BROADCAST
JOURNALISM ETHICS:
THE DEBATER AND NEWS-COMMENTATOR:
ARGUMENTATION AND FALLACIES
PROF. JEFFREY P. DEATRAS
BABC, MPSDC, PH.D (CANDIDATE)
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.
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 accounts
strengthens 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
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
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
proofs used both to convince and persuade
Persuasive argument
Convincing argument
What makes CJ Corona different from a poor
court-clerk? Is poverty a passport to jail and
being CJ a license to insult the law? Doesn’t
this further insult and anger the majority of
poor Filipino masses? This is a clear threat
by the few politically powerful against the
many powerless. This flames further the fiery
mass angst against the so called “government
of the rich”.
The saying “ignorance of the law excuses no
one” is as true as the dictum “violation of
the law must spare no one”-----even the
most powerful judge of the land-----CJ
Corona. Hence’ if a low-salaried courtclerk was jailed from omitting her sari-sari
store in SALN, what makes a high-earner
CJ Corona so special to the very law his
public office is supposed to uphold? The
Philippines must be “a nation of laws” rather
than “a country of flaws”.
If Erap was jailed despite his worsening health
conditions, Gloria’s seemingly untruthful alibis of
her bone ailment have miraculously spared her
from the ordeal. Is this sending a message that in
this country, the meek and poorly educated like
Erap, who happens to be the majority, stands little
in the eyes of the law against hoodlums with PHD
protected by the highest paid lawyers and
generals? Painfully speaking, in the Philippines,
real justice is not for all. Indeed this is alarming,
insulting, and threatening us all!
Erap has followed and acted like what all
other Filipino citizens who happened to face
the law must undergo: publication of fingerprinting, police-camera shots, and staying in
uncomfortable prison-cells---all that Gloria
has successfully spared herself from. Is
she a citizen or a queen? If then a
president Erap was thrown to prison and
house arrest even without court conviction,
what makes a citizen Gloria different than
you and me? She sure is a liar and a thief--- thus, she must go to jail!
rebuttal and fallacies



1.
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.
rebuttal and fallacies
2.
Argumentum ad populum- false generalization resulting from an
appeal 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- a false 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)
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.
QUESTIONS
ANSWER
You said students rights are violated by the professor when he/she
disagrees with a student’s opinionated answer?
Yes. (affirmation)
Do you believe that one’s rights ends when one’s begins?
Yes. (affirmation)
Are you aware of teachers rights to guide the flow of learning?
Yes. (affirmation)
If teachers disagree with students primarily aiming to guide the flow of learning, does
it violate students’ rights?
No. (negation)
My opponent here merely contradicts their stand. I rest my case. (generalization)
(STUNNED)
flow of debate-commentary
1.
2.
3.
4.
Choosing stand and researching proofs
Outlining/sequencing of arguments
Analyzing-criticism of proofs and evidences
Writing the commentary or constructive
speech
5. Rehearsal of speech and interpellation
6. Strengthening pointers for rebuttal and
standing on the opponents position