Is it a "personal attack" to claim GG's reporting has been sloppy and/or hyperbolic?

[Recursion]

I'm used to the tactic from the right wing of calling criticisms of someone's writings or speech a "personal attack"; I'm not quite as used to it from our side.

Take the Miranda fiasco. It was a stupid and abusive move for the UK to detain him. But Greenwald reported it as if the purpose was to intimidate Greenwald rather than to get the data Miranda was carrying. That's sloppy and/or hyperbolic. Is that a "personal attack" on my part to say so?

That's been my complaint this whole time. GG has a very important and meaty story. And he keeps doing a bad job reporting it.

[uponit7771]

1. AMEN!! I just posted about this seconds ago! That the number of ad hominems retorts from SnowGlen

...supporters is REALLY overboard.

[Bonobo]

2. I don't think so. nt

[cali]

3. no. it's not. at least not in my book.

fair game.

[Hissyspit]

17. That is true, Cali.

When it is not a baseless misrepresentation or slander attempt, as it so often is.

[Summer Hathaway]

4. I suspect the story isn't as "important and meaty"

as GG wants us to believe.

If it were, he'd allow the 'story' to be the star of the made-for-TV movie, rather than relegating it to a minor role so that GG himself can be the focus of attention.

His immediate reaction to his spouse being detained was "They're trying to intimidate ME!"

It's always about GG. Whatever story he allegedly has to tell is secondary - but will nonetheless be available in hard-cover next spring at a reasonable price.

[Recursion]

5. Well, I meant the whole thing since June

There definitely is a lot of "there" there; the issue is teasing out signal from noise. (Greenwald isn't remotely the only problem there, either.)

[Hissyspit]

9. There you go again:

For someone you say was saying it's about "ME!," he sure has been saying "us" a lot.

Greenwald: "The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere."

"But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively."

"This was obviously designed to send a message of intimidation to those of us working journalistically on reporting on the NSA and its British counterpart, the GCHQ."

[Summer Hathaway]

10. "This was obviously designed to send a message of intimidation to those of us

us working journalistically."

Wow. GG used the term "us" not "me". Same dif - he included himself as part of the group allegedly being intimidated.

I'm still wondering where his concern for his spouse comes into play.

[Swagman]

12. nitpicking to the Nth degree

this is about a journalist and his family member being harassed and falsely detained under terrorism laws.

[Summer Hathaway]

13. What this is about

is a man who claims he has documents that could bring the US to its knees - a man who then uses his spouse to transport documents while traveling after a meeting with his business partner, who is also privy to said documents - and then cries 'intimidation of journalists' when his spouse his detained and questioned.

Are we all supposed to believe that GG's outrage is warranted, because he never thought in a million years that his spouse would be subject to interrogation while traveling internationally, carrying computer/electronic devices?

Who's zooming who?

[Andy823]

81. Exactly!

That was my first thought, did Greenwald actually think nobody would be smart enough to think maybe, just maybe his spouse would be under surveillance, and that there was a chance he might get interrogated? Did Greenwald really think nobody would think that his spouse might be carrying information about what Snowden had stolen?

I know one thing, if had information that the authorities were looking for, such as stolen documents from some government agency, there is no way in hell I would allow my wife, my children, or anyone I cared about to have the documents on them while traveling abroad, no way in hell would I put them at risk.

[randome]

14. He was in possession of stolen material.

So no, he was not 'harassed'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rumold]

19. If he were in possession of stolen property ,

he would have been charged with possession of stolen property.

so no , you're not correct

[randome]

23. Optics matter. Politics matter.

Making a martyr out of Miranda and therefore Greenwald would have been widely denounced.

My guess -only a guess, mind you- is that he was on the verge of being formally charged if he did not surrender the material. He waited as long as possible in case Greenwald or someone could ride to his rescue. And that's why it took nine hours.

That's just a guess, though.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

26. Baseless guesses. I thought you waited for facts?

Or is that only when being told what angle your apologia should take?

[randome]

35. At least I'm upfront about guessing.

I don't pretend to know all the details.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

37. You jump all over posters' guessing when your guess differs.

Funny.

[Rumold]

27. My guess - only a guess

is that you're completely wrong.

he was never given a choice to surrender anything, they confiscated everything that they wanted. they didn't ask him, pretty please , hand over your electronics.

you think they ask permission to search you?

[randome]

36. You don't know that. Neither do I.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

47. Why do you think that? Do you think law enforcement immediately charges

everyone, for everything they find?

[uhnope]

79. Greenwald admitted that Miranda had docs that were stolen by Snowden. nt

[grasswire]

83. please provide a link to that information

and don't bother with the NYT article, as it has already been debunked.

[uhnope]

84. whaaat? What debunked? you provide that link. here's mine

Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html

[grasswire]

86. you provided the link for me.

You will note that the sentence below is not attributed to Greenwald. It is merely pulled out of the reporter's own assertion, and put forth in weasel words.

All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

There is no attribution for that assertion, as many sharp-eyed readers have already noted elsewhere.

[uhnope]

88. that's ridiculous. to call that "debunked" is outright falsehood. Church of Snowden-Greenwald...

will grasp at any straw, apparently

[Hissyspit]

16. No, it's not the same dif.

[MADem]

22. Miranda's airfare was paid for by the GUARDIAN....GG may have gotten them to put his partner on the

payroll, beyond just having him courier documents.

[Rex]

6. I wouldn't really worry about it.

We don't have a clue what the UK has now or if they got anything of value to the intel community. How do we know it was not done to intimidate Greenwald? It looked just like something stupid the government would do, you even admit to it yourself. Also the editorializing of the story has me being very skeptical of what they were trying to accomplish.

[AverageJoe90]

7. Nope. What you've said here is the truth, fella. eom.

[tblue]

8. Some are attacking him ad hominem

with a lot of guilt by association or condemnation for praising a libertarian pol. That's fine. We might all criticize that and universally hold that against him.

But to say that means everything he's said and done is a lie is just hyperbole. And childish too, IMHO.

[CakeGrrl]

11. No.

It's a pre-emptive tactic to prevent any criticism.

And some who do it project the behavior on others whom they claim are only bothered by the NSA issue because it makes "Dear Leader" look bad. Hypocrisy.

[JNelson6563]

15. Thank you.

Long before anyone ever heard of Snowden Greenwald has been leading the charge of crying bloody murder against Obama and those who never liked Obama have hung on his every word.

GG is very prone to hyperbole and injects as much hot-button wording as possible. This man never lets the facts speak for themselves.

I have issues with the NSA program. I think it is just asking for trouble and needs to stop. I also believe it's been going on a very long time and will not end until the current system of things comes to an end.

With all that said, even though I agree about the NSA with GG supporters, I still have no use for GG or the extremely divisive tactics being used by either side of this "discussion". I note the more self-righteous among us on the topic do seem to be those who have sang the praises of GG all along.

Plus I have a natural aversion to attention whores.

Julie

[iamthebandfanman]

20. +1

I don't like spying on our own citizens without warrants and proper oversight .. and even then it makes me nervous..

but I don't put all my faith or trust into snowden or greenwald either :p

[Kolesar]

31. Greenwald was a dickish Democrat-hater back when he wrote for Salon.com

I used to parry his attacks in the comment sections of his *opinion pieces* at Salon.

[pnwmom]

60. I remember that. That's when I started to dislike him. n/t

[HappyMe]

44. I agree.

GG enjoys the attention more than the 'reporting'.

[Hekate]

66. +1

[tsuki]

18. No. Watch Thomas Drake talk about

intimidation through association. http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2013/08/thomas-drake-on-government-overreach.html

[MADem]

21. Of course not. It has been sloppy AND hyperbolic. It's a factual observation.

Some people here seem to think that "Waaaah, he/she said something I disagree with" is the same as a "personal attack."

A personal attack is something along the lines of "Your breath smells like poop!" or "You're ugly and nobody likes you!"

You could even call Glenn Greenwald an incompetent buffoon, an idiot, a moron, and a self-absorbed asshole--and that's not a personal attack either. A "personal" attack is directed at the person with whom you are conversing, not a third party named in a newspaper article.

Expressing a disagreement or a differing view of a news story is not, and never has been, a personal attack.

[Hissyspit]

29. That's ridiculous.

Look up ad Hominem fallacy.

[MADem]

34. That's your opinion. I happen to disagree with it. nt

[pnwmom]

59. No one needs to look up ad Hominem policy to know that his reporting

has often been sloppy and hyperbolic.

