The Reflector

Mr. Watson,

The subject of your article should be the fear that if you openly and directly criticize Mr. President Elect Obama that your career as journalist is over, that you will be black-listed as evidenced by Obama's and the Democratic party's behavior of kicking off journalists from his campaign airplane whose newspaper endorsed McCain and who also during the course of the election campaign began to black list journalists who had the fortitude to ask probing and serious questions about Obama and Biden. This is the behavior of dictators and not the proper behavior for what American Presidents are supposed to represent (i.e. Freedom of Speech). At least Mr. President Bush never blacklisted journalists so that they could not ask him any tough questions in the future again.

Yeah right, Obama is SO much better than Mr. Bush or McCain and especially that Mrs. Palin lady! Oh what a utopia we now have in America and will have for the next potentially 8 years. It will be just like a fairy tale story with the king Arthur and the knights of the Round Table in Camelot! The economy will be perfect, poverty will cease to exist, racism will be vanquished, free money, free health care, free mortgages, free houses, free jobs, free speech, free food/lunch, and equal treatment will be given to all who agree and bow before lord Obama.

Journalism has died in 2008, and it may have started eight years ago. The majority of people in the media have had it out for Bush since the begining. I wonder what our enemies think of us after the media has character assasinated Bush over tyhe last 8 years? As for this election cycle the media has been in the tank for Obama,a nd they are a big reason for his win. If they had actually practiced some real journalism (like Fox News and Sean Hannity) then I doubt Obama would have gotten this far.
Now that Obama is the president, I would not be surprised if we never hear non-bais reporting on his policies and administration. Chris Mathews, of MSNBC, actually said this durring his show:

"CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that -

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency."

If you think that we are going to get actually non-bais news (except for Fow News) then you are drinking too much Obama "kool-aide".

As for the Sarah Palin issues, until this anonymous person comes out you have to his or her comments with a grain of salt.

Ryan, it is downright hilarious that you said journalism may have died eight years ago but then implied Hannity is holding the torch. Fox News, with the exception of Shepherd Smith and perhaps O'Reilly, is OBVIOUSLY in favor of Republicans. And you are, too.

Jesus Christ! Hunter S. Thompson wasn't even dead eight years ago.

And Mark, you're not talking about Freedom of Speech. Freedom of the Press.

"And if it did happen, McCain, that maverick, would have personally flown to Iran and tortured President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Vietnamese tactics right before slitting his throat."

You're an asshole.

Jed I am right in my statements. Independent non-partisan media research groups have confirmed that Fox News is the most balanced and fair news organization. An independent study found that Fox News gave equal amounts of negative media coverage about Obama and McCain, 43% a piece. MSNBC gave 72% negative media coverage of McCain and only around 20% for Obama. Other news organizations had similar amounts of coverage as MSNBC. There is a reason why Fox News dominates the ratings.

I am also correct about Sean Hannity. While the media was bowing at the feet of Obama it was Hannity and Oriely who uncovered the Rev Wright issue, the Bill Ayres issue, Resco, and Obama's bitter Americans comment. So yea while the media should have been practicing actual investigative journalism they were drinking the Obama kool-aide. The media should have been vetting Obama, instead they cheated the American people.

Obama Kool-Aid, not Obama Kool-Aide.

Gah.

Ryan, those studies probably prove nothing. They conceptualize "negative" and "positive" coverage and tally up examples. This method doesn't really say anything about the qualitative, not quantitative, subtlety of journalistic bias.

Furthermore, why don't you cite a specific study? I found one study that said Fox News was the most balanced. The study gave examples of Fox News' "positive" and "negative" coverage.

Here's one example of "positive coverage": "I've been inspired [by Obama] to believe that a new vision is possible for America." – Oprah Winfrey, FOX

Here's one example of "negative coverage": "Rudy [Giuliani] would be a great candidate if he was pro-life, but... that is an issue we
can't overcome. It's a huge handicap for him." – voter, FOX

Yes, Oprah's statement was "positive." And the voter's comment was "negative." But they say nothing about the personal bias of the journalist! "Coverage," in this context, simply means what some celebrity or official or selected person says.

