Top Special Offer! Check discount

Get 13% off your first order - useTopStart13discount code now!

Media spotlight and fallacies

When one assumes that an association equals causation, they are engaging in a false cause fallacy. This entails determining one event to be the cause of another (Kreider 73). It asserts that since event one happened, event two would occur, revealing a connection between the two events. The false cause fallacy can be dishonest because it does not offer a rational explanation for the outcome of events. Some people can use it as a defensive mechanism if they fail to fulfill their assigned roles. A leader can excuse himself/herself for failing to implement flood-prevention measures by claiming that the region has never experienced flooding. Greg Gutfeld in his discussion Thoughts on Terror, Again, used false cause Fallacy in his argument for 9/11 attacks, views on Muslim followers, and his views on measures taken after the attacks.
Greg Gutfeld uses false cause fallacy when he argues that if the 9/11 attack was prevented the terrorists would still attack their target on any other date (Gutfeld). This means that prevention of the World Trading Center bombing would more attacks by terrorist thus stopping one does not mean stopping the next. Again, it implies that the attackers carried out their plan effectively and accomplished their goal. As a result, they did not need to plan more attacks after achieving their objective. The measures taken after the attack aimed at ensuring that the nation was safe thus 9/11 acted as a wakeup call. According to Greg Gutfeld the measures taken after the attack prevented more attacks in the US. If the bombing did not occur, such prevention measures would not have been implemented.
False cause fallacy entails arguing that something must occur for an action to be taken by authorities. For instance, a country must experience a national disaster for it to take measures that can prevent future damages to its property, citizens, or sovereignty. False cause fallacy is evident when Gutfeld argues that the 9/11 attack was the cause of fights against Islamic terror by the US Government. If it did not happen, the Muslim terrorists would have continued trying until they accomplished their mission since the security forces would not have a reason to fight them. The citizens and the media would not have any concern for any forthcoming threat by Muslim faithful if there was nothing to link them to terror. Thus, according to Gutfeld the 9/11 attack led to measures to prevent any further attacks and catastrophes (Gutfeld). This kind of thinking has led to loss of lives and property in many countries since governments wait for disasters to happen before they can think of any preventive measures. The Muslims are also associated with terrorism leading to discrimination especially in America.
False cause fallacy can also mean that if something terrible or damaging does not take place human beings cannot foresee any danger thus cannot take steps to stop it. For instance, if floods do not happen in a country, the authorities will never think of investing in prevention measures such as construction of dams. Gutfeld argues that a crackdown on terrorists leads to shortsightedness on dangers that may be facing a country (Gutfeld). For instance, if the security agents are able to detect a crime before it happens it does not receive a lot of media attention as it would have if it happened. In this case, little effort is taken to improve security exposing a country to a more serious attack. This is false cause fallacy because crackdown on terrorists is viewed as the cause of lack of preparedness by the security department. The question is whether, a country should be attacked first leading to loss of lives and property before steps to ensure security are adopted. Therefore stopping terrorists is associated with lack of preparedness since country believes that it will continue stopping them. In addition, for any action to be taken by human beings there must be a cause or good reason since they do not foresee any danger until something terrible happens.
False cause fallacy entails arguing that one occurrence leads to another. This implies that for action B to take place A must have occurred. This may be misleading especially in situations that involve security of nations. The 9/11 attack is an example and the arguments by Gutfeld depict false cause since he argues that the attack was vital for the government to initiate security measures for the citizens. He also view Muslims as the cause of terror thus for any terrorist attack a Muslim must be involved. False cause fallacy is common among analysts who tend to correlate two actions.
_x000C_Works Cited
Gutfeld, Greg. �Thoughts on Terror, Again�. Fox News. 2017.
Kreider, A. J. "Informal Fallacies as Abductive Inferences." Logic and Logical Philosophy 25.1 (2016): 73-82.


September 11, 2021

This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.

Similar Categories