10/11 Brendan: "Apparently," Sowell likes twisting words

Thomas Sowell is a noted scholar, but as a pundit he goes no holds barred. In fact, his most recent column shows that when it comes to twisting the statements of his opponents into irrational straw men, he's among the worst commentators in the national political discourse.

His purpose in the column is to attack a Chronicle of Higher Education article on the reaction to controversial statements made by college professors following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Robin Wilson and Ana Marie Cox write that pressure against dissenting views is so strong right now that it threatens to stifle speech on campus.

To Sowell, however, this is preposterous. In his view, some professors made outlandish statements and deserve all the criticism they received. Rather than make a serious argument in favor of that point, he employs a key jargon tactic - using the term "apparently" as a pretext to twist serious arguments into ridiculous formulations designed to inflame readers irrationally. Consider his argument below (emphasis added):

Professors, journalists and others who have made grossly offensive remarks in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attack are shocked that other Americans are criticizing them for it. To them, apparently, free speech means being free of criticism by others who want to exercise their own free speech rights.

As the Chronicle of Higher Education -- the trade publication of academia -- put it, "professors across the country have found their freedom to speak hemmed in by incensed students, alumni, and university officials." Apparently none of these people has a right to be incensed or to express their reactions to the profs.

The self-righteousness of those who want to be exempt from criticism is incredible...

Apparently other people don't even have a right to disassociate themselves from your remarks. Apparently anything short of uncritical acceptance of whatever asinine statements the profs make seems to them like a violation of the First Amendment.

Each one of these claims is false on its face. No one in the article makes any of the arguments attributed to him by Sowell. He's just creating a straw man as he goes along, with each "apparently" statement becoming more and more extreme as he spirals into new heights of irrationalism.

Note especially how Sowell uses "apparently" as a pivot to mechanically reverse the claims he opposes. The article is critical of the possible suppression of speech on campus, and Sowell turns it around so that those arguing for a more open dialogue appear to be the ones trying to suppress speech. This is twisted stuff.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Suppressing Dissent At Home, Fighting for Freedom Abroad? (Brendan Nyhan, 9/24)

10/11/2001 04:27:08 PM EST |

10/10 Ben: Scheer responds, but doesn't rebut

My column on Robert Scheer from Monday has generated significant interest and even a response from Mr. Scheer, albeit one that does not substantively address the issues I brought up.

Longtime Spinsanity readers (or fans of our archives) know that I did not start this debate. My co-editor Brendan Nyhan first posted on Scheer's lies about U.S. aid to the Taliban in June, drawing on work from Bryan Carnell of Leftwatch. Since then, Brendan posted again in August when Scheer falsely claimed that the U.S. was in a recession (which was not at all clear at the time) and that President Bush caused it, and picked up on Scheer repeating the Taliban aid trope once more in September. Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix also recently wrote on Scheer and his allegations of U.S. aid to the Taliban.

Perhaps because of a link on Jim Romensko’s MediaNews, however, Scheer decided to respond to my column in a letter published on the site. He wrote:

Since you have not offered a chance for a rejoinder to that hit piece why not at least mention that my articles are available on www.robertscheer.com and let readers judge for themselves? The critics of my columns on the subject pointedly ignore the DEA and State Department's celebration of the Taliban's drug intervention program and its methods.

They also leave out the inconvenient fact that the $43 million was given in a manner that coincided with that recognition offered in the Secretary of States report. Now we know that the Taliban never allowed the UN to operate independently and if the aid went to farmers under their control it has to be assumed that it strenghtened the Taliban's hand with those disgrunteled famers mentioned by State. The remaining international supplies were recently confiscated by the Taliban indicating their complete control over the internaitonal stockpiles. It also seems that the Taliban hoodwinked the western vistors by stockpile heroin to support heir movment with much needed cash.

Finally, the August visit of a top State Dept. official, Christina B. Rocca, to Pakistan where she offered a similar statement of approval and further aid in the Taliban's anti-drug was cited in my third article but ignored by your critic. Also why no mention of the original New York Times story that was the source of much of my first column and which makes the same link between the US aid and the drug eradication program?

I wrote a response, which has, as of yet, not been published on the MediaNews site:

Robert Scheer, following his normal practice, fails to substantively address the points I raised in my column criticizing his work. Specifically, I argued that Scheer has a disturbing habit of creating false tropes and using aggressive jargon in his columns, such as falsely claiming that an American emergency aid package for starving Afghans was a "gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan." The reality is that this money was for food aid and food security programs and was administered by the U.N and non-governmental organizations. His response does not refute this fact, nor does it address the other points in my piece

Scheer’s first argument is that "critics... ignore the DEA and State Department's celebration of the Taliban's drug intervention program and its methods." I didn’t ignore this fact; I simply don’t believe it proves anything. The issue here is not motivations--which in this case were surely a mix of humanitarian concern and drug war pragmatism--but whether the aid was a "gift... to the Taliban," or "a signal that its support of Bin Laden has been somehow acceptable," as Scheer has written. Since no money was given to the Taliban, it wasn’t. It’s that simple.

Scheer also makes the logically suspect claim that recent confiscation of food supplies by the Taliban proves that they had "complete control" of the aid. Unless Scheer wants to argue that the U.S. government encouraged the confiscation, it is again not relevant. That’s like saying if I give someone a gift, and a thief steals it, I have given a gift to the thief.

Clearly, the aid was partially motivated by the Taliban’s drug crackdown, and it helped the Taliban indirectly. But it also helped to feed thousands of starving people in the midst of a multi-year drought. That's a complex issue, but not for Scheer.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

10/10/2001 09:02:27 PM EST |

10/08 column: Scheer Deception: The Lies and Jargon of Robert Scheer

By Ben Fritz

Columnist Robert Scheer has established himself as one of the most egregious dissemblers and jargon slingers in the media today. Notably, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, he has continued to spread a false trope asserting that the Bush administration provided aid to Afghanistan’s Taliban government. This is just one example of a longstanding trend of Scheer creating false tropes and insulting Republican leaders through aggressive rhetoric and blatant lies. (read the column)

10/8/2001 06:01:44 AM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS