When you lead with a personal attack—calling Ken Ham the “Ayatollah of Appalachia”—it’s a good bet the article doesn’t get any better. I’m guessing that back in the days when “logic” was taught in schools, pulling that stunt would get you an instant F in college rhetoric.
(difference between this and a hit piece; hit pieces are traditionally written to be biased without making it completely obvious that the writer is biased—you have to be “in the know” to figure out the writer had the article written before he talked to any sources. I don’t know what you would call this….well, at least I don’t know any printable terms for this)
Discussion
NewBasically a slanted "hit piece"
Basically a slanted “hit piece”
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewNot just a hit piece
When you lead with a personal attack—calling Ken Ham the “Ayatollah of Appalachia”—it’s a good bet the article doesn’t get any better. I’m guessing that back in the days when “logic” was taught in schools, pulling that stunt would get you an instant F in college rhetoric.
(difference between this and a hit piece; hit pieces are traditionally written to be biased without making it completely obvious that the writer is biased—you have to be “in the know” to figure out the writer had the article written before he talked to any sources. I don’t know what you would call this….well, at least I don’t know any printable terms for this)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.