But I know, and anyone who isn't lying knows, that CNN journalists typically lean Democrat and Fox News journalists typically lean Republican in subtle ways that eventually add up to give us a clear picture of where they stand. There's a reason why most Democrats you talk to hate Fox News and most Republicans you talk to love it. A study cannot tap into this phenomenon. You have to talk to people and watch the biases emerge, not narrowly define "negative" or "positive" coverage and count them up, the whole time not even measuring what we observe every day.

And yeah, Hannity is such a responsible journalist. Too bad his big story on Rev. Wright could be summed up as an idiotic argument that says association makes one guilty of some great wrongdoing. If Hannity were covering Jesus, he would say Jesus should be questioned for hanging out with greedy tax collectors and whores without looking at what Jesus actually did. It was OBVIOUS from the beginning that Obama and Wright were not the same person. But savage knuckleheads like Hannity, given their strong Republican bias, resorted to the easiest bullshit argument they could to discredit a Democratic candidate.

You wanna know why America elected Obama? Because he is a great orator, because he reached out to the youth, because he ran a smart campaign, because John McCain couldn't separate himself from George W. Bush. The media may have had a small influence, but McCain got his ass kicked hard. Americans obviously wanted a Democrat in office regardless of media coverage.

I just want to make a note on the first comment by Mark O'Neil. He said:

"Yeah right, Obama is SO much better than Mr. Bush or McCain and especially that Mrs. Palin lady! Oh what a utopia we now have in America and will have for the next potentially 8 years. It will be just like a fairy tale story with the king Arthur and the knights of the Round Table in Camelot! The economy will be perfect, poverty will cease to exist, racism will be vanquished, free money, free health care, free mortgages, free houses, free jobs, free speech, free food/lunch, and equal treatment will be given to all who agree and bow before lord Obama."

I just want to say I am not saying Obama is necessarily going to be a good president. It is likely he will do a lot of things I strongly disagree with, because he stands for the status quo no matter what he claims. For instance, I am against the Federal Reserve, and I don't know that any tax cut Obama makes will be fair to 95% of Americans. The point I was trying to make in the article was that, while an Obama presidency isn't automatically good, I think it will be different from an administration that has lowered the intelligence of us all.

Whether or not Obama will turn out to be a good president is yet to be seen, but he has already demonstrated that it will be difficult to find hilarious quirks to turn into fodder for SNL. George Bush and Sarah Palin made those writers' jobs easy. And yes, I *know* they're not journalists, but they do contribute to public opinion.

Exhibit #1: "nuclear"
Seriously, I think the entire Republican party began pronouncing it like El Presidente because it was easier than trying to retrain him.

Red Lady, are you stoned? I didn't say Hannity was a journalist. I was arguing that he IS NOT a journalist in the very post you quoted.

Journalism isn't dead, it's just terribly disfigured.

Journalism died with the birth of the printing press. The first time a man tried to explain what happened to another man bias killed the truth.

Any writer that claims this Presidency will only have the issues to talk about instead of scandals has not been around long enough, or is incredibly biased.

Obama is starting out his presidency with scandals. "Change" we get the old Clinton cabinet. Guilt by association, is a viable argument. First time, you get caught with a criminal, you may be forgiven. Second time, not so much.

Rev. Wright is not a criminal he can say whatever he wishes, I live in America. The people who come to here him speak are making a choice to choose to participate in that environment. How long did Obama know Wright, 20 years? Are Obama children capable of making the distinction of hate rhetoric that should be disregarded? Bill Ayers, clearly proud of his past and has since capitalized on it. He may be reformed from violent acts but his message has not changed. That is why he got into education and he openly admits to doing so to spread his beliefs. Neither person after meeting Obama changed or mended there ways, so Jed I do not believe the Jesus comparison works very well. The other characters can be taken down the same road.

On the idea of full disclosure and integrity in journalism, McCain was hanging around some people with poor judgement as well, and was tarnished because of it. We all seem well aware of their misgivings so I will not elaborate.

Alas, what were we to do having no journalistic integrity how could we validate the "qualification" for presidency of either one of our candidates, and now President-Elect. Good Luck, President Obama. I will give you 4 years, then everyone has to bid in again.

I also find it interesting that 3 reflector writers come to the forum to defend journalistic integrity.

Reality, I'm not defending any of the savage journalism you see every day. What you don't realize is there's plenty of good journalism out there. It's just not mainstream. "Journalism is dead" is a myopic and unfounded and whiny argument.

