyn phones in a rather lazy, boilerplate condemnation of the media that’s almost too predictable to need much commentary, but be that as it may, here we go . . .

When is the hyperventilation going to stop? Donald Trump is president. The American people have spoken. Will the left-wing media ever just accept that fact?

Obviously, the phrase “hyperventilation” is a loaded term, connoting hysterical, unthinking reaction.  More telling, however, is the phrase “The American people have spoken.”

Indeed they have, but the Founding Fathers, in their “wisdom” (a.k.a., their skepticism about the wisdom of “the people”) created a system in which “the people” don’t directly elect the president.  While usually a mere technicality, this has, in a few cases, led to the election of someone whose name was *not* spoken by the people.  Such was the case in 2016.  Trump lost to Hillary Clinton by nearly 3,000,000 votes.

The people spoke.

They wanted Clinton.

They got Trump

Any argument based on the premise that the current president was chosen by majority rule is, from the start, based on a fallacy.

Of course, we have the phrase “left-wing media” thrown in, an empty epithet contradicted by the facts that mainstream media is owned by a small handful of gigantic corporations (whose interests will be, almost by definition, conservative in the small-c sense of the term) and the revelation that the media bent over backwards to cover Trump, providing him hundreds of millions of dollars of free airtime not granted to his Republican opponents in the primaries or Clinton in the general election campaign.  And, as noted in a previous post, content analyses of the coverage of the 2016 campaign showed that the media covered thedebunked “scandal” of the Clinton emails in a way they did not any of themyriad Trump scandals.

I hope so. I talked to you about ABC’s erroneous reporting. Well, reporters from the Washington Post, Bloomberg and CNN (a few times) have also fallen into the same trap of over-eagerness to “get” the president.

Unemployment is at a 16-year low, consumer confidence is at a 17-year high, ISIS has been driven out of Iraq, our country is about to have real tax reform for the first time since 1986. Those issues are woefully under reported.

Epshteyn provides no evidence of any of this.  Indeed, he cannot, given that these are all issues that have and are covered.  What he seems to be complaining about is that these issues are not covered in a way that gives glowing praise to Trump.  But, of course, objectively, the fact is that unemployment and consumer confidence have been trending upward for nine years now, and ISIS was driven out of Iraq by military intervention planned and initiated before Trump was elected, let alone took office.  As for tax “reform,” that has been covered widely.  And that’s the problem for Epshteyn.  The facts regarding the bill have made it more unpopular than many tax hikes. It isn’t that tax issues haven’t been covered; it’s that they haven’t been (inaccurately) framed in the way Epstheyn would like it to be.

If one scans most of the cable networks throughout any day and looks at the broadcast Sunday shows they instead see and hear the same old D.C. insiders, from both parties, spouting off about things like how many diet cokes the president drinks.

The "Diet Coke" line is telling.  Epshteyn refers to a damning piece in the New York Times that  shows the shallowness of Trump and his unwillingness to deal with actual facts--all the more damning because the sources of the information are people within the Trump administration itself.  It portrays an administration where people are afraid to bring up important issues because the president's ego might be bruised and/or he might get angry.  By choosing one trivial detail from the piece--the president's addiction to soft drinks--Epshteyn attempts to frame the critique of the president as superficial and unsubstantial.

The hostility has extended to the press briefing room. Recently, Brian Karem, White House reporter for Playboy and a CNN contributor, decided to yell at Press Secretary Sarah Sanders to be recognized, as if the Brady Press Briefing Room is a common bazaar. When Ms. Sanders did call on him, the reporter asked her if she had ever been sexually harassed. Are you kidding me? That is highly inappropriate sexism at its worst.

“Highly inappropriate sexism at its worst”?  As opposed to appropriate sexism? 

Obviously it’s an odd phrase, but the problems with it are deeper.  The question came in the context of discussing the eruption of allegations/admissions of harassment and assault, behavior that Sanders’s boss has admitted to on tape.  Yet, Sanders has promised that there will be witnesses that will refute all of the nearly two-dozen women who have accused the president of inappropriate behavior (there have not been any provided as of this writing).  Of course, Trump himself promised to sue  his accusers after the election, but has not. 

So, the issue of whether the Trump administration has sympathies with those women, particularly in government, who have been victims of harassment is a valid one.  There is nothing “sexist” about the question.  It is direct and personal, and Sanders had the right to not talk about it, but to deride it as “sexist” is a shallow and lazy critique—one that is little more than the time-old playground retort, “I know you are, but what am I?”

