Bad Blog: "The Propaganda Professor"

Yes, folks, it's been awhile since I've needed to make use of  Bad Blogs Blood for anything other than preserving discussions that otherwise get obliterated from the 'Net.  But we may have a live one, here, as in a well-deserving inductee for the Bad Blogs Blood Bad Blogs Blogroll.

The potentially special occasion arises thanks to the blog "The Propaganda Professor."

The professor does not reveal their name, so for the sake of convenience I dub them "Professor Thynzcken" for the sake of posts to this blog.

I stumbled across Thynzcken's blog while doing my scans for PolitiFact material.  It turned out that somebody is still writing in defense of Jon Stewart over the PolitiFact/misinformed Fox News viewers squabble.

Thynzcken's presentation:

Recently, Stewart was a guest on Fox “News” and pointed out that Fox’s viewers are the most misinformed segment of the American population. Host Chris Wallace naturally  protested. And he received some backup from a rather unlikely source: the nonpartisan fact-checking organization PolitiFact. They said Stewart was wrong, because Fox viewers rate supremely ignorant only in some studies, while in others they’re just somewhere near the bottom – which even if perfectly accurate doesn’t negate the observation that they’re the most misinformed overall.

Thynzcken omitted at least one salient fact, that PolitiFact hit Stewart specifically for the nature of his supposed evidence.  Stewart said "every poll" "consistently" showed Fox News viewers as the most misinformed (or every poll showed Fox Viewers as "consistently" misinformed--neither variant helps Stewart):

The way Stewart phrased the comment, it’s not enough to show a sliver of evidence that Fox News’ audience is ill-informed. The evidence needs to support the view that the data shows they are "consistently" misinformed -- a term he used not once but three times. It’s simply not true that "every poll" shows that result. So we rate his claim False.

And there's your first hint right there--the tip of the iceberg.   How does a professor end up omitting such a key detail about the PolitiFact rating?

Thynzcken sets up a subtle straw man version of the PolitiFact argument.  PolitiFact rates false the claim that every poll showed Fox Viewers as the most misinformed.  Thynzcken defends Stewart by dropping the issue of the polls in the rating and emphasizing that Stewart might be right even if not all the polls show it.  The problem, of course, is that not all the polls show it (and it's actually worse than that for Stewart).

Briefly summarizing the rest of the post, Thynzcken praises Stewart's fake apology and concludes that PolitiFact blew the call.

That's when I intervened and Thynzcken further demonstrated the skills that we so esteem for our BBBBB blogroll.

I commented:

You walk a fine line on this site wrt becoming the subject (“those who want to do your thinking for you”).

Stewart claimed support from every study on a consistent basis. Yet there probably is no study ever performed that was designed specifically to measure the political knowledge (or otherwise) of the consumers of various news sources. The ones that ostensibly support Stewart the most (PIPA) suffer from acute cases of selection bias.

Thynzcken's reply:

Stewart may not have been 100% accurate, but he was damn close. He was not talking about being uninformed (even the most diehard Fox fans might know that John Boehner is Speaker of the House) but about being misinformed (believing, for instance, that Barack Obama is Kenyan or that Sean Hannity knows more about global warming than thousands of scientists.) Fox consistently misinforms, and the polls show it.

I eagerly await specific illustrations of how I’m trying to do anyone’s thinking for them.

Before focusing back on Stewart, notice that a bit more of the iceberg has peeked out.  I charged that Thynzcken walked a fine line respecting the promulgation of propaganda.  Note that Thynzcken's challenge appears to assume that I said the line was crossed.  One starts to wonder:  What is it that makes this guy (gal?  I won't assume) think they can judge propaganda?  They're soaking in it, as Madge might say.  Their trailing line helps account for the pseudonym I chose for the professor, of course.

The key issue in the Stewart-Fox-PolitiFact squabble is the poll data Stewart referenced.  My rejoinder on that point:

There’s no poll or survey data that reasonably demonstrate it (I explained why in brief and you haven’t addressed the point). So Stewart can’t be close. He may well be right that Fox viewers are misinformed but no survey data provide a reasonable foundation for his claim. But he claimed it anyway.

Thynzcken's response:

There are in fact several such polls. See a few of them described at http://mediamatters.org/research/201106220022.

Unless I'm missing something, I've already done reviews of all the polls on the Media Matters page that supposedly support Stewart.  Sure enough, each one features selection bias in its methodology.  So that's essentially how I replied to Thynzcken:

See them debunked (for Stewart’s purposes) here:
http://subloviate.blogspot.com/search?q=mooney

Picture my disappointment in this reply from the propaganda doctor:

Quoting your own blog to “debunk” research? How convenient.

It might have been misleading if I quoted from my own blog to support a point I was making unless I clearly identified that I was sourcing myself.  But I didn't quote myself at all.  Thynzcken, that minister of anti-propaganda, is wrong again.  And his response could pass as an attack on the source intended to undermine the veracity of the information, also known as the genetic fallacy.

One wonders what use a propaganda professor has for the genetic fallacy.

That branch of the conversation petered out after I pointed out the genetic fallacy, so let's pick up the same topic in another branch.  Me:

It isn’t that Stewart is lying for claiming that Fox News has knowingly and/or deliberately repeated lies. He’s lying because he claims poll support that doesn’t exist. Or, more properly, he’s just wrong.

Note that by this point I've already made the substantive criticism that Stewart's poll support is tainted with selection bias.  Watch for Thynzcken to address that point.

Thynzcken:

Stewart’s “poll support that doesn’t exist” does indeed exist.

Hmmm.  Not in that reply.

You should refrain from claiming that if you can’t back it up. And you can’t back it up.

