« Center Schmenter | Main | Lowry for the Defense »
Sorites and Gannon
In case you're interested, the relevance of the Sorites Paradox to Jeff Gannon, I think, is this. Just because "journalist" or "reporter" may be a vague concept and we may not be sure where to draw the line is no reason to abandon the concept or deny that some people -- Jeff Gannon, say -- are unambiguously not doing journalism when, say, they plagiarize other people's work, ask questions with false premises, etc., etc., etc. It's just the same as us being comfortable saying that Gannon is bald even though we can't say precisely where the bald/not-bald distinction lies. Vague predicates are still useful and legitimate.
April 8, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834584ee869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sorites and Gannon:
» AS IF! from Grouchy's Liberaltopia
Parse This! Blogs to visit today. AmericaBlog Crooks&Liars ThinkProgress And the ever irrepressible Wonkette. The man with the bright green tie... And the man who asked the $200 an hour question.... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 8, 2005 7:21:43 PM
» Sorties and Indecency from Politics and War
One more thing. Praising Matt's sentiments, Atrios observes:Yglesias makes an important point that hasn't yet been made -- a very big reason we don't get into soft or hard censorship is because we as a country don't actually all agree... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 13, 2005 9:01:25 AM
» Sorites and Indecency from Politics and War
One more thing. Praising Matt's sentiments, Atrios observes:Yglesias makes an important point that hasn't yet been made -- a very big reason we don't get into soft or hard censorship is because we as a country don't actually all agree... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 13, 2005 9:02:33 AM
Comments
Dang- I was hoping that it was in addressing whether or not three "journalists" is a "heap."
Posted by: TJ | Apr 8, 2005 2:39:14 PM
Phew! And I thought I was going to have to begin calling Helen Thomas and Elisabeth Bumiller "journalists". Thankfully, Matthew tells me that they aren't.
Posted by: Al | Apr 8, 2005 2:56:34 PM
I think the problem is that "[is a] journalist" is an incomplete predicate. What does the journalist-sorites look like?
Posted by: spacetoast | Apr 8, 2005 3:11:41 PM
That was one hell of a necktie.
Posted by: JP | Apr 8, 2005 3:20:40 PM
Tie is by Altea Milano and was purchased Beecroft & Bull in Norfolk during my recent trip to red America. Because nothing says red America like bright green Italian neckties.
Posted by: Matthew Yglesias | Apr 8, 2005 3:33:45 PM
The things you learn thanks to the internets. The Mathworld entry for the Sorites Paradox informs me that the Greek word "soros" means "heap", which certainly seems apropos, eh?
Posted by: sglover | Apr 8, 2005 4:01:19 PM
OK, I've now seen the whole thing. What a fucking farce. Shame on the NPC for giving this fraud a platform.
Posted by: praktike | Apr 8, 2005 4:04:09 PM
One of the questions asked at the end of the discussion was "what is journalism". The answer is simply this: a journalist reports the truth. I wish someone had clarified that for Gannon/Guckert, the lying bastard.
Posted by: jl | Apr 8, 2005 4:21:59 PM
The answer is simply this: a journalist reports the truth.
Someone tell liar Mike Allen! Apparently the WaPo employs a person who turns out not to be a "journalist"!
Posted by: Al | Apr 8, 2005 4:32:25 PM
Heh. Hard to tell sometimes whether Gannon or Al is the bigger prostitute.
Posted by: JP | Apr 8, 2005 4:37:57 PM
Al, you ignorant slut. Elisabeth Bumiller DREAMS of being the journalist that Helen Thomas IS.
What's your problem with wimmen?
Posted by: lizDexic | Apr 8, 2005 4:44:13 PM
Vague predicates are still useful and legitimate.
Though the two presented here are not of the same type; "bald/not bald" can probably be fairly rigorously defined, if one wanted to, as a fuzzy predicate with a fairly clearly and objectively quantifiable membership function, though in practice we don't bother to do so; where as "journalist/not journalist" is a distinction on what is, I think, more legitimately a vague predicate, not merely a fuzzy one left vague for convenience.
Posted by: cmdicely | Apr 8, 2005 4:59:43 PM
Oh God, I'm fucking ignorant!
