CMW Conference
Joan Levin in her article in the winter edition of the Chicago Media Watch Report on the CMW Conference on Propaganda at Loyola University on November 2, 2002 noted that the conference itself offered an opportunity to see propaganda in action with regard to the audience response to two of the speakers, Sut Jhally of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Richard Baehr, former Education Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) of Illinois.

I think that reading Joan Levin's article on the conference was an excellence opportunity to experience the presentation of logical fallacies in written language.

Ms. Levin states "Jhally opened his remarks with a statement to the leadership of the conference expressing displeasure that anyone might speak after him to express a different point of view. He reiterated this view at the close of his formal speech."

This is a Fallacy of Straw Man. Jhally did not object to a different point of view being presented at the conference but that a different point of view was presented _only_ with regard to his topic--Israel. There was no one there from the Pentagon to counter Jennifer Van Bergen's criticism of the U.S. Patriot Act. No one was there to counter Bill Ayers support of the public school system with an argument in favor of the privatization of the public schools.

Next, Ms. Levin gives us an example of the Fallacy of Omitted Evidence when she states, "I sat silently during what I considered to be Jhally's inaccuracies and distortions." But she chooses not to get specific because, "There is a long a complex history that warrants expanded remarks at another time."

This is a Fallacy of Omitted Evidence because the premises fail to tell the full story. Rather, they omit, or intentionally suppress, information that has a direct bearing on the likelihood of the conclusion in the sense that if the omitted information were added to the premises the validity of the argument would be seriously weakened.

When Ms. Levin refers to the negative reaction to Richard Baehr's presentation as "Fascism, pure and simple," she is engaging in Argument ad Hominem.

Ms. Levin uses another Straw Man Argument when she states that prior to Richard Baehr's talk "a quarter of the audience left--perhaps to shield themselves from any ideas but those presented by 'progressively approved' sources."

Liane Casten titles her article in the same CMW Winter Report, "Let All Voices Be Heard." I expect in a future CMW Report, if Ms. Casten lives up to her pledge, to have someone from Monsanto presenting a point of view omitted in the "liberal press."

Ronald Kunde
Chicago, Illinois
February 2003

A Rebuttal to Ronald Kunde

"What I am after is the other readers of your invaluable website. I view it as an attempt at inoculation against propaganda and demagoguery. Having grown up in the Soviet Union, I am appalled at such displays of self-righteous and smug stupidity, and totalitarian close-mindedness. Therefore I cannot stay silent."
In re "CMW Conference" by Ronald Kunde and in re Joan Levin's article at http://www.chicagomediawatch.org/02_4_observations.html

Ronald Kunde in his recent letter to CMW accused Joan Levin of "presentation of logical fallacies in written language" by employing some rather fancy and professional-sounding terminology, such as the "Fallacy of Straw Man," the "Fallacy of Omitted Evidence," and the "Argument ad Hominem." Mr. Kunde may be well-versed in Chomsky-isms, but his attacks are lacking in substance. His own letter is a fine example of a "presentation of logical fallacies in written language."

Allow me to address them one by one, using Mr. Kunde's own terminology as much as possible. But first, I would like to suggest that one might also want to read an account of the same conference by another person at http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=528

1. Mr. Kunde writes, "This is a Fallacy of Straw Man. Jhally did not object to a different point of view being presented at the conference but that a different point of view was presented only with regard to his topic--Israel." This is a diversionary tactic by Mr. Kunde, known by him as the "Argument ad Hominem." Webster's defines ad hominem as "appealing to prejudice rather than reason." What was wrong with addressing the same issue, but from a radically different point of view? Or is dissent not to be tolerated? Is one not permitted to defend Israel if one chooses to do so? Are we not in the free marketplace of ideas?

2. "Next, Ms. Levin gives us an example of the Fallacy of Omitted Evidence when she states, "I sat silently during what I considered to be Jhally's inaccuracies and distortions." But she chooses not to get specific because, "There is a long a complex history that warrants expanded remarks at another time."

