We’ve had a few posts up lately about the adversarial paradigm of argument (links:Â one, two). Today will be another one. The others discussed the problems resulting from treating arguers as opponents, today’s will discuss the problems in not viewing them this way (when appropriate.
Vox.com ran an article on CNN, where it blamed them for treating politics “like a sport.”
In an interview with the New York Times Magazine, CNN president Jeff Zucker described the networkâ€™s approach to covering politics, saying, â€œThe idea that politics is sport is undeniable, and we understood that and approached it that way.â€ That politics-as-sport approach has placed a heavy emphasis on drama, with much of CNNâ€™s programming revolving around sensationalist arguments between hosts, guests, and paid pundits.
That fighting-based approach to covering politics has created a huge demand for Trump supporters willing to appear on the network, which is why CNN hired Trump supporters like Jeffrey Lord and Kayleigh McEnany to defend Trump full time.
Another dominant metaphor for argument is war: arguers are adversaries, positions are attacked and defended. Â It’s similar to sports, but the focus is not on the entertainment of the spectator (I hope), but rather on the viciousness of the contest. Scott wrote a paper on this.
In both cases the focus is not on the quality of the reasons, but rather on some external features–either the joy of the audience in the case of sport or the ability to extract concessions in the case of war.
This is generally bad news for arguments. But not all arguments are about truth telling, as the author supposes:
All of this would be fine and normal for a network like ESPN â€” but when you treat politics like a sport, you end up with news coverage that cares more about fighting and drama than it does about serious truth telling.
I’d be happy to find out when CNN had ever been about serious truth telling. Â But seriously, the context of these CNN discussions is scandal and audience-driven (because of advertising, the need to pay Wolf Blitzer millions of dollars, etc.). This should be a clue as to their focus.
So, in CNN’s defense, they specialize in a subgenre of argumentation called the quarrel. The point of the quarrel is not to settle the truth of some proposition but rather to air grievances. The problem really consists in the viewers (and participants) thinking that this is supposed to be an argument.