[Hissyspit]

61. Nothing to do with what I was talking about.

[Orrex]

38. Actually, that's exactly what a personal attack is

You could even call Glenn Greenwald an incompetent buffoon, an idiot, a moron, and a self-absorbed asshole--and that's not a personal attack either. A "personal" attack is directed at the person with whom you are conversing, not a third party named in a newspaper article.

You can propose that definition, but it's still incorrect. A personal attack doesn't mean you are personally conversing with the person you're attacking; it means that you are attacking the person. Calling Greenwald "an incompetent buffoon," etc. is certainly a personal attack.

Again, you can claim a different definition if you wish, but you'd be wrong, except maybe in some ridiculous postmodern "words don't really mean anything" sort of way.

Of course, as you correctly note, disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack in itself.

[MADem]

42. Sorry, I do not agree at ALL--you can only "personally" attack a person with whom you're conversing.

Anything else is just an expression of an opinion about the qualities (or lack of same) of a distant and uninvolved individual. There's nothing "personal" about it. In fact, it can be quite dispassionate. In order for an attack to be personal, the attacker and the attackee have to be engaged in combat of some sort, verbal or otherwise.

If the person being "attacked" doesn't feel the slings and barbs, is unaware of them, and goes about his or her merry way, he or she has not been "personally attacked." A personal attack achieves, as an intended result, a reaction from the person who is being "attacked."

Two people dissing a third party is just gossip or opining, not a "personal attack."

[Orrex]

45. The difference appears to be on the definition of "personal"

If we suppose "personal" to mean "direct and in person," then you're correct, and in that artificially narrow context you can indeed "personally" attack only those people with whom you are interacting.

But if instead we define "personal" as "about the person," then any attack upon the person is personal. This is the much more generally accepted definition, in my experience. It doesn't matter if the person in question doesn't know that you're doing it.


Regardless, even if we abandon "personal" altogether in this discussion, it is still an ad hominem to attack GG as a blowhard or whatever. There is some dispute as to whether this constitutes the actual ad hominem fallacy, but I'm inclined to say that it does; any attack on the person's character will have the collateral effect of damaging the credibility of his argument, even if the argument is entirely valid. Therefore attacks on the person should be limited.

[MADem]

48. You can call someone an asshole, and it can be an observation--nothing "personal."

And when you get into "attack" mode, if the person you're attacking doesn't have a fist in the fight, it's not much of an attack.

I really think the "to the man" and "about the person" AD HOMINEM FALLACY phrase needs to be balled up and flushed down the crapper. People haul it out all the time, and many--in fact, most--times, it's just not salient at all. Even worse, it's frequently misused.

Sometimes, a person's character has EVERYTHING to do with their behavior and how they conduct themselves in the world. It is central to their decision-making, and the choices they make. It is as inseparable from them as their intellect or judgment or shoe size.

Saying "Joe Blow wears a size twelve" is not a personal attack, it's not "ad hominem"--it's a factual observation. Similarly, noting a person's character or moral bona fides (or lack of same) can often not be a "personal attack" it's just part of the whole, like that shoe size or hair color, or height, and telling it like it is isn't "attacking" ---for example, it's not a "personal attack" to call Dick Cheney a mendacious shitheel--it's an observation. Mendacity is his strong suit, and he most certainly is a shitheel. And it's an accurate observation. It describes his behavior, and his character.

Again, I maintain that the purpose of an "attack" is to wound. A "personal attack" is the use of disparagement about an individual's characteristics in order to goad, bait, tease, humiliate or otherwise get a rise out of them, in order to hurt or wound them. I can call Dick Cheney a mendacious shitheel all day, he's not going to react. If I said the same thing to a DUer, I would hurt their feelings, cause them to be upset or angry, and perhaps give a jury some business.

I think characterizing third parties can survive on DU. You can call the public figures names. I think the line should be drawn at the disparagement of DUers. That's why all this Paulbot/Authoritarian stuff is so corrosive--because it's happening in our DU house, here, not out on the street.

[Orrex]

49. It's a personal attack whether or not the person is wounded

To hide behind your skewed definition is simply an act of equivocation.

The attack is personal if it is, by its nature, an attack on the person. Even if it's simply "an observation," it can still very easily be a personal attack. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.


Regardless, this is a pointless digression. The internet abounds with enlightening discussions of rhetoric, and if you're truly interested in misunderstanding the nature of personal attack, it's not my job to correct you.