This is a blanket accusation, probably of the "Fallacy of Straw Man" type, using Mr. Kunde's terminology. The reason Ms. Levin has chosen not to get into that discussion is probably because the topic is so immensely complex and vast -- countless books were written on the subject, numerous wars have been fought over it, the conflict is still raging, etc. How could she possibly address the tremendous body of knowledge, history, sociology, political science, psychology, anthropology, etc. with respect to this conflict within one short article?

Get real, Mr. Kunde.

3. "When Ms. Levin refers to the negative reaction to Richard Baehr's presentation as "Fascism, pure and imple," she is engaging in Argument ad Hominem."

In case Mr. Kunde missed the point, Ms. Levin was referring to Professor Leon Stein's description of the techniques used by the Nazi propaganda machine, which were described during that very same conference. Those techniques are intrinsically linked to the process of dehumanizaiton employed by the Nazis. Nazism, Mr. Kunde, is a variant of Fascism. The reactions to Mr. Baehr's speech were exhibiting exactly the same mindset that the Nazis and the Fascists were trying hard to create.

Here, Mr. Kunde is probably engaging in both the "Fallacy of Straw Man" and "the "Fallacy of Omitted Evidence" -- I'll let him pick the terms which apply best.

4. "Ms. Levin uses another Straw Man Argument when she states that prior to Richard Baehr's talk "a quarter of the audience left--perhaps to shield themselves from any ideas but those presented by 'progressively approved' sources."

This is a very good example of an "Argument ad Hominem" on the part of Mr. Kunde, since he prefers that his prejudices be given greater weight that those of others. Sorry, Mr. Kunde, but neither you, nor anyone else has a monopoly on "The Truth."

5. "Liane Casten titles her article in the same CMW Winter Report, 'Let All Voices Be Heard.'

Do you have a problem with free speech, Mr. Kunde? Or would you rather not hear dissenting opinions at all when such opinions oppose your own world view, Mr. Kunde?

I hope I was able to parse Mr. Kunde's circular argument and dissassemble it into its components, showing how he himself engages in the very practices he so vehemently condemns . After all, wasn't that what Ms. Levin's article was all about?

Seva Brodsky
Law student
Boston, MA
April 2004

Some say ethics has disappeared entirely from journalism. These people haven’t troubled themselves to seek out periodicals written and edited with this level of moral integrity. Chicago Media Watch stands as a beacon in a field increasingly shrouded in darkness. Thank you for providing this profoundly valuable service.

Stuart Grimstad
Amherst Junction, WI
Nov 2002

Great Report
I was so impressed by the latest issue of Chicago Media Watch Report that I thought I'd send some extra bucks to help with the bills. You touched on a lot of issues and did it well.

Bob Cleland
July 2002

More than Biased
Ray Hanania's article One Sided Journalism criticizes the Chicago Sun-Times for not shuffling along in lockstep with the distortions about the Middle East found in the Chicago Tribune, the only other mass circulation daily in this town.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Hanania objects to having one (and apparently only one) major print outlet in Chicago that consistently refrains from:

• Attacking Israel for seeking defensible borders in the wake of decades of murderous attacks by her surrounding neighbors;

• Using such misleading and inaccurate terms as "occupied territories" for land justly held;

• Blaming Israel for the plight of people so sadly betrayed by their own leaders who now, after decades of being so used, they are in an almost hopeless condition;

• Equating Zionism with racism when Israel is probably the least racist of all the countries in her region;

• Holding that Israel not only has no right to do whatever it takes to prevent lethal attacks up on her civilians, but also no opportunity for a voice in the United Nations Security Council.

The list goes on and on. I won't belabor it here. You can pick up the Tribune almost any day and find these distortions repeated in its editorials, columns, and in the slant of its news articles, just as you can find them in many other publications—not to mention broadcast media that purports to be balanced or fair.

With such a burden of misinformation in our midst, thank goodness one local publication has been something of a counterweight. True, the Sun-Times does not enjoy the circulation of the Tribune. However, it plays a vital role in achieving some semblance of balance in this sorry situation and in standing up to another kind of extremism that has unfortunately pervaded much of journalism today.

Joan D. Levin
Chicago, IL
June 2002