BROADCAST JOURNALISM ETHICS: THE DEBATER AND NEWS-COMMENTATOR: ARGUMENTATION AND FALLACIES

1. BROADCAST JOURNALISM ETHICS:THE DEBATER AND NEWS-COMMENTATOR:ARGUMENTATION AND FALLACIES PROF. JEFFREY P. DEATRAS BABC, MPSDC, PH.D (CANDIDATE)

2. Argumentation Arguments are logical statements advancing a stand or proposition in commentary or formal debate. Proofs and evidences are the basis for arguments One argues when he/she is telling or searching for the truth; whereas, one picks quarrels when he/she talks of pure rumors. Broadcast journalists in search for truth and fairness are no different than debaters who argue in the name of justice and rationality Broadcasters and debaters must argue rather than look for quarrels indeed.

3. arguments and conviction The search for conviction is the search for logical truths; it aims to convince. News, statistics, history, and other evidences must aim for pure truthfulness in order to convince. Convincing arguments in a speech attack the brain and the audience’s capacity to rationalize; that is to know what is right and wrong or true and false Commentators and debaters should strive to be great writers and speakers of speeches to convince A commentary done out of weak proofs are considered false and unconvincing. EX: news on CJ Corona’s undeclared bank accountsstrengthens the argument: “a CJ must be no different than a court-clerk who was dismissed from office after failure to declare her sari-sari store in her SALN

4. arguments and persuasion Persuasion is the art of emotionally moving the audience towards an action using enough or limited logical proofs; Persuasive proofs aim at one’s capacity to feel rather than think. Much of media ads are persuasive rather than convincing. Great debaters and news-commentators must learn to arrange persuasion to complement conviction; thus letting the audience think and feel in favor of their stand. One must be careful though that proofs and evidences aimed at persuasion must never contradict conviction or truthfulness and reason will be sacrificed in favor of unguided emotions Good persuasive proofs may take the guise of truth. EX: Erap said in a news interview: “Mrs. Arroyo is far better in hospital arrest without having to experience what I had when I was forced to sleep among criminals in a local PNP station after my arrest….worse, I was in critical health condition then

5. persuasion and conviction Arguments used for (history, practicability, and urgency of) great commentaries and constructive speeches in formal debate may use both convincing and persuasive evidences. Some proofs (news, statistics, etc). may be used either to convince or to persuade, depending on the skill of the commentator-debater. Primarily, commentaries and debate-constructive speech must be convincing Strategically, one must be likewise persuasive in strengthening the empathy between his/her arguments/stand and the audience Hence, in debate/commentaries, conviction and persuasion are mutually coexisting to advance arguments

6. proofs used both to convince and persuade

7. rebuttal and fallacies Rebuttal speakers must unearth the gaps, inconsistencies, and errors in reasoning of the opposing side. This is done by exposing some of the usual fallacies found in argumentation, proofs, and evidences of the opponents. The following are usual fallacies among irrational broadcast journalists Fallacies of equivocation: both quantity and quality- arguing that one quality or quantity is true of a whole or the whole is true of a part. EX: “most UE broadcom students are excellently artistic therefore Miss X is artistic for she takes broadcom” -----(this is false for some are mediocre)----- Fallacies of presumption resulting to irrelevant conclusion (ignoranto elenchi) Argumentum ad hominem- is an attack to the person of the opponent (both face-to-face or otherwise. Ex: a) failure to impress the professor in class, students spread gossips to attack his/her person;……….b) cursing somebody in the middle of a commentary or debate.

8. rebuttal and fallacies Argumentum ad populum- false generalization resulting from anappeal to the biases and passions of the majority. Ex: a) wanting support from other students and school administration, students who were given a failing grade made false complaints about a professor in order for them to pass;……..b) Gay-lesbian-rights group asking for “special rights” claiming that their increasing number is a prime basis-----this is a form of “MOBOCRACY” or the tyranny of/by the many)-----greater number is not equal to greater truths nor rights! 3. Argumentum ad judicium- afalse generalization based on general belief; “since most believe it, then it must be true”. Ex: a) “The fourth-year says this/that,….then Sir/Mam must be this/that…” b) “older classmates know best then ate Y or kuya X must be right always; they should be our leaders and directors at all times” READ: 1) Logical vs. Rhetorical Fallacies (Africa) and; 2) Broadcast Code of the Philippines (KBP 2007)

9. interpellation and clever questioning Interpellation is like rebuttal-----it must find the gaps of reasoning and flaws of proofs and evidences Unlike rebuttal, interpellation is not in speech form---it is an artistic and scientific organization and delivery of questions Interpellation questions must not sound like an interview. It should be direct, short, and well-planned (2-5 more or less). Questions are logically and rhetorically organized to make the opponent contradict, falsify, or deny his/her arguments and proofs.

10. flow of debate-commentary Choosing stand and researching proofs Outlining/sequencing of arguments Analyzing-criticism of proofs and evidences Writing the commentary or constructive speech Rehearsal of speech and interpellation Strengthening pointers for rebuttal and standing on the opponents position