Here is the bottom line: there is no problem with tough questioning and reporting on the president and his staff, but it is not the job of the media, however, to carry out continuous attacks on the White House.

Nor is it the job of the media to obsequiously praise the president (unless you happen to be Sinclair Broadcasting or Fox News).  Too often, mainstream media has played along with Trump in unspoken (and occasionally spoken) collusion—Trump’s theatrics and train-wreck persona deliver ratings, while the media provides continuous coverage.  As someone whose made a living (such as it is) as little more than a side-show carnival barker, Trump knows any publicity is good publicity, as much as he rails against “fake news.”  And the bottom line is this: Epshteyn knows this too. 

Apparently Epshteyn Failed Basic Math: 65.8 million is more than 62.9 million.

Epstheyn’s recent laudatory comments for Trump’s decision torecognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel are among the only words of admiration this decision has garnered.  Indeed, other than a missile launch by North Korea, there is no other action taken by a world leader that has shown the power to bring together the rest of the world together in almost unanimous condemnation. 

The president was very vocal throughout the 2016 campaign in his promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the United States embassy to Jerusalem. The American people elected Donald Trump and his agenda to the presidency. Therefore, by fulfilling another campaign promise, the president is carrying out the will of his constituents. 

This is utterly at odds with the facts, and it’s important to note, since this is a rationale that is often invoked to defend Trump’s positions and even to suggest that the nearly two dozen separate accusations by women of improper behavior, including (by Trump’s own taped confession) sexual assault, are irrelevant.

Actually, it’s not at odds with the “facts”; it’s at odds with a fact…the fact: Trump lost the popular vote.

To the extent that the election was a referendum on any particular personal or policy matter, Trump lost by three million votes.

One can argue whether or not voters were voting in large part—or any part—on the candidates’ positions vis-à-vis the capital of Israel.  But if Epshteyn wants to suggest that the election was a determination of “the will of [the] constituents”, they were with her, not him. 

 That is just one reason for why the president’s action on Jerusalem  was correct.

Another is that this president is supporting a close and important international ally. Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East. It’s continued strength and survival are important to the United States not just symbolically but also in terms of America’s national security.

Further, the president is driving toward peace through strength. The president has been clear that he and his administration remain committed to peace in the Middle East.This decisive move shows that America and her allies are not going to back down to threats of violence.

The arguments against the president’s decision center on this concern that violence will be escalated.

Well, Jerusalem has not been recognized as the Israeli capital up until now and, sadly, there has been plenty of violence in Israel, the Middle East, America and the world as a whole.

This is a nearly-textbook case of fallacious, illogical reasoning: no recognition of Jerusalem at the same time as violence means that recognition of Jerusalem will mean less violence (or at least not more violence), not only in Israel, but the world.  It’s all the more breathtaking in its idiocy because Epshteyn doesn’t even pretend to have a rationale for suggesting that there is reason to suspect his thinking is sound.  Why will recognizing Jerusalem reduce violence?  Who knows?  Not, it seems, Epshteyn.

 Here is the bottom line: it is about time that the United States take bold and decisive actions in international affairs. The prospect of violence cannot make us, the only true superpower in the world, afraid to do the right thing. In this case, that right thing is recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of our close friend Israel.

Notice that Epshteyn has not provided a single actual reason for why Trump’s action is in any way “decisive” or will do anything to secure the Middle East.  Indeed, he has now seemingly turned on his own argument, saying that there might be a prospect of violence given this decision, but that it’s still “the right thing.”

The bottom line?  This is a tour-de-force in fallacious reasoning.  

Epshteyn Poisons the Well of the FBI

Epshteyn’s recent “Bottom Line” is a classic case of the “poisoning the well” tactic: if you don’t like facts, attack the source of the facts as somehow suspect, and perhaps you can get your audience to think the facts themselves aren’t what they are.

Fidelity, bravery, integrity. That is the motto of the FBI. These days it is that integrity which is being called into question.

Note the use of passive voice.  The FBI’s integrity is “being called into question.”  By whom?  By Epshteyn? It’s not clear.  By choosing the passive voice, Epshteyn avoids putting his own reputation where his mouth is while also implying that this integrity-questioning is “out there” in the public sphere in general, not that it is pointedly coming from specific parties who have something to gain from doing so.

Epshteyn Uses Loaded Language and Fallacious Reasoning to Defend the Indefensible

In his recent commentary on the GOP tax plan being rushed through Congress, Boris Epshteyn falls back on fallacious reasoning and loaded language to defend legislation that his unpopular with just about everyone except lobbyists.

