Ad Bloginem

After reading Eugene Kane's piece today titled, "Blogging gives everyone a voice," I found myself wondering: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, how on earth does it become the subject of a newspaper column?

I could go on for a while citing the various contradictions in today's article, but I'd really like to focus on what, I felt, was the most misdirected statement of all:

He writes, "You must have a strong stomach and backbone if you find yourself the target of their vitriolic attention. After writing a column for 10 years, I've developed a pretty thick skin when it comes to personal attacks."

I'd like to point out to Mr. Kane that while he correctly uses "vitriolic" in a sentence, he incorrectly uses it to describe what blogs like ours are doing when we critique his columns.

To be sure, for a good example of a personal attack, I would direct you to the email he wrote about Jessica McBride. In it he stated, among other things, "Her viewpoint is that of a naive right-wing commentator trying to make it big in the blogosphere by taking shots at former colleagues."

If that's not a personal attack, then I'd like to know what is.

Conversely, when a reporter incorrectly covers a story, and that's brought to light, it's not a personal attack.

When a blogger asks, in the face of a local tragedy, why a reporter decides to cover the YMCA, it's not a personal attack.

And lastly, when a reporter unleashes his fury on a blogger, and another blogger writes about it, it's not a personal attack.

As a student of argument, I know that ad hominem arguments and other informal fallacies are tools used by the weak, or rather, by those with a weak case. As such, I tend to stay away from them.

Nevertheless, and at the risk of participating in a, "long-winded exercise in self-congratulatory rhetoric," I'd like to thank Mr. Kane for taking the time to show his readers just how much we in the blogosphere have been able to irritate him. Maybe some of our comments will actually make a difference and he will take some responsibility for the things he writes as opposed to his usual method of ad hominem responses.

I'd also like to congratulate Mr. Kane on birthing what, I believe, is a new informal fallacy: ad bloginem

ad bloginem - Appealing to the location of a source as being unworthy, such as a blog (see weblog), as opposed to confronting the argument put forth by said source.

Usage Note: That blogger wrote that 2 +2 equals 4. How can we trust this blogger's facts when s/he isn't a noted journalist who's had a column for 10 years?!

Usage Note 2: Nobody checks your credentials -- or your credibility -- at the blogosphere door.

Mr. Kane, 2 +2 always equals 4, regardless of who's writing it, or where it's being written.

Welcome to the blogosphere.