Not mainstream...like Hunter S. Thompson.

You're kind of slow. Thompson is dead and therefore irrelevant to a discussion on current journalism.

I also don't know what kind of idiotic game you're playing, but if you're suggesting that Thompson's style, delivery, method, and bias were mainstream, you have no idea what you're talking about. Thompson was popular, but he actively ignored conventions of mainstream journalism.

Quite well aware that Hunter S. Thompson is dead and of several pieces of his writing. Even more well known his lack of mainstream appeal but popular in the underground culture of his time. Riding with the Hell's Angels

But from your above mentioning that when Ryan said journalism probably died 8 years ago.

You stated: "Jesus Christ! Hunter S. Thompson wasn't even dead eight years ago."
Insinuating that he reported without bias. So is he your champion of journalistic integrity?

If journalism is dead, then the journalists killed it. ~Nietzsche-esque

Another interesting note is that an individual who exalts the power of words, and spent his time as an editor of a newspaper. You choose to attack people by calling them stoned, slow, whiny, or there points are idiotic. What does that say about journalistic integrity?

First of all, I'm not an editor, and this isn't a report. And remember, I was opinion editor for two years. I'm more interested in perspective than cold objectivity.

Second, everyone has bias, but that doesn't mean journalism is dead. The problem is you are assuming that objectivity is a requirement for good journalism. What you are asking for, total objectivity, is impossible. And you know what? Objectivity can be harmful, too. If one could report atrocities from a totally objective standpoint all the time, this could influence people to think of atrocities in the same detached manner.

Third, journalistic integrity is a concept that involves not only striving for objectivity but ethics and fairness and community duty. You're supposed to be serving people as a journalist, and sometimes that involves telling them what is wrong in the world by the most fair and ethical standards you can use.

In sum, you have unrealistic and dangerous expectations for journalism.

First, I said you "spent" time as an editor. Past tense not inferring the you were "The Editor". Well aware that you were the opinion editor.

Second, you admit everyone has bias. But people want objectivity that is what people want the newspapers to provide. You can argue they want entertainment but ask a few people what they expect out of journalism. Objectivity, "Fair and Balanced", "News you can trust." Alarm ism and sensational media, is what causes detachment from atrocities. Objectivity is what brings truth and allows for a reasonable conclusion. The sensational stories invoke peoples emotions and can guide them away from the real reasons of crisis. This detaches them from the reality of the crisis.

Third, you are saying it yourself journalists serve the people to tell the people what is wrong with the world by using their(journalist's) own standards and ethics. Instead, of allowing the people access to the facts and making their own judgments. Journalist are attempting to impart their ethics and standards on to the readers.

I am glad now to see that you were only the opinion editor. Your views are clearly skewed and do nothing but showcase the above comments of journalism is dead.

In sum, I do not believe that expecting the truth from people(journalists) who claim to be giving it is unreasonable.

First, you were conflating this conversation with my work as an editor. They are in no way related. Hence, I clarified I am not an editor talking to you right now.

Second, people want objectivity? That's quite the generalization. I know a lot of people who don't care about objective reporting. A strong work ethic is what leads to truth, and this takes a lot out of an individual. No human being can be completely unbiased, so it is better to be upfront than silent about these biases. That's why Hunter S. Thompson is a responsible journalist. You know when he is referring to the facts and when he is giving his own perspective. What you're asking for is the coldness that would have left an unethical monster like McCarthy alone to feast on innocent citizens.

Third, if you are upfront about any bias, the reader or viewer can still make his or her own judgment. That's the beauty of opinion articles. You can verify the research and form your own view.

Again, your expectations are unrealistic and dangerous.

Have you ever tried journalism? Because if you haven't, you really don't have any idea how hard the job already is. Journalists are people, and if you cannot accept that, you will continue to dream and reap nothing from the decent journalism that's out there.

Conflating your role as an editor of a journalistic endeavor, does hold bearing on the discussion showing how the industry works and holds itself in esteem. You are a representative of the journalistic industry, or you were. And by defending the notion of journalistic integrity and presenting your case, you are setting yourself up as an expert witness, able to offer opinions and facts, to its trial.