We know they are necessary to fund the government, pay for our national defense and vital infrastructure. However, does anyone actually want to pay more taxes? If you listen to certain folks from the Democrat Party, and members of the media, you would think so.

First, “Democrat.” This is a long-standing cutesy label used by those who are criticizing the Democratic party.  It is not, as some have suggested, to include the word “rat” in the adjective.  Rather, it is a convoluted way to avoid using a word that has rhetorical resonance in American political discourse: democratic.  We take pride in our “democratic” institutions.  We believe in having a “democratic” government.  We hope that countries ruled by totalitarian regimes are replaced by a “democratic” system of rule by the people.

The word in its small-“d” variety carries quite a wallop in our political discourse—one much greater than small-“r” “republican.”   So, to avoid semiotic bleedover (i.e. the positive connotations of small-d “democratic” being associated with big-D “Democratic,” this grammatically suspect shell game is perpetrated on listeners.

Epshteyn's Slanted Take on DACA

Here’s Boris Epstheyn’s recent “Bottom Line” editorial on DACA, with some corrective commentary interspersed.

Looks like the big meeting at the White House will happen after all. Last week, the Democrat minority leaders of the House and the Senate attempted a public relations gambit when they turned down the president’s invitation to discuss pressing year-end items. The biggest key, funding the government beyond the deadline of December 8th.

Notice the use of the phrase “public relations gambit.” This frames the interaction as a game with “players”, “winners,” “losers”, etc. 

One could make the same point and maintain a degree of objectivity by simply saying that they “declined the meeting,” but that wouldn’t skew the perspective, which is Epshteyn’s goal.

The reason given for the Democrats not heading down to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. was the president’s tweet expressing skepticism that a deal is possible which includes both government funding and a resolution on DACA. Now, they are willing to talk it out.

The Bottom Line? Boris Pulls a Brian

Boris Epsheyn’s recent comment on Brian Ross’s recent misreporting in relation to the Michael Flynn plea, is, as is typical with “Bottom Lines,” not terribly original or thought out.  It’s a rehashing of the “fake news” trope favored by Trump and his supporters.

Epshteyn attempts to turn Ross into a synecdoche for the media in general, suggesting that Ross is emblematic of a hostility to the president endemic in the media.

Not surprisingly, Epsheyn himself distorts the facts, even has he chastises others for doing so.  He supports his assertion by noting that Ross had erroneously reported that the Aurora movie theater shooter was a member of the Tea Party.  This is to establish the point that Ross is vehemently anti-conservative.  However, one of the other (of several) times Ross got a story wrong was reporting that Saddam Hussein was behind anthrax attacks in the U.S. after 9/11.  That goes unmentioned, of course, because it doesn’t fit with the narrative Epshteyn is weaving.  (For the record, even the Bush administration, to their credit, tried to steer ABC right on this story—that’s how far out it was.)

Hot Air

The actual substance of Mark Hyman’s latest editorial is almost beside the point.  What stands out is the degree to which it shows the price audiences pay for the Sinclairization of their local news.

Hyman’s thesis is that two particular and obscure bits of legislation are the key to rebuilding Puerto Rico.  The evidence of this is not forthcoming, partly because there’s not a lot out there. The two regulations, as with most things regarding Puerto Rico, were put in place primarily out of economic concerns for the continental United States, not the people of Puerto Rico.  The effects of permanently getting rid of the Jones Act are unclear, and reinstating Section 936 (tax breaks for companies who do business in Puerto Rico) is actually opposed by some in Puerto Rico, who feel that it allows the island’s resources to be exploited by outsiders.

It’s nice that Hyman is bringing up Puerto Rico at all, although it would be better if he were advocating more meaningful steps that directly assisted the people themselves, such as (oh, I don’t know) treating the humanitarian crisis there in a way commensurate with similar catastrophes in the United states.  Or, for that matter, suggesting that it would be nice to have a president who understood that Puerto Ricans were, in fact, Americans.

But the larger issue is that roughly two minutes of a Sinclair “local” news broadcast could be taken up by a discussion of arcane shipping law.  Why?  Because Sinclair feels this is more important (both politically and economically) than allowing truly local voices to be heard. 

This wouldn’t mean ignoring issues like Puerto Rico.  Have a segment on local folks who have gone to Puerto Rico to help.  Talk about concrete ways viewers might be able to assist through donations.  Heck, have a segment on arcane shipping laws, but have it be something that is discussed because the journalistic voices of that community feel it’s relevant and of interest to them.