[MADem]

51. Sorry--you will never get me to agree. Ever. An attack requires that the person being attacked

participate and react to the process. And I'm not equivocating, I'm telling you the very simple and unvarnished truth. You're playing with words to suit your agenda, and disregarding reality.

Calling an asshole an asshole is nothing more than an observation. If it's true, even if it's unflattering, it ain't an attack, personal or otherwise.

Amazing how no one was worried about all this "ad hominem" nonsense when Bush was in charge, but boy oh boy, gore the wrong ox, and the tears and recriminations flow!

[Orrex]

55. You are free to remain incorrect.

Calling an asshole an asshole is nothing more than an observation. If it's true, even if it's unflattering, it ain't an attack, personal or otherwise.

I accept that you don't believe that it's a personal attack, but you are still incorrect. At this point you are either willfully incorrect or else fundamentally incapable of seeing your error. Either way, it's not up to me to correct you.

You are welcome to reassert your incorrect belief; perhaps someone else will have the patience to explain it to you.

Amazing how no one was worried about all this "ad hominem" nonsense when Bush was in charge, but boy oh boy, gore the wrong ox, and the tears and recriminations flow!

Citations, please. If you expect me to answer this charge, you need to document it. I for one have never denied that a personal attack is a personal attack. I also have no particular investment in GG. Who are you addressing, exactly?

[MADem]

64. No sale -- your "personal declaration" just does not translate to fact.

No matter how hard you snark.

Have a look at post 56, if you want to belabor this conversation.

You know how to Google, go up to the top of the DU page, type in the search box Bush and ad hominem--and then read the threads. You won't see anyone crying "Oh, those AD HOMINEM FALLACIES/personal attacks against President Bush just make DU suck!"

But google "ad hominem" as a stand-alone, and you'll find it applied to any assessment of a public figure's character, behavior, conduct, intermperate comments, you name it, that irritates their acolytes.

This isn't complicated. You want to make it so, but I'm not buying.

[Orrex]

67. I agree--it's not complicated at all

An attack upon a person is a personal attack. You can pretend that it's simply "an observation," but even if it's an observation it can still be a personal attack.

Since you're keen on invoking Google, here's one for you:
Personal Attack

an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

Note also the redirect.

A personal attack is an attack on the person. There is no requirement whatsoever that the victim of the attack be part of the immediate conversation--that's your own imaginary requirement.

[MADem]

69. Your little blue link is blatantly disingenuous.

It goes to "ad hominem" which redirects from personal attack because ad hominem means much, much more than that. It refers to ARGUMENTS, which are NOT exclusively attacks.

Thanks for proving my point.



Here's an "ad hominem" fallacious example, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with an "attack."

Ed Snowden is INNOCENT! He's innocent because he has the fairest skin, the nicest eyes, and he wears polyester shirts that never wrinkle. That massive mole on the side of his neck is just dreamy, and what's not to love about that haircut of his? He wears glasses, so everyone knows he's smart. All the cool kids think he's cute, so he must have a good personality, and everyone wants to hang out with him! How anyone could think he's guilty of anything is beyond me!

Not one "attack" in that entire description--but that is an ad hominem argument.

Here is another one:

Ed Snowden is a man, so of course he's smarter than most women. He's less emotional, too and that's why he's able to handle living in Russia. I know this because I'm an astronaut, and you'll just have to take my word for it. Because he's so manly, he'll have an easy time learning Russian, and because he's tall, he'll make friends quickly.


None of that is based on any verifiable fact, it's ad hominem tripe.
It says nothing about his behaviors, his actions, his expressed opinions, his judgment--and those things are NOT ad hominem and/or personal attacks--they are demonstrated factors to be considered when coming to a conclusion about how a person conducts themself. Character is a consideration, like it or not. A reasonable person weighs things of that nature, unless they are dull of comprehension.

From your very link:

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[14]

"Reasoning"--the act of using the good sense you were born with--is not "attacking."

So, sorry--you've missed the mark, and your very own link backs up what I'm saying. You just can't sell it, because your interpretation is wrong.

[Orrex]

71. So if I were to observe that someone is a jackass who can't read...

you would accept that as an observation and not a personal attack?

[MADem]

72. You'd better be able to back it up.

And you'd better make sure that the jackass doesn't do a better job of reading your citations than you do!

