The Press and the argument from authority fallacy

[EnglishPete]

One thing I've noticed many of the people posting here do in their examination of stories reported in the press. They will judge the veracity of the story not based on the evidence it presents and the logic of its reasonings but rather based on the 'authority' of the publication publishing the report. Reports from disliked, unknown or non 'respectable' sources are automatically dismissed irrespective of the evidence and arguments used to make their argument.

On the other hand reports from 'respected' publications like me CNN, NBC, this Jeff Bezos blog, the Carlos Slim blog, the LA Times etc are often accepted by these same people as being the gospel truth even when they present little or no evidence or poor reasoning to back up their claims.

This of course is known as the 'Argument from authority fallacy', the idea that the truth of a claim can be established by it bring backed up by some 'authority' who you can simply trust to give you the facts. I've noticed that when I point out that people are falling into this fallacy they will sometimes assert that their trusted authorities are fine because I have trusted journalistic authorities as well and theirs' are better. The fact that there is no reporter on earth and no publication on earth who I simply trust to give me the facts, that I do examine any report I see from all sources on the basis of the evidence and reasoning it uses for its conclusions seems to be beyond some people.

Am I being a little unfair here? Would people here be open to arguments and claims from some blogger they'd never heard of based on the strength of the evidence and arguments. Would they call bullsh**t on implausible and evidence free claims made by 'respected' publications. Or is it the argument by authority fallacy all the way for such people? Any thoughts?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Reports from disliked, unknown or non 'respectable' sources are automatically dismissed irrespective of the evidence and arguments used to make their argument.

...

Any thoughts?

Haven't you cited Infowars as a source in the past?

[EnglishPete]

Reports from disliked, unknown or non 'respectable' sources are automatically dismissed irrespective of the evidence and arguments used to make their argument.

...

Any thoughts?

Haven't you cited Infowars as a source in the past?

I've quoted Infowars. Whenever I quote a report it is to show the claim being made and to show the evidence and reasoning in the report used as the basis of that claim. That's true whether the report being quoted is from Infowars or Brietbart or if its from AP or the Financial Times. I don't expect anyone to accept the conclusions of such a report simply on trust, I certainly don't. Its for others and myself to examine those reports and criticise them in the light of reason.

You may ask why I don't just quote reports I just implicitly trust. Well if I did that there would be no news for me to discuss at all. The only people in the world I would trust to that extent are some of the people who I know personally and have known for some time. None of that small number of individuals are reporters. So I'm left with looking at and examining and judging reports, from whatever source, in the light of I human reason.

[Angrie]

So you are saying we should believe Louise Mensch?

[Virginiá]

Am I being a little unfair here? Would people here be open to arguments and claims from some blogger they'd never heard of based on the strength of the evidence and arguments. Would they call bullsh**t on implausible and evidence free claims made by 'respected' publications. Or is it the argument by authority fallacy all the way for such people? Any thoughts?

It depends on the argument and the evidence provided. It's not impossible for, say, a random blogger to stumble upon a big story and break it themselves.. but they don't have the credibility of a more established institution to back them up, and that puts a heavier burden on them. I don't think there is anything wrong in placing more trust in more established, credible brands. Which brands are credible is subjective, though. However, I don't think it's right to just implicitly trust everything from [source] is true (or false), either. It really depends on the evidence and what the story is suggesting.

For me, as an example - I do read some Breitbart articles from time to time, but I dislike that outlet a lot. Most news sites are biased in some ways, but Breitbart is aggressively biased in both topic selection and in the way they write their articles. It's tiring to go through them and try to piece together the whole story, as opposed to the limited story/narrative they are trying to push. I just don't see how any reasonable, educated person can look at Breitbart and not say it isn't biased pretty heavily towards conservatives, conservative ideas and often seeks to portray conservatives in a good light, no matter what the circumstances are. If the story can't be spun, it is buried. They act more like a state (or rather, Trump) propaganda outlet now.

[The_Doctor]

My problem has always been with the NYT and Washington Post's editorial page and endorsements not their front page. They're liberal outlets and sometimes their reporting is too much group think but by and far I trust them more than Breitbart and Gateway Pundit or Infowars. And definitely more than RT or Trump's administration.

I will mostly never agree with the NYT and Post's editorial line outside Trump for the most part. But I trust them on getting most things right.

[publicunofficial]

Your "I only read sources that I trust not to lie to me" argument doesn't ring true when you consider Mike Cernovich a trustworthy and credible source. That's less "I have a high standard for journalism" and more "I only listen to media figures that do nothing to challenge my current views"

[EnglishPete]

Your "I only read sources that I trust not to lie to me"

Good grief, you've completely missed my point. I've said the exact opposite. There are a few human beings on earth who I trust not to lie to me. They are

 1. People I know personally, have known for a long time, and judge to be trustworthy

 2. None of them are involved in (or even particularly interested in) journalism or politics

 3. I can count them on the fingers of my hands

 4. I will never have cause to quote them or discuss their views on this or any other forum

Everyone else I view as potentially lying or misleading. That includes every reporter, editor and publisher alive on earth. Anyone I quote I view their quotes with scepticism, to be examined and judged in the light of evidence and reason and I expect others to do the same.

Now I'm sorry to have to labour the point but I can't see any other way to get it across.

[EnglishPete]

Am I being a little unfair here? Would people here be open to arguments and claims from some blogger they'd never heard of based on the strength of the evidence and arguments. Would they call bullsh**t on implausible and evidence free claims made by 'respected' publications. Or is it the argument by authority fallacy all the way for such people? Any thoughts?

It depends on the argument and the evidence provided. It's not impossible for, say, a random blogger to stumble upon a big story and break it themselves.. but they don't have the credibility of a more established institution to back them up, and that puts a heavier burden on them.

I half way agree with you. I think that the random blogger doesn't have established credibility and they do have a heavy burden in establishing their claims. The difference in our views is that the exact same heavy burden that you place on the random blogger I would place on all reporters. The established journalistic institutions have such a long history of misleading, spreading lies and disinformation, that they don't add anything to the reporter in terms of credibility that the reporters wouldn't have on their own blogs.

I also find that established journalistic institutions often tend to be lazier and more lax in terms of setting out their evidence and reasoning than some of the less well known bloggers. I think this is due to the phenomena of "If a man is has a reputation as an early riser he can stay in bed till noon". Less established bloggers have no reason to expect people to just take their reports on trust and so the best are much better at laying out their evidence.