How to critique bad journalism, badly.
Via Bishop's Hill, a very dodgy post from Alex Lockwood here.
He sets out to criticise Brendan O'Neil but fails by even his own standards.
In a variation of the ad hominem fallacy, he refuses to attack O'Neil's argument but instead claims he is wrong because his piece is 'poor quality journalism'.
He sets up these three criteria for what journalism should be:
...journalism, even opinion, is meant to say something new, be interesting, and be accurate.We could probably debate for hours whether these three criteria are the correct ones (I don't think they are, btw) but they are the ones he has chosen for himself so let's hold him to them.
He then lists six perceived failings in O'Neil's piece - many of which don't actually address the criteria given.
ONE: As I’ve said, it’s mainly rehashed journalism.
This addresses the 'new' criterion. Fair enough.
TWO: There’s nothing on the science.
This is irrelevant and addresses none of Lockwood's three criteria. O'Neil's piece is not about the science, it is about political responses to the science.
THREE: The argument has moved on.
This addresses the 'new' criterion as well. Fair enough.
FOUR: Too many links to his own articles.
Not relevant. How does having lots of links to your own work make something 'old news' whereas having lots of links to other people's work does not (and is actually considered good practice)? Linking to yourself lots may well be poor form, but that does not make the piece 'old'.
FIVE: This is the worst one for me. Enforced localism
This provides a counter opinion, but does not challenge the original piece's accuracy. Indeed Lockwood's counter argument - that including externalities in the true cost of travel = cost of travel triples = far fewer people can afford to travel = far more people unable to leave their local area - actually seems to support the claim for enforced localism!
SIX: I know, I said five, but I’m not done on the guilt thing…
This addresses the 'accuracy' criterion, but only in a very roundabout way. It doesn't challenge the accuracy of anything in O'Neil's piece, it just says (rightly) that pessimism is not universal and that there are a minority of green activists/businesses who take an optimistic, pro-technology, stance.
The underlying point, that many (if not most) green activists want very severe restrictions on the use of resources remains true and Lockwood's point here does nothing to challenge it. He doesn't say it is inaccurate, merely incomplete.
So to sum up, Lockwood gave us three criteria by which O'Neil's article should be judged and scored thus:
The article should be new - 2 marks (for points one and three). Although I would suggest that something can be relevant without being new.
The article should be interesting - No marks. Lockwood demands that O'Neil's article be interesting, but then offers no suggestion that it is not.
The article should be accurate - half a mark (for point six).
The remainder of his points are:
Not relevant - 2 marks (points two and four).
Actually in support of the O'Neil's argument. - 1 mark (point five).
C minus Lockwood, see me after class.