[Orrex]

74. All indications suggest that I have nothing to worry about in either regard.

[MADem]

75. How nice for you that you think that. nt

[Union Scribe]

70. So it's fair to say Obama has never been attacked here. nt

[MADem]

73. Not "personally." He's been excoriated, raked over the coals, dissed, but not

"personally attacked." If he were "personally" attacked, he'd be able to "personally" respond to those attacks.

"Personal attack" is a cheapass, lame, ignorant way of trying to describe an ad hominem argument. It's used as a way to shriek "Shut the F up!" It's just not an accurate descriptor, though.

See other posts in this thread for my dissertation on this topic, I'm not repeating myself yet again.

[Hissyspit]

62. Look up ad Hominem fallacy.

[MADem]

65. You're a bit late to the fair. I know what it means, and it doesn't mean "personal attack."

Have a nice day.

[Jim Lane]

54. Two questions for you about your concept of "attack"

(1) In #31 above, Kolesar wrote, "Greenwald was a dickish Democrat-hater back when he wrote for Salon.com. I used to parry his attacks in the comment sections of his *opinion pieces* at Salon."

It seems that your definition would compel you to disagree with Kolesar. Suppose, for example, that Greenwald wrote in Salon that Democratic elected officials didn't understand the Constitution or didn't stand up for civil liberties. By your definition, those weren't "attacks" (as Kolesar calls them) as long as Greenwald wasn't face-to-face with one of these officials, or didn't do physical violence to them, or didn't say anything that provoked them to respond to him.

Mind you, I think that's silly. I agree with Kolesar that they were attacks (putting aside the question whether they were justified or not). Would you call them attacks?

(2) You write, "Expressing a disagreement or a differing view of a news story is not, and never has been, a personal attack." With that I agree. I always try to follow the standard attributed to St. Augustine: "Love men. Slay errors." (Of course I update it to be gender-neutral.)

Here's an example:
* Columnist writes, "The FISA Court's procedures are a joke and provide no meaningful protection for important rights."
* First commenter writes, "Here are some important points about the FISA Court that cut against your conclusion."
* Second commenter writes, "This columnist has often belittled Democrats and has praised Ron Paul."

The first comment is attempting to slay a perceived error. The second one is a personal attack. Now, if you carp at the phrase "personal attack", for reasons that strike me and others as implausibly strained, would you at least agree that the second comment is an example of an ad hominem argument? And would you further agree that an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy in that it does not tend to show that there was any error in the comment being criticized?

[MADem]

56. I didn't see Kolsar use the word "personal" in his sentence, did you?

Public figures don't have that shield that individuals do. If I call John Boehner a stupid fuck (and he is one--a stupid, teary fuck, really) that's a description of how, in my view, he conducts himself and does his job.

If I call YOU a stupid, teary fuck, that's a personal insult, or "attack" if you will. You would be justified in getting annoyed with me, and even responding in kind, because first, I've attacked you, personally, and second, I know that you will read my comments, that they will reach you and hurt you and cause a reaction. I've thrown a punch, aimed at you, personally, and CONNECTED.

As I've said, "ad hominem" as a term needs to be flushed, it is NOT a synonym for "personal attack," though some seem to think it is and they trot it out triumphantly at every opportunity. It roughly translates as "to the man" -- but the characteristics of individuals DO impact how they conduct themselves in public life, they are part and parcel of the assessment of any public figure, and commenting on them in the context of how public figures do their job is simply opinion, commentary--it's not "attacking." Personally, or otherwise. Why? Because the public figure won't hear the individual comments, won't read them, and won't be impacted by them on a personal, individual basis.

If someone says "Anthony Weiner waves his penis about and emails pictures of it to strangers!!" by your standards, that's a "personal attack" because those things, like your examples of belittling Democrats and praising Ron Paul, aren't nice things to do in polite society. But that's not a personal attack--he does do those things with his penis--it's the truth. Sometimes truths are not kind. Opinions can be that way too, but it doesn't make them PERSONAL.

When the general says "We attack at dawn," he doesn't point the army in a direction that leads away from the enemy--he points the troops AT the enemy and he engages them. When they're "attacked," they know it. It's not some vague concept. In order to be "personally attacked" you have to PERSONALLY feel it.