Thynzcken next gave six sentences that dropped the issue of the poll data.  The sixth suggested on their part no inclination to address the problems I pointed out:

Sadly, that takes care of responding to the most intelligent and relevant statements you’ve made.

With that round of replies, Thynzcken resorted to a method that I see all too frequently with Internet discussion: the technique of holding the conversation hostage to some nebulous standard of conduct:

You will be allowed one more opportunity to contribute something of value to the discussions on this blog.  Neither I nor my readers have time to deal with sophomoric solipsism.

Those who detect hints of the rhetorical technique of "hand waving" in Thynzcken's reply probably have a point.  What about that selection bias problem?

I posted three replies after Thynzcken gave me my last chance (the first of them before reading the ultimatum).

The third of the three:

Tell you what. You want productive I’ll give you productive. Delete the previous two posts from me if you like. We’ll go productive step by productive step. I have provided a substantive criticism of the poll results people have used to try to justify Stewart’s claim. I’m charging the studies with a selection bias problem. Specifically, the studies select questions that are not broadly representative of the political knowledge about which Fox News viewers supposedly lag behind others.

So, I have two related questions for you setting the stage for further productive discussion.

1) Do you know what “selection bias” is?
2) Do you see how selection bias creates a problem for the studies people have used to try to support Jon Stewart?

I encourage you to add to your answers with further commentary. Then it’s my turn again if you’re willing to face the truth of the matter about which you’ve pontificated.

The predictable reply from Thynzcken:

Sorry. you blew it. Your “substantive criticism” amounts to nothing more than denial. Repeating the same irrelevant statements over and over will not make them any more relevant or more true. And enough is enough.

Amazing, huh?

Far from repeating the same points over and over, my questions contain the promise that I will explain the argument as I detect substantial objections (if any) from the propagandist professor.  If anything, Thynzcken's reply contains the best evidence of psychological denial.

I got in one more brief reply (just a few brief words) before Thynzcken belatedly hid it in moderation, not that it was important.  For present purposes we see the "Propaganda Professor" parroting left-wing blog opinion about Stewart's accuracy and parrying the opportunity to explicitly discuss the evidence.  That's how to have a blog bad enough to catch our attention at Bad Blogs' Blood.  And rest assured, dear reader, that Thynzcken offered plenty more evidence in that exchange to show an irresponsible level of critical thinking (unless it's lying, which is perhaps worse).

One more clear example:

Thynzcken:

It’s very interesting, by the way, that you seem to be trying to hold Stewart (who has not tried to pass himself off as a journalist) to higher journalistic standards than the folks at Fox (who have).

Yes, I laughed out loud.

That’s funny. I’m not holding Stewart to any journalistic standards at all. I’m just pointing out that he’s wrong about the surveys and that he’s engaged in propaganda. You don’t have to be (a) journalist to do those things, and neither are they the exclusive purview of journalists. It’s interesting that you find interesting something that isn’t happening.

With that comment Thynzcken added to the present examples of rhetorical dirty tricks.  We've had the straw man.  We've seen the conversation held hostage.  We saw the conception of a genetic fallacy.  And here Thynzcken produces an irrelevant personal attack out of pure imagination.

Does everyone feel safer from the insidious effects of propaganda now?

There's one step left prior to inducting "The Propaganda Professor" into the Bad Blogs' Blood Bad Blogs Blogroll:  Thynzcken has promised a post relating to our exchange.  It promises more of the same type of train wreck:

Note: This individual wants you to believe that Stewart’s claim should only be interpreted comprehensively rather than (as obviously intended) cumulatively. If you’re not sure what I mean by that, stay tuned.

If a blogger runs away from the real discussion by expanding on a false accusation, that's some Bad Blogging.  I consistently decline to force interpretations on the words of others except where I offer an argument in favor.  This case with Stewart aligns with my usual technique:

The adjective "misinformed" could apply in at least two distinct ways.  First, it could mean that Fox Viewers hold particular incorrect views because they were given false information (apparently by Fox News).  Alternatively, the term can serve as a synonym for "ignorant," as in simply believing untrue things.

Stewart's would-be defenders, in an exercise of futility, try to parse the term in his favor.

And:

If we take Stewart to mean that polls consistently show Fox News viewers the most ignorant (misinformed) then we're stuck with PolitiFact's analysis using the PEW polling data.  That's exactly what the complaining liberals try to avoid with the alternate interpretation.

The alternate interpretation fails because it leaves Stewart without any supporting data.

***

Professor Thynzcken has at last completed the expected flub:

In addition to a misreading of the word “misinformed” there was a selective reading of the word “every”, which can be interpreted in at least a couple of different ways. I call them the comprehensive (Every state has its own flag.) and the cumulative (Every time I forget my umbrella, it rains.).  In other words, “every” may mean either “all” or “each”. Did Stewart mean all polls on all possible issues? Not bloody likely, since he surely realizes that it would be virtually impossible to devise a poll covering every possible issue – and if you did it would be so damn lengthy no one would sit still to answer it. Most likely, he meant that each poll conducted reveals Fox viewers to be among the most misinformed on each topic covered. But some, apparently having intimate knowledge of the inner workings of his psyche, insist that not only did he mean the first sense, but he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts; in other words HE was the one lying! It’s somewhat like saying, “Every skunk I smell causes me to throw up”, and then me saying, “Liar! You haven’t even smelled every skunk.”

It's obvious from the material above that the great professor of propaganda has misrepresented me.  My position is that no reasonable interpretation of Stewart can rehabilitate his claim. 

Thynzcken has provided me with additional grist for the mill that is so conveniently flawed that it's hard to pass up.


(did an edit or two shortly after posting, my hand forced by Blogger's ability to omit random portions of a post edit)