Posted by: The Real Al | Apr 8, 2005 5:20:55 PM
The issue with Gannon isn't that he's a blogger. It's that he attended press conferences under completely false pretenses: using a fake name and a fake news agency to make it appear that he was something other than a GOP operative. Pretending to be an independent journalist when he wasn't one. How could the National Press Club be so dense not to pick up on this distinction?
Posted by: superdude | Apr 8, 2005 5:25:25 PM
A similar problem is the old taxonomical paradox of defining a dog. There is no specific set of characteristics unique to all dogs--yet that causes us no problems when we go to the animal shelter to find us one. So the fact that there's no unique set of characteristics unique to all journalists shouldn't be a barrier to rejecting out of hand Gannon's claim as being one.
Posted by: Adonais | Apr 8, 2005 5:52:59 PM
I think journalists are more like atheletes than say, doctors. A person may be a good journalist and still be an amateur. We would all enjoy a game of baseball played by kids, or even adults, with amateur standing, but an operation performed by an amateur physician may not be one we'd want to watch, or be subjected to. Clearly, Gannon's a professional, just not a professional journalist, and he peaked a long time ago in his chosen profession. Like atheletics, his chosen profession has you peaking at an early age, and all washed up at about 45. Amateurs in his chosen profession, well...
Posted by: Al Terego | Apr 8, 2005 6:16:17 PM
While a few people think it whorish to allow Gannon the platform, Ana and Fishbowl kicked his ass. Wayne Madsen also brought some pie to the table, not to mention the anonymous questioner at the end who asked " Have you ever slept with any Whitehouse staff?". That is the real question of interest here. Why isn't this being investigated? After all, the rightwing spent a $100 million investigating Clinton for much less.
Posted by: mondo | Apr 8, 2005 6:16:44 PM
"OK, I've now seen the whole thing. What a fucking farce. Shame on the NPC for giving this fraud a platform."
Hmmm? Maybe the question should also be, "Who is he sleeping with at the NPC?"
You can understand his need to break into a new profession at his age. Professional atheletes usually have more options than call-boys.
Posted by: Al Terego | Apr 8, 2005 6:26:50 PM
Well, if "vague" is being used in the technical/sorites way, then it's not just any old semantic indeterminacy. The issue about Gannon's being a journalist, as I understand it, is about which other concepts interact with "journalist," and how they do that...necessary and sufficient conditions and so forth. That's a different thing from how many grains is a heap, which isn't born of "heap"'s being conceptually complex. "Heap" doesn't want analysis that way. Heaps are made of grains. We know that.
Posted by: spacetoast | Apr 8, 2005 6:58:38 PM
I love you man, but that was one seriously ugly tie.
Posted by: Bob Brigham | Apr 8, 2005 6:58:53 PM
Matt- How in God's name did you keep from bursting out laughing?
Posted by: Brad R. | Apr 8, 2005 7:15:57 PM
The question who is a valid journalist is really not a question at all since anyone can be a journalist if they choose.
The question should be if we are going to allow any nut out of the whore house to report the news then how are we to be sure that nut isn't trying to distort what they are telling us?
The freedom of the press was never intended to be used as the freedom to lie, cheat, and fool people.
Posted by: Wayne Collins | Apr 8, 2005 7:26:48 PM
The anonymous inquisitor was Mike Rogers of BlogActive. Apparently he tried to get an answer from Gannon and Gannon threatened him. He's so butch.
Posted by: Al Terego | Apr 8, 2005 7:28:34 PM
"The freedom of the press was never intended to be used as the freedom to lie, cheat, and fool people."
Of course it was. Or maybe "Citizen Kane" was just a movie. The freedom to become educated and discerning enough to know the difference between a journalist and a shill is just asimportant.
Posted by: Al Terego | Apr 8, 2005 7:31:35 PM
Tie is by Altea Milano and was purchased Beecroft & Bull in Norfolk during my recent trip to red America. Because nothing says red America like bright green Italian neckties.
Nice. I have a red damask Altea tie that I bought in a last-minute panic for a friend's wedding, and has since become my absolute favourite. It was also one of those purchases where I only found out the price at the till... but it was worth it. (Liberty, Regent Street; very not Red America.)
Posted by: ahem | Apr 8, 2005 8:34:58 PM
