This article begins by noting how "In 2003 nearly half of all Americans falsely assumed that the U.S. government had found solid evidence for a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. What is more, almost a quarter of us believed that investigators had all but confirmed the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." It then asks the important question: "How did the true situation in Iraq become so grossly distorted in American minds?" Good question--but unfortunately the authors depart from science almost immediately in answering it by saying they 'do not think" what they note many other do: that such misconceptions can be attributed to "a politically motivated disinformation campaign to engender support for the armed struggle ... More »

This story should get a big "duh-uh-uh" as the response. Two ivory tower academics want to teach us about variations of the straw man, and reveal unto us that it is a technique being used in the current political scene. Duh-uh-uh! Then they actually tell us they don't think "the deceptions are premeditated." Are you fricking kidding? Somewhere right now Karl Rove is high-fiving one of his minions saying, "See, I told you they would never pin it on us!" News flash: A lot of us (I don't know the percentage) have been watching this kind of manipulation of public opinion for seven years, recognizing the logical/psychological games being played, and wondering why the rest of you seem to have blinders on. What you need to do is ... More »

Excellent guidelines to help people determine when they are being duped by false statements made through the media. The article describes accurately and thoughtfully some of the common techniques used to spin information, such as the so-called 'straw man' argument or 'weak man' tactics. This should be required reading for all news consumers.

An important read for NewsTrust reviewers and media consumers generally. The authors cogently lay out two kinds of argument structures, and then presents excellent examples that draw out both structures (the 'straw man' and 'weak man').

Excellent article pulling very astute examples of both "straw man" and "weak man" arguments and explaining how they work. although the author could have pulled one more example from the left side of the political fence.

This is not such a good story. The strawman argument is well-known, so, if the point of the article was to target it to a wider audience, then, the article could have done a better job of explaining this. The first half of the article discusses strawmen arguments that politicians make -- whereas the article is titled "how the media messes with your mind". There is also not much evidence to the claim that misconceptions are not premeditated, or were not the result of a politically motivated disinformation campaign. That is a strong claim that is passed off without any evidence. The article is titled "How the Media Messes with your Mind". One would think, going by the title, that the article is going to be an insightful analysis ... More »

The article is a good simple tour of the idea of straw man arguments and weak man arguments that might be presented in a debate class, propaganda class, or logic class. It has the potential of making better news consumers of those not familiar with the techniques. However, I disagree with the article's belief that the deceptions were not premeditated. I believe they were premeditated, and fit better with the view of Naomi Klein.

This article doesn't begin to cover the number of ways politicians lie and mislead. Speaking of the claimed Iraq-al Quida link and WMDs, the authors say "We do not think the deceptions were premeditated," which sounds naive to me. We need more thorough and knowledgeable work on political deception

It is good journalism. It is important and relevent to an audience that presumably would like to know if/when they are being duped. The two methods of distortion are presented clearly using examples applicable to each/both sides of the most common of political opponents. While I disagree with the author's conclusion "We do not think the deceptions were premeditated" for several reasons (see my research), mainly that motive is primary and in each example the objective was to persuade their audience, subtly attack opposition and to win their case. Since it is concise it is limited to two tactics of deception. The best "comprehensive" and easily read source on many tactics, in my opinion, is a text book that has been around since ... More »

Has anyone ever set up a straw man and not known it? Looks intentional to me.

The weakest part of this story is the opinion in the second paragraph.

"Not even the most stalwart Bush adversaries backed an immediate troop withdrawal." Really? None? Then blaming the media for the Straw Man tactics used by presidents in *speeches.* And they call themselves Scientific.

And of course, we can't expect 'the (constitutionally protected) media' to do anything resembling analysis - it's easier for them to print or repeat, or digitize or whatever, from press releases and speeches rather than looking at and evaluating actual content!

For Scientific American, a magazine I have, as a scientist, read for many years and respect highly (although I do not subscribe to SA MIND), this assessment strikes me as a rather shallow analysis that, more crucially, fails to take into account major influences on the judgments made by the press and the public. To suggest that the deceptions were not "premeditated" seems an unwarranted selection of the motivations involved. "Premeditation" by the publics or the media had nothing to do with the run up to the Iraq war. The White House and two right wing "think tanks" premeditated, planned, and then engaged in a very deliberate and massive propaganda effort to deceive the public and promote the invasion of Iraq well ahead of the ... More »

A fine analysis of the maniuplation of the media through the "straw man" and "weak man" fallacies. One hopes this is covered in Freshman or Sophmore English or Logic as a University-wide required class -- but alas, too many Americans don't know argumentation. These two particular tricks, however, seem to define political speech for the past decade at least and ANY discussion of it is a good thing.