The colonization and exploitation of the public space that is local news airwaves by Sinclair impoverishes our discourse.  By giving empty corporate suits the luxury of bloviating about their pet hobby horses, the voices and views of their audience go unheeded.

Bottom Line with Boris: When There's no "There" There

In the most recent “Bottom Line With Boris”, the most startling argumentative failing is obvious: no argument is made. 

His thesis is that if Congress passes the (wildly unpopular) GOP tax plan, positive economic indicators will go up.  Yet, he does not make a single argument to that effect, even in broad strokes.

Rather, he touts recent positive economic numbers and then asserts, without support, that we should “expect for these positive trends to not just continue but to accelerate.”

This is akin to a member of the Jellybean Manufacturers Association saying, “Over the last decade, life expectancy has gone up.  If our proposal to include jellybeans at every meal is heeded by Americans, expect this trend to continue.”

In other words, it’s as elementary a rhetorical “fail” as one is ever likely to see.

Back at It

Apologies for the long layoff--I was on vacation for a bit, and it took me a while to work up the energy to reengage after the layoff. 

One significant change to the blog: from now on, I'll do my best to address commentaries both by Mark Hyman and by Boris Epshteyn.  Hyman has been demoted to fairly ancillary figure in Sinclair's opinion stable.  Former Trump minion Boris Epshteyn is the primary tool in the company's "must-run" segment toolbox.  His pieces tend to be more milquetoast-y, but are perhaps more insidious precisely because of their veneer of pointless banality.

Before getting back on the horse, however, there was a commentary of Mr. Hyman just before I left on vacation that I wanted to revisit for a number of reasons, one of which is that it provides a rare opportunity to give kudos to Hyman.  

In a commentary regarding suicide, Hyman mentioned that his own brother had taken his own life.  Given the stigma that still sadly surrounds suicide, this is admirable and important.  It's not easy to share such a personal pain with a public audience, and bringing this sort of issue into the light is helpful. Hyman deserves unqualified praise for that.

Having said that, one might wish that Hyman would be more receptive to the need for universal healthcare, particularly issues involving mental health and substance abuse.  Indeed, in commenary one week before this one, we noted that Hyman disingenuously critiqued the Affordable Care Act.  

If any one factor could reduce the risk of suicide, it would be affordable, accessible healthcare for all Americans.  It's too bad that while Hyman has the courage to share a personal tragedy, he lacks the fortitude to support a singularly important way of avoiding similar tragedies befalling other families.

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.

Charlottesville Destroyed Hyman's Argument on Confederate Statues

I have been pokey in writing the response to Hyman’s commentary regarding the removal of Confederate statues, but the events of this last weekend shed new light on this issue. It almost seems beyond arguing how corrosive an effect these statues have on our nation now. Having said that, here’s my attempt to address Hyman’s pre-Charlottesville arguments.

The thesis of his commentary is there is a “fashionable” trend to remove of “Civil War monuments” (i.e. statues celebrating Confederate leaders/soldiers, although he intentionally phrases his remarks to make it seem like there is a move afoot to turn the Bloody Angle into a Chuck E. Cheese). This, Hyman argues, is to “ignore history.” Sure, that history has ugly aspects, but removing the statues will not change that. Rather, we should learn from our past.

Hyman’s claims are wrongheaded in any number of ways, not least of which is that he claims that by removing statues to Confederate leaders, there is an attempt to destroy or change history. But that’s simply false. No one is suggesting the name of Robert E. Lee or any other Confederate be stricken from history. Quite the contrary. The claim is that these statues themselves pervert history by holding up traitors as being worthy of communal respect and admiration as those who built the nation rather than ripping it apart.

Attempting to Take the Moral High Ground Leaves Sinclair in the Gutter

A recent commentary in which Sinclair’s Mark Hyman takes other journalists to task for ethical failings goes about as well as one might expect it to, given what viewers have long seen from Hyman himself.

The subject is an article in Politico from many months ago that quoted Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner as saying that the Trump campaign had struck a deal with Sinclair for interviews with the candidate.

(That Hyman is rehashing news from more than half a year ago is odd, although it’s at least possible it might have to do with the fact that between the recent John Oliver piece on Sinclair and rising objections to Sinclair’s attempt to purchase yet more TV stations—some even coming from fellow conservative media outlets—the company is feeling under siege.)