This is why your conclusion that second commenter's statement is a personal attack just doesn't hold up. It may be a dumbass opinion, but he's not addressing the columnist, he's providing his take on the quality of the columnists's work by citing his conduct as expressed in his writing--his belittling of Democrats and his praising of Ron Paul. These things can be proved or disproved by reviewing the columnist's work. It might be an erroneous assessment--or maybe not--but that's for the person making the call to back up, or not.

Now, if First Commenter comes back and says to Second Commenter, "You lying sack of shit--you're deliberately misrepresenting the columnist because you're an ASSHOLE lying shitbird!" well, that's a personal attack, because it's aimed AT Number Two FROM Number One, with a reasonable certainty that the name-calling will connect, Number Two will be aware of it, and Number Two will FEEL it.

I find your view, that taking note of a public figure's behavior is a personal attack, implausibly strained to the point of incredulity. It is not personal because I have no relationship--personal or otherwise-- with the public figure, and it's not an attack because the "target" of the opinion doesn't know a thing about it.

I'm sorry, but you have not made your case with me, not even slightly. You are confusing robust criticism of public figures with personal insults directed towards private individuals with a goal to hurt their feelings. They just aren't the same thing.

[Jim Lane]

91. Political candidates are a separate issue.

To take your example, suppose someone makes a disparaging comment about Weiner's texting or some other aspect of his sex life. Certainly that's a personal attack, whether or not it's true. Is it the ad hominem fallacy? If it's in response to "During the Congressional debate about ACA, Weiner made a great point about the health insurance industry when he said...." then, yes, it's the ad hominem fallacy, because Weiner's sexting has no relationship to the validity of his policy analysis. OTOH, if it's in response to "Weiner has exhibited good judgment and is the best candidate for Mayor," then it's not a fallacy because the issue is Weiner's character, not the truth or falsity of any particular statement.

So, when I talked about avoiding personal attacks, I see now that I wasn't being precise enough. I meant it in the context of assessing the truth or falsity of someone's statement. In that context, ad hominem arguments are generally fallacies.

The exception would be if credibility were at issue. If there's a good-faith dispute about truth or falsity, and it rests in part on the speaker's own testimony, then statements like "this columnist always has it in for Democrats" or "this climate change researcher is paid by Big Oil" are still personal attacks, but they're relevant. I haven't followed the Snowden/Greenwald/NSA reporting in great detail, but I have the impression that Greenwald's criticisms do NOT rest primarily on matters as to which he's asking us to take his word concerning a fact. For example, if the facts about the FISA court are undisputed, and Greenwald opines that the safeguards are a joke while an Obama administration lawyer opines that they're marvelous, that's not an issue of credibility. Each argument should be assessed on its merits, not based on its source.

You write, "You are confusing robust criticism of public figures with personal insults directed towards private individuals with a goal to hurt their feelings." No, I'm not. You see it that way because you have a definition of "personal attack" that I (and, apparently, others) find unduly narrow. Your example comments about Boehner and Weiner are personal attacks in what I think is the most common understanding of that term.

I asked you about your definition of "attack" because, in your #51, you didn't limit your statement to personal attacks. You wrote: "An attack requires that the person being attacked participate and react to the process." That appears to me to require you to disagree with Kolesar's #31, even though Kolesar didn't specify "personal" attack. This doesn't mean I belong to some weird Kolesar infallibilty cult. I was simply trying to understand how you were using these various terms, and took that post as an example to ask you about.

[MADem]

92. Any public figure; anyone "in the news" is fair game.

However, it is possible to be trying to avoid the subject, which is why some people bring up personal traits--that's not an "attack," though--it's just a way of saying "I got nuthin'....let me bring this up and see if I can get it to stick and make my opponent cry Uncle." Some people like to shorthand this technique with snark about "shiny objects."


Your example of responding to Weiner's comments during the ACA debate with "Yea, but Weiner's penis..." isn't an attack, it's a DISTRACTION. It is an attempt to change the subject by bringing up a topic that is not related to the issue under discussion, the very narrow issue of the ACA. You can't "attack" with the truth--you can merely apply it inappropriately. Yes, Weiner's penis may not have a thing to do with the ACA, but it's not a lie that he waved it about like John Phillip Sousa's baton! He may have gotten a "C" in Eighth Grade Gym Class, too, and bringing that up in the context of the ACA is also a distraction--but it is not an attack.