So people do not want the truth or objectivity in journalism, are these people your fellow journalists. It seems the commenters here, stating that "journalism is dead" would disagree with you. I am sure you can find people that want to be offered a perspective, I would consider that the entertainment part. Stop the press....

So after performing a quick survey of asking 4 people (2 coworkers, 2 randoms), "What is the most important thing in journalism?" Everyone gave similar responses of unbiased, honesty, both-sides, and timely. One random said, "Leave the bias to the opinion section so I can ignore it." Now, I would not take this as scientific.

"A strong work ethic is what leads to truth, and this takes a lot out of an individual."
Nobody said it was easy, usually honesty is the hardest path. Especially when it does not serve your own goals.

"What you're asking for is the coldness that would have left an unethical monster like McCarthy alone to feast on innocent citizens."
One small step in thinking, one giant leap in reason. This clearly shows the lack of understanding of the importance of objectivity. What Senator McCarthy did was totally unethical, and looking for the truth behind the public opinion (i.e. objectivity) exposed the evils of McCarthyism.

I never in a million years thought you would try to liken me to the "Red Scare". To even insinuate that the alarm ism and sensationalism of those times were objective is quite out there. And thus only serves to prove my point event further.

We can continue on about perspective and its entertainment value, but alas it veers from the point. You have stated that unbiased journalism was not possible. I can conclude that if it is not possible it does not exist and is dead. My point with my first statement in my first comment.

I have never been a college reporter, but I have written stories for a newspaper and used to deliver them. But to say that my opinion does not count, if I had never worked in journalism and insinuate that yours does because you did, then to reprimand me for stating your involvement in a newspaper is absurd.

I noticed a small gaffe that would lead to the misinterpretation of my meaning in the statement:

"What Senator McCarthy did was totally unethical, and looking for the truth behind the public opinion (i.e. objectivity) exposed the evils of McCarthyism."

Should be read:

"What Senator McCarthy did was totally unethical, and looking for the truth (i.e. objectivity), while ignoring the public opinion, exposed the evils of McCarthyism."

It's well known that Jed likes to see his name in print. He's a journalist, it's what he does. My question though, is for you, Mr. "Reality." Why are you here participating and provoking this asinine discussion behind a pseudonym? Do you like to see your 'nickname' in print?

No Joe, I do not seek recognition. I do not wish for fame or infamy, hence the pseudonym. I contributed to another article under the handle and just kept it. Stumbled across this article and read the comments. Thought a few Reflectees took it upon themselves to belittle a few contributors for expressing their opinions, while entirely missing the point themselves.

I probably led on more than I should have but I got a little taken back by the total disregard for objectivity in journalism. Just could not believe how blatant and nonchalant about the matter. Treating it like it was to be avoided.

Journalistic integrity insists on the unequivocal separation of personal bias and the news. The 4th estate should be held to this standard at all times. No matter the level. I may have a little left over resentment to the media over there election coverage. I do not understand how you can go 2 years and 4 debates without getting a single decent Q&A session. Both candidates were deeply flawed in my opinion but that is another subject. I digress, pray we never meet in reality I may talk your ear off.

Oh and it is kinda fun.

Joe, I don't get what you're saying. "It's well-known that Jed likes to see his name in print." Really? Is that the reason he's a journalist, or because he writes articles? To see his name written?

Is that the reason people read the news on television? To see themselves?

Talk about asinine discussions. I've known Jed for many years, and while I may not know the drive behind his comments or articles, I'm pretty sure it's not because of recognition.

Personally, I consider myself a journalist because I try to let people know about things that can impact them in their everyday lives. That's my drive.

It's certainly not to see my name stamped across a publication.

Reality, stop grasping at nonsense. The fact that I was an editor has NOTHING to do with this conversation. Furthermore, I don't represent all journalists or journalistic integrity. I am simply an individual giving my own argument about journalistic integrity. Suggesting otherwise is unnecessary and feeble.

And your survey is meaningless. Even if you were surveying a representative sample, do you think people would admit that they don't prefer objectivity in the news? In general, people like facts that can be fit around their beliefs. That's why outlets like FoxNews are so popular. If objectivity were truly a great concern for many Americans, they wouldn't settle for a lot of the crap out there, and these networks would in turn go out of business.