Hyman claims Politico—and several other news outlets that picked up the story—misrepresented the deal. The problem is that Hyman himself mischaracterizes the Politico piece, implying that it ignored information that “any fresh-faced reporter” could have found for political purposes.

Specifically, he suggests that the Politico piece suggested Sinclair made a deal with only the Trump campaign and did not offer the same deal to the Clinton campaign. He cites a retraction/apology from a blog written by a member of the Society for Professional Journalists who had based an earlier post on the Politico piece as outside, confirming evidence of malfeasance. 

Wherefore "Tax Extenders"?

The latest week in Hyman commentaries began with a rather trifling look at a nuanced issue: tax-extenders. These are temporary tax breaks that tend to get “re-upped” year after year.

Hyman chastises both parties for their use of these as leverage over lobbyists—as ways to shakedown interest groups. And there is undoubtedly some truth in that.
However, it’s also true that some lobbyists *want* tax breaks to be rolled into tax-extenders. Not only does it allow them to lobby for tax breaks that avoid the usual 10-year forecast necessary for permanent acts, but, as Politico notes, the fact that these tax breaks are continually being reconsidered (at least technically) keeps the lobbyists themselves in business.

It’s also worth noting that some tax breaks ought to be temporary (e.g. tax incentives for reinvestment after a natural disaster, etc.).

It also the case that Congress actually *has* done away with many of these temporary cuts, meaning that, according to the Tax Policy Center, “tax extender deliberations now have lower stakes than in recent years.”

All of which is to say, while tax extenders are probably, on balance, not an efficient way to do business.  They *can* be used and abused for short-term political gain (e.g. Mitch McConnell's pet tax break for racehorse owners).  But the issue is (shocker!) more complex than Hyman’s framing of it would suggest.

The likely motivation for this is that tax extenders have an effect on tax reform policy, and addressing them has been seen as a prerequisite for substantial changes to the tax code, the next thing on Trump’s “to do” list after the trainwreck that was his attempt to gut the Affordable Care Act.

Mark and Ajit, Sitting in a Tree . . . .

In our previous post, we noted that Mark Hyman recently used a “bait and switch” argumentative tactic, praising the Trump administration’s official ending of obsolete Y2K regulations as a way of implying the wisdom of Trump in going after all manner of consumer protections.

Hyman’s recent commentary on internet privacy is a logical follow up on this. In it, he argues that rules protecting consumer privacy and confidentiality regarding their online information were rightfully quashed by the Trump administration since they were unnecessary.

Key to his argument was that these protections were unfair because they applied only to telecommunications companies (i.e. internet providers) but didn’t apply to online services such as Google and Facebook. The federal agency charged with enforcing these new rules was the FCC, which, Hyman charged, was “playing favorites.”

Why Y2K? Classic Bait-and-Switch Argumentation

Last time around, we noted that a common rhetorical technique/fallacy is to attack one unrepresentative case as typical of the class to which it belongs. The same thing works the other way: praising a single example as a way of suggesting all others are just as good.

A case in point is Mark Hyman’s recent praise of the Trump administration’s elimination of regulations regarding the “Y2K” software glitch from days of yore.

Hyman notes that it is silly to have regulations/policies in place for something that happened 17 years ago (and didn’t do much even at the time).

Fair enough (although it’s largely a symbolic move, since apparently these regulations/policies are understandably ignored today). But if you think this is about Y2K, think again.

Good background on Sinclair

This is worth a read for those interested in the modus operandi of Sinclair:

http://www.salon.com/2017/07/21/a-short-history-of-the-right-wing-politics-of-sinclair-broadcasting_partner/

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.

Hyman Vilifies Nobel Peace Prize Recipient to Attack Clinton Foundation

In yesterday’s post, I mentioned an earlier commentary Hyman references in his most recent one. In it, he attacks the Clinton Foundation (a bête noire of conservatives and key player in many anti-Clinton conspiracy theories).  One can rightly ask why he would bother doing this months and months after the election, and the answer is fairly obvious: throwing out potential "scandals" can create noise in the system that might minimally reduce attention to the growing Trump/Russia scandal.

I won’t delve into it too deeply, but suffice it to say, it’s another tour de force in poor argumentation.

Hyman’s ire about the Clinton Foundation is raised by alleged skullduggery in Bangladesh(!). Hyman spins a narrative about an innocent victim of the dastardly Clintons:

Sajeeb Wazed Joy is a permanent U.S. resident. He’s lived here for nearly two decades. He also happens to the son of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. This is where the problems began, according to the Dhaka Tribune.

