Is "argumentum ad hominem" always a fallacy?

[Aquila_Be]

@BrainGlutton

Cite?

Cite what?

My impression from reading quite a number of posts on SD is that the perception here is that the Wati is “wingnut” orientated and that the Wapo and NYT are eminently trustworthy sources and very worthy of citing.

My view is that they are pretty much equal in trustworthiness, which is to say, not trustworthy at all, but better than nothing.

[Zoe]

Has The Washington Times won a long list of Pulitzers and other distinguished awards? What is its circulation compared to the Washington Post and the NYT? Which newspapers have the highest respect among journalists?

[GIGObuster]

@MGibson

I miss Philosophy 101.

Marc

Doper: Ah, how about Ad hominem?
Logician salesman: Well, we don’t get much call for it around here, sir.
Doper: Not much ca- It’s the single most popular fallacy in the world!
Logician salesman: Not round here, sir.
Doper: And what is the most popular fallacy round here?
Logician salesman: Poisoning the Well, sir.
Doper: Is it.
Logician salesman: Oh yes, sir. It’s staggeringly popular in this manor, squire.
Doper: Is it.
Logician salesman: It’s our number-one best seller, sir.
Doper: I see. Ah, Poisoning the Well, eh?
Logician salesman: Right, sir.
Doper: All right. Okay. Have you got any, he asked expecting the answer no?
Logician salesman: I’ll have a look, sir … nnnnnnooooooooo.
Doper: It’s not much of a logical shop, is it?
Logician salesman: Finest in the district, sir.

Apologies to Monty Phyton, longer version here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5537474&postcount=41

[GIGObuster]

@Aquila Be

Cite what?

My impression from reading quite a number of posts on SD is that the perception here is that the Wati is “wingnut” orientated and that the Wapo and NYT are eminently trustworthy sources and very worthy of citing.

My view is that they are pretty much equal in trustworthiness, which is to say, not trustworthy at all, but better than nothing.

The Washington Times is worse than nothing, it would already be dead if it was not by the will of the owner, it is a paper that does not care if by spinning the news in a hard right wing way it loses even moderate readers since it does not depend on the readers to continue going.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/outlets/thewashingtontimes

The Washington Times is a conservative daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C., with weekday circulation of about 100,000. (The largest daily newspaper in the city is The Washington Post, with weekday circulation of about 750,000 and Sunday circulation of about 1 million.) The Times is owned and influenced by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who declared himself the Messiah in a March 2004 Capitol Hill ceremony. In a 2002 speech, Moon declared his political intentions for the Times, saying that “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.” The Times has operated in the red since it was founded in 1982; it loses an estimated $20 million annually and has lost an estimated $1 billion over its existence. The Moon-controlled corporate parent of the Times, News World Communications, also owns the United Press International wire service and published the conservative news magazine Insight on the News until discontinuing the print version in 2004.

[Aquila_Be]

@GIGObuster

The Washington Times is worse than nothing, it would already be dead if it was not by the will of the owner, it is a paper that does not care if by spinning the news in a hard right wing way it loses even moderate readers since it does not depend on the readers to continue going.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/outlets/thewashingtontimes

I haven’t been paying much attention to any circulation figures. So it’ll go out of business in the fullness of time. Who cares.

So will the other two papers under mention.

I haven’t bought any kind of paper since I got on the net in about 1998 and I’m better informed as a result. As far as I can tell there’s no rational reason to for anyone to buy a newspaper any more, not even for the advertisements.

[BrainGlutton]

@Aquila Be

As far as I can tell there’s no rational reason to for anyone to buy a newspaper any more, not even for the advertisements.

Does that mean there’s no good reason to pay attention to them?

[Malthus]

No-one responded to my arguments.

Is that because they were no good as arguments, or because I’m a known fool - thus illustrating the thesis?

[GIGObuster]

@Aquila Be

I haven’t been paying much attention to any circulation figures. So it’ll go out of business in the fullness of time. Who cares.

Missing the point. It will not go out of business, it does not matter how many times one catches the paper exaggerating or pulling info out of their asses, the few remaining readers don’t care, when many reasonable people (even conservatives) do not pay attention to a paper it will go out of business, but that would happen in a normal business environment. Moon does not care for that and the church has the assets to keep it going.

And that gets us to “Who cares”: Moon and other extreme conservatives already have succeeded in convincing a good chunk of people to use the WT as reference in recent hot political items. And since they also publish on the Internet you can see why your point that there is no “rational reason to for anyone to buy a newspaper any more” is moot, the right wing blogosphere has no trouble finding in that newspaper the information they are looking for.

The newspaper is set in way that there is no accountability in the way of many people showing rejection by not buying it anymore. However, right wing bloggers and posters then link to it as a cite and assume their readers will think it is a respected newspaper, with a wide readership and that it is accountable if it publishes something misleading. I wish they were wrong in their assumption, for even in the SDMB I see many that do swallow their spin.