"Nobody said it was easy, usually honesty is the hardest path."

Objectivity and honesty are not the same. In fact, I am arguing for honesty, you are arguing for objectivity (which will ultimately fail because of our human flaws).

What Senator McCarthy did was totally unethical, and looking for the truth (i.e. objectivity), while ignoring the public opinion, exposed the evils of McCarthyism."

Your first claim is subjective (but the truth), and your second claim suggests that McCarthy was exposed by objective reporting. HE WASN'T. Ed Murrow was not objective about McCarthy, but his reporting was correct, and it influenced many Americans to have negative opinions of McCarthy.

Also, I did not liken you to the Red Scare. I said that what you want is cold objectivity. Objectivity would mean that you couldn't suggest someone like McCarthy is unethical, even if that is the truth. By supporting objectivity and nothing else, you leave villains like McCarthy alone.

Your original claim was that journalism is dead. Nothing that I have said backs that up. I have been arguing that your definition of journalism is too narrow and absurd.

Finally, I did not say your opinion does not count if you haven't been a journalist. I implied it is hard to understand the demands of the job if you're not the one doing it. In other words, I can't understand the toil of the factory worker unless I have worked in the factory. Therefore, if you have ever been a journalist, you should be able to understand that your definition of journalism and calling for absolute objectivity are myopic at best.

ATTENTION: Avoid if you do not like philosophy ramblings.

I thought by you had realized this is a philosophical argument based on the idea of journalism and how it(personifying the profession) attempts to be(live).

The idea of journalism as defined by its professional associations, vendors, employees and corporations has always been stated to provide accurate non-biased fact reporting in stories(news). This can clearly be seen in the ethics committees of professional associations (ASNE, ACP, AJR) as well as the call for ethics and review of stories. The idea of journalistic integrity clearly states that objectivity is a primary theme (wikipedia).

The being of journalism has chosen and presents is the idea of fact based reporting, based on objectivity and skepticism. This should be considered as law and resolute. This is evident in all forms. Even the Pulitzer Prize and George Polk awards promote the idea of journalistic integrity.

The idea of objectivity, what is it? Is it possible? Is it a state (of being)? Is it relative? This philosophical element is not without conflict. But define objectivity as universal truth. Can you then have a little truth and still have truth? This degree of truth is not truth. So, it is basically all or nothing. You are either objective or you are not.

As you say objectivity cannot be achieved. Not possible to have a 100% objectivity due to the human factor. I agree, from the very beginning and have stated this time and again. So, the life, the being, of journalism can not exist, and if something can not exist then it is not alive.

Therefore, journalism is dead.

The sheer fact that that you get up in arms over a trite statement like journalism is dead and then defend such a notion has been very humorous for me.

"Reality, stop grasping at nonsense. The fact that I was an editor has NOTHING to do with this conversation. Furthermore, I don't represent all journalists or journalistic integrity. I am simply an individual giving my own argument about journalistic integrity. Suggesting otherwise is unnecessary and feeble."

By choosing to defend the industry of journalism, you alone set yourself up as a representative for that side of the argument. You also have made mention of work experience in other posts bringing it into this debate.

"Have you ever tried journalism? Because if you haven't, you really don't have any idea how hard the job already is. Journalists are people, and if you cannot accept that, you will continue to dream and reap nothing from the decent journalism that's out there."

Here you ask me if I have tried journalism. And if I happen to be a person who has not then I have no idea how hard the job is. This is an attack on my inexperience in an industry for which you have known experience and alludes to my inability to fairly describe it, while setting yourself up as better equipped to answer questions on its(journalisms) behalf. Again, you brought in your journalism experience.

Nothing in this forum is necessary and has been more for fun.

"And your survey is meaningless. Even if you were surveying a representative sample, do you think people would admit that they don't prefer objectivity in the news? In general, people like facts that can be fit around their beliefs. That's why outlets like FoxNews are so popular. If objectivity were truly a great concern for many Americans, they wouldn't settle for a lot of the crap out there, and these networks would in turn go out of business."

I clearly stated it was not scientific from the beginning. Just allowed it to serve as anecdotal evidence. In discussing the popularity of Fox News, you clear state a believed generalization, impressing your beliefs on to the reader. Apparently a lot of people do care about objectivity, all the commenters and just about everyone I talk to wishes for it.

