Romney and the Gish Gallop or How Fact Checking doesn’t Work (Young Turks)

Cenk Uygur explains Romney’s apparent debate strategy, and explain why the media’s on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand approach obscures how outrageous the strategy is. Cenk has some fun with CNN’s, let us say generous, treatment of Romney’s misrepresentations.

For more on the Gish Gallop click here.

8 Responses

  1. I’ve posted this in comments before and I will post it again. The GOP strategy is to carpet bomb any opposition with such a shit storm of crazy, cruel, stupid policies and statements that one doesn’t know where to start and any intelligent and compassionate discussion of issues is rendered impossible.

    CO2 is good for the plants; Star Wars will work; we know where the WMDs are; bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran; health care is not a fundamental right. And since the media has decided that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, lets give plenty of air time to climate deniers, war mongers, etc.

    Remind me, what is the half way compromise on torture? On gross wealth inequality? On childhood malnutrition? On environmental degradation? On Justice?

    Good f*****g grief!

    Not in my life time, but some day this country will come to its senses, and then we will see the likes not just of Dick Cheney and the Koch brothers in the docket, but plenty of their media toadies from their propaganda ministry too.

    Good night, and good luck.

  2. Speaking of Republicans “going ballistic,” when Harry Reid joshed them with his “Romney paid no taxes” routine they went nuts. All Reid was doing was trying to flush Romney out. He pokes him with this and the Repubs go nuts. Yet they, the Repubs, routinely pull this kind of stuff all the time. Aren’t the Dems owed at least one blatant untruth, at least in fun?……. Oh, if politics weren’t so serious then it would all be just one great joke…….

    (Which does not mean to say that the Dems never tell a lie…. Hah!)

  3. The simple-minded, “always two sides to an argument,” and “balanced coverage” are the untenable tenets responsible. But how do you get past them, and the commitment it takes to genuinely appreciate an issue enough to know when you’re being manipulated?

    Consider the global warming “controversy.” How much of a controversy is it when 99X members of the National Academy of Scientists, from a diverse range of disciplines to get the proper perspective, agree we have a problem. Well, come up with a half-dozen contrarian crackpots to dispute them and you can contrive a controversy in need of “balanced coverage,” to drive your network ratings.

    Lets be practical.

    Step One: Outlaw television.

    • There is always that possibility that science may be wrong. That’s what the deniers exploit.

      Considering the stakes involved we ignore science’s warnings at our peril.

      After all, though science may be wrong, we know what motivates most of its deniers. And that is far more convincing and apparent than any of the arguments against science…….

  4. Thank you so much for this commentary!

    Even as my President was savaged by everyone from his staunch enemies to his most ardent supporters, I just KNEW something was afoot.

    I gave myself carpal tunnel trying to fact check that night and the next day I discovered this Gish Gallop.

    It’s unethical. And it does not work very well now that there is this blasted internet and all these infernal facts at our fingertips.

  5. I’m afraid the President is going to need to gallop right over Romney’s back at the next debate no matter how un-presidential it may seem.

Comments are closed.