Bangladesh authorities began investigating Grameen Bank in 2010. The bank’s managing director was Muhammad Yunus. He also happened to be a big donor to the Clinton Foundation.

According to Joy, State Department officials began threatening him. He was warned he would be audited by the IRS unless he convinced his mother, the Bangladesh prime minister, to end the investigation of the Clinton Foundation donor.

Hyman's Attempts at Rhetorical Misdirection Leave Him Lost

Hyman’s latest commentary is kinda-sorta about the Clinton Foundation, but mostly about the McCain Institute, and the whole exercise turns into a train wreck in fairly short order. This shouldn’t surprise when, in the midst of nearly daily revelations about the attack on America’s democratic system by a foreign adversary with the intent to elevate Trump to the presidency, Hyman begins his commentary thusly:

“Politicians who craft U.S. policy while accepting foreign donations must be closely scrutinized.”

(Pause for laughter).

The underlying rhetorical goal is obviously to engage in some “muddying of the waters” by throwing out other stories about politicians being overly cozy with foreign countries to dilute the daily damning revelations regarding the Trump/Russia scandal. 

How One Can Be Right but Still So Wrong

File this under the “a broken clock is right twice a day”, but add an asterisk.

In his most recent “Behind the Headlines” segment, Mark Hyman attacks New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for the governor’s proposal to take surplus money from the state’s largest non-profit health insurance organization to pay for opioid addiction treatment who lack the resources to pay for it.

This is a controversial proposal, and one that’s been met with resistance by both Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature. And it’s almost certainly not the ideal way to go about dealing with the issue  (the issue, as most involving New Jersey politics tend to be, is byzantine and involves large numbers of players and agendas, which is probably the best reason to not be terribly sanguine about Hyman's argument doing it justice).

Hyman rakes Christie over the coals for this, portraying it as an attempt by Christie to “seize money from a business.” Hyman notes that although the cause might be noble, the money should not be taken from this source (presumably because it would mean redistributing wealth from “makers” to “takers”).

Sinclair Broadcasting vs. John Oliver: "This F&%#-ing Guy"

John Oliver’s piece on Sinclair was a thing of beauty, and you owe it to yourself to see it. And he certainly doesn’t need any help defending himself, particularly given the impotence of Hyman’s attempted rebuttal (apparently Sinclair folks haven’t gotten the memo not to respond to someone who is smarter and funnier than you—it never ends well).

What is worth noting, however, is how Hyman manages to undercut his own points.

Hyman frames his response by advising us that we shouldn’t take anything John Oliver says seriously, and then goes on to do precisely that, with the twist being that he misreports (or misunderstands) the content of Oliver’s argument.

Hyman says “Oliver wanted his viewers to be horrified at Sinclair’s size” (but, weren’t we told Oliver was just about being funny? Ah, details.). The rebuttal to this is that Oliver works for HBO, which is owned by Time Warner, which is much bigger than Sinclair Broadcasting.

Once More Unto the Breach: Let's Rebuild this Party Right!

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Mark Hyman’s recent commentary in which he pretends to call for a strong Democratic Party could have made some salient points about growing political polarization, the significance of a “post-ideological” president, the importance (or lack thereof) of parties in a year when the leadership of each major party took it on the chin.

But salient points are not what one ought to expect from Mr. Hyman.

Instead, we get more of what—to some of us, at least—is an all-too-familiar horde of logical fallacies, unsupported innuendo, and a dash of casual race baiting.

Nominally, Hyman is opining about the importance in our democracy of two strong parties.  Mark is apparently losing sleep about the Democrats not being up to the challenge of being the GOP’s sparring partner.

This is, of course, simply an insincere rhetorical framing, using the old rhetorical warhorses of “insincere advice” and “faint praise” to feign concern while condemning.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.  Rhetorical novelty would be really asking for the moon in this case.

Behind "Behind the Headlines": What's the Point?

This blog’s purpose is to serve as an ongoing rhetorical critique of Sinclair Broadcasting’s editorial segments, most particularly “Behind the Headlines with Mark Hyman.”  This does not mean that I am simply offering a “pro” to Hyman’s “con.”  Rather, the main purpose is to critique the way Hyman makes his arguments, showing how they are, content aside, poorly done.  In the process, the content of his assertions will often be shown to be in error and/or countered, but the primary goal is to shine a light on how bad a rhetorician Hyman is (and, by synecdoche, what a poor contributor to the public sphere Sinclair Media is).

This is not new territory for me.