Again, if "This columnist has it in for Democrats" and "That researcher was paid by Big Oil" are TRUE, and they apply to the context of the discussion--that's NOT an attack. It's not. It is a truth, and would fall under the "ad hominem REASONING" rubric, and it is entirely appropriate in political/environmental discussions.

I still maintain, that for an attack to be PERSONAL (not 'to the man' but PERSONAL) it has to hit the personal target who is the object of ire. If a person isn't aware of the words of the attacker, then it's not personal. It's just the attacker mouthing off to a third party about that other individual.

The problem here is that many people at DU have somehow wedded the phrase, AD HOMINEM (to the man), with ATTACK. Then, to ice the cake, they have made the leap that the term"ad hominem" means "personal"--when it doesn't. That is sloppy scholarship. That phrase does not mean what people think it means, and the words in it don't always go together. Sometimes, as that "gotcha--only didn't" wiki link in this thread notes, ad hominem reasoning is not only appropriate but elucidative. Alternatively , "ad hominem praise" --golly, PRAISE--what could be wrong with that?-- (George Bush was a great President because he is physically fit and artistic; plus, he loves Scottie dogs! Wheeeee!) can be moronic in the extreme. And distracting. And noxious! And most importantly, POINTLESS to the discussion at hand.

We humans don't operate outside our morals and character. They are part of the scene, and it's appropriate to use our "reasoning" talents to note them and see how they fit into the big picture. Kolesar's "attack"--if we want to get technical--was not an "attack" at all. It was an argument, based on his reasoning as to the character of the individual in question.

This discussion has shown why I'd love to see that overused ad hominem phrase flushed down the toilet once and for all, and the phrase "personal attack" limited to instances where someone here on DU "personally attacks" another person, also here on DU.

Not every discussion of personal traits is an "attack." Not every NEGATIVE discussion of personal traits is an "attack," either. And it ain't "personal" unless the attacker is getting up close and personal with the attackee.

[iamthebandfanman]

24. nope. n.t

[Skidmore]

25. No.

It is not. Greenwald has earned that type of criticism and everyone has a right to their opinion as to the allegations he makes and the manner in which he presents them.

[morningfog]

28. I wouldn't think so. Greenwald is definitely

a huge self promoter. But, he is effective at keeping the story in the news, even if you dislike his approach. I'm indifferent. I also don't find his approach as loathsome as others, nor do I think it is a net harm to issue. I am also not some kind of fan. I do enjoy the way he seems able to irk those who need irking.

[last1standing]

30. Nothing wrong with opinion unless it's stated as fact...

Followed by insults and other dehumanizing tactics meant to degrade and humiliate the subject and those who don't agree with your opinions.

I'm not saying you've done such things, only that there is a big difference in stating someone isn't a good journalist and calling them "Snowglen," "GiGi," or the "Professional Left's pimp." One shouldn't expect to have their opinions taken seriously after spewing insults of that nature.

[1awake]

32. It doesn't matter really if they held Miranda

because of intimidation tactics or because they thought he had US documents (which would be weird). Either way, it was a complete dumbass thing to do and played right into the "Government Abuse" sides hands. I personally believe it was a little bit of both.

[Bradical79]

33. When it's used as misdirection

Yes, it is. And in general, the complaints about Greenwald have been much more hyperbolic and sloppy than anything he has been claiming.

As for your specific problem with him here, I don't see how calling it intimidation is hyperbolic or sloppy in the least. The vast majority of the time, when a journalist is detained it is for the purposes of intimidation. And not just to intimidate the journalist detained, but anyone else who might be involved in reporting. Using terrorism law to detain people not involved in terrorism sounds like intimidation to me.

[chimpymustgo]

39. What has been sloppy about Greenwald's reporting? This OP is SLOPPY AND HYPERBOLIC.

The UK CLEARLY was trying to intimidate Miranda under some bullshit TERROR laws.

Stunning that DU'ers would be suckered by this Cheneyesque, authoritarian thuggery.

[randome]

40. Trying to launder stolen documents through the U.K. is kind of a big deal. And a crime.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

58. And yet, he somehow slipped through their hands. After they released him.

Looks like you're wrong again. You may want to "wait for all the facts" to come in.

[grasswire]

85. three untruths in one post!

A new record for you.

