I love Latin.
This is not Latin, but it's clever. And the example is on the today's topic. It's enthymematic argumentation. I think you'll appreciate its specialness.
"In this Washington Post piece, media scholar Paul Waldman explains the technique used by the Bush administration to suggest that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks:
In an enthymeme, the speaker builds an argument with one element removed, leading listeners to fill in the missing piece.
On May 1, speaking from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. . . . With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." This is classic enthymematic argumentation: We were attacked on Sept. 11, so we went to war against Iraq. The missing piece of the argument -- "Saddam was involved in 9/11" -- didn't have to be said aloud for those listening to assimilate its message.
Waldman also takes the media to task for not calling the administration on its deceptive and suggestive rhetoric---their lies, in other words.
When politicians or government officials lie, reporters have an obligation not only to include the truth somewhere in the story or let opponents make a countercharge, but to say forthrightly that the official has lied. When a politician gets away with a lie, he or she becomes more likely to lie again. If the lie is exposed by vigilant reporters, the official will think twice before repeating it.
By the way, Waldman and his colleague Kathleen Hall Jamieson are the authors of the book The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories that Shape the Political World, which examines the ways in which important stories are "framed" by reporters. For example, the story of the 2000 election was framed by many journalists as a contest between Al Gore, the knowledgeable, but untrustworthy V.P and George W. Bush the dim-witted, but straight-shooting Texan. Such a frame obscures the fact that both candidates were guilty of misleading voters, and it often crowded out substantive, critical reporting on policies proposed by the candidates." |