""Nobody said it was easy, usually honesty is the hardest path."
Objectivity and honesty are not the same. In fact, I am arguing for honesty, you are arguing for objectivity (which will ultimately fail because of our human flaws)."

You got me here, honesty was clearly the wrong word, I imposed my definition of the word and not the accepted. Simply replace it with objectivity.

What Senator McCarthy did was totally unethical, and looking for the truth (i.e. objectivity), while ignoring the public opinion, exposed the evils of McCarthyism."

Your first claim is subjective (but the truth), and your second claim suggests that McCarthy was exposed by objective reporting. HE WASN'T. Ed Murrow was not objective about McCarthy, but his reporting was correct, and it influenced many Americans to have negative opinions of McCarthy.

My claim was subjective, but I knew we could agree on it. Ed Murrow openly admits the way in which he exposed McCarthy was conflicting with journalistic integrity. He did railroad him using all of the communications means he could. However, it was his ability to see past the McCarthy propaganda, the public, and sensationalism, that led him to the story. The fact that men and women were being "criminalized" based on what they thought and not on their actions. Journalists can not be objective, so I agree.

"Also, I did not liken you to the Red Scare. I said that what you want is cold objectivity. Objectivity would mean that you couldn't suggest someone like McCarthy is unethical, even if that is the truth. By supporting objectivity and nothing else, you leave villains like McCarthy alone."

This is not true. You are assuming people can not use their own judgment to define unethical behavior. If I told that Man A killed Man B, because he wanted Man B's money. How do you feel about Man A? Now what about if Man B killed Man A, while Man A was trying to kill him and steal his money? How does your innate ethics allow you to perceive the situations? Given it is not an entertaining story but it proves that a story can be told(rather poorly) that allows people to use their own judgment. Obviously the details of the story will be an order of magnitude more but you get the idea. It is the inference that gets journalism in trouble. I want you to feel this way about this issue.

Your original claim was that journalism is dead. Nothing that I have said backs that up. I have been arguing that your definition of journalism is too narrow and absurd.

You said cold objectivity was not possible, due to the human factor.

"Finally, I did not say your opinion does not count if you haven't been a journalist. I implied it is hard to understand the demands of the job if you're not the one doing it. In other words, I can't understand the toil of the factory worker unless I have worked in the factory. Therefore, if you have ever been a journalist, you should be able to understand that your definition of journalism and calling for absolute objectivity are myopic at best."

You may have not stated directly that my opinion does not count but you did imply it with your comments. But I have no problem with you clearing up anything. Ah the toil of menial labor, no maybe you can not understand what it is like to be a man until you walk in his shoes. I take the myopic comment to mean I am looking at only a small portion of the journalism, not that I am small minded. I believe I am looking at the overall problem. I am not confining myself to specific instances in journalism history. I have discussed only the overall philosophy of the problem and I debated the instances you proposed (Hunter S. Thompson, McCarthy).

This has been fun, I have a few exams and papers coming up. So, if I do not reply back promptly after this give me a little time.

Reality, your comments are full of strawmen and red herrings. I was not saying my experience made my opinion right, I do not represent other journalists, and I am not defending an "industry." I already explained that, but you ignored my explanation and continue to say that I have set myself up as a representative of other journalists. You also keep saying I'm defending the journalism is dead argument. But if you would simply READ my comments carefully, you would understand my definition of journalism is different from yours and that I believe it is alive. I'm tired of arguing with you because you either cannot comprehend what I'm saying or you just don't know how to debate. So I don't care if you reply promptly.

The fundamental difference between us is that you define objectivity as universal truth, which I find absurd and tautalogical. That's why your argument is myopic.

Then lets forget the other stuff, if you believe me to be hard headed. I have also stated that your definition of journalism is skewed and believe that is where you have it wrong. So you believe my definition is wrong then you clearly define the terms in question. Do not use any of your examples.

Define Objectivity, Journalism and Journalism Ethics and Standards.

I define Objectivity as universal truth, that is not dependent upon circumstances or judgment.

Journalism defines itself in its own Ethics and Standards, in which objectivity is a major pillar.

Did you open a intro to debate book and pick out a couple of fallacies, that sounded good? I have not tried to change the subject and have asked you to clarify your position.