[SidDithers]

41. Nope, not a personal attack at all. It's the truth...nt

Sid

[Enrique]

43. a lot of it is personal, but not about Greenwald

it's about Obama.

Do people really have a problem with Greenwald's reporting, or with Matt Damon's attitude toward Brad Pitt? No, they just bring these things up because they said something about Obama that they didn't like.

[Blue_Tires]

46. Not at all

I'm a former journalist, and while GG's investigative reporting has been stellar (along with his admirable willingness to call out weaklings in the mainstream media), his journalistic ethics, professionalism, ego, martyrdom complex, and surprisingly thin skin have left a lot to be desired...I also have an issue personally with the "drip" nature of the leaked info; I'm interested in knowing what they know and don't like waiting for the next "episode" of NSA info with all of GG's drama queen filler in-between...

[Safetykitten]

50. That's the problem these days. Whistleblowers and truth seekers with no style. Now if...

I could suggest, he would be better positioned if he was on "Good Morning America" say like this morning, as Lady Gaga's pal, and they talked about where they went the night before.

"So you two guys went to some clubs in Manhattan last night! Tell us all about it, and also, I understand you have some very special information about our government spying on us, so first, did you both have fun last night?"

[Agnosticsherbet]

52. Only if you don't back it up with links to "sloppy and/or Hyperbolic" reports.

Otherwise, it is an opinion used to attack the individual.

[ZombieHorde]

53. Depends on how the claims are used.

This would be an ad hominem...
"GG made a claim in 2001 that was based on sloppy reporting, therefore the NSA story is sloppy."

This would not...
"GG's claim X isn't supported by anything, and the conclusions he drew from that claim don't really follow what we currently know."

[MNBrewer]

57. I wouldn't call it a "personal attack". I'd call that claim wrong.

[Cha]

63. No, and hell NO. I don't trust greenwald. And, I'm not the only one..

snip//

"The thing we have been most concerned about is that the people who have influence over Ed will try to use him for their own means," Mattie Fein, the wife and spokeswoman of Lon Snowden's attorney, told WSJ. "These guys have their own agenda here and we aren't so sure that it has Ed's best interest in mind."

She is referring to Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange."

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Edward-Snowden-s-Father-Doesn-t-Trust-His-Son-s-4736926.php

[Andy823]

82. No you are not the only one.

I think his family has every right to be worried. Snowden is the one who is trouble so far, and he is the one that will be doing the jail time, not Greenwald, at least not yet. If Snowden ever does go to trial, I wonder if you will start talking about who has been behind this whole scandal, and who pushed him to break the law. I honestly think Snowden had political reasons, but who else was involved and what were there motives?

[Cha]

87. Oh yeah, Snowden's family is not worried for nothing, Andy.

Greenwald and Assange are only out for themselves.

[alarimer]

68. No, it's just a lie.

The truth is likely far scarier than even he has been saying.

[Oilwellian]

76. Indeed n/t

[OregonBlue]

77. No, it's not. Anything GG writes should always be viewed skeptically and taken with a grain or even

a cup of salt. He's so unprofessional, it's always about him. He conveniently left out the part about his partner carrying stolen classified information. Gee, who'd of thunk GG would leave out the important stuff and make it about him? Anyone who's paying attention.

[uhnope]

78. No it's not personal to show he's not professional, not honest and is motivated by

his issues and ODS

[Thinkingabout]

80. GG has degraded his integrity with his reporting and now I do not believe him, it has also

Lessened the integrity of the Guardian. If they remain printing stories from GG will turn it into just another rag magazine in the check out line. Yes this whole crappy story as been GG's to make or break and he has broke this one which will not be fixed. He must think he is a legend in his own mind, wrong.

[UTUSN]

89. I'll K&R this, or, as it will be said, "Predictable" n/t

[treestar]

90. No, but his fans seem to think he should be immune from criticism

Who knows why.

He's telling them what they want to hear, I think. So criticizing him means it might not be as they want it to be.

[Jim Lane]

93. Your post would be more accurate if "he" meant Obama.

I sometimes agree with Greenwald, sometimes disagree, but usually find him worth reading either way. If that qualifies me as one of his "fans", so be it.

People haven't said he should be immune from criticism. The far more common point has been that the so-called "criticism" is, all too often, the ad hominem fallacy -- dredging up criticisms of Greenwald as an individual as a way of distracting attention from the substance of what he's written.