BUSTED! JOURNALIST DANIEL GLICK EXPOSED BY
PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR. "Because the truth isn't always profitable" - The
Story Group Ethics Alert Author
By Michael Roberts of Rexxfield
"Although it is somewhat torturous to read, Michael's logical analysis of Glick's article is a masterpiece."
~JBS
How this response works:
Text displayed in BLACK or RED is the original story as published (after the article title below). The BLACK
text is content that does not require a response; RED text represents Glick’s lies, spin or innuendo for which a response is
demanded.
NOTE:
To avoid confusion, the article excerpts are all italicized and indented just
like this, with challenged excerpts in red.
Text displayed in BLUE express my response
to each published lie.
This is just the first example of a lie by Reporter Daniel Glick. The comprehensive explanation is available here: Reporter Daniel Glick Embarrassed by logical colonoscopy of his inaccurate attack piece by private investigator.
Response to: “I MARRIED A MURDERESS” by
Daniel Glick
Published Date April 20, 2013 Sydney Morning Herald
On the
surface, it's a straightforward enough scenario: an Aussie dad locked in an
international custody battle with his homicidal American ex-wife. But as Daniel
Glick discovers, the truth is a whole lot murkier.
A combination of logical fallacies were
used by journalist Daniel Glick in the above article summary as described
below:
(1)
APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO
a.
APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating
it outright. In this example the overly specific nature of the innuendo. The
structure of the fallacious argument looks like this:
DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:
a.
Michael Roberts is
somehow suspect, even though Daniel Glick does not make (or justify) a direct
statement of accusation.
DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:
a.
The innuendo has no
supporting evidence except for other logical fallacies such as an appeal to
authority, and guilt by association.
b.
Whereas, I implicitly
told Daniel Glick during the interview that "the truth behind the story is
incredibly convoluted". Daniel Glick's use of the word "discovers”
implies that he is responsible for his revelations. Whereas, he did not
discover the truth, he simply verified my contention that the case is
convoluted (i.e. "Murkier").
c.
MOTIVE: Daniel Glick
needs the reader and his editor to believe that he discovered something new to
validate his status as an "Investigative Journalist" and to justify
the fee paid to him for the story.
(2)
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
a.
AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY,
also known as an argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), it
is argued that something is true; because someone of authority (like an
investigative journalist) says it is true.
DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:
a.
Daniel Glick says X is
true
b.
Daniel Glick is an
authoritative source
c.
So X must be true
DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:
a.
Daniel Glick and his
Editor Ben Naparstek have, according to evidence published by peers,
demonstrated a propensity to publish lies and what peers describe as “hatchet
pieces” and/or “inaccurate attack pieces”
(3)
ASSOCIATION FALLACY
a.
AN ASSOCIATION FALLACY
is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red
herring, which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities
of another, merely by an irrelevant association. It is sometimes referred to as guilt by association. Association
fallacies are a special case of red
herring, and can be based on an appeal
to emotion.
DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:
a.
Michael is associated
with the Richter Murder case
b.
Michael is also
associated with the Zuckerman case, which is “murky”
c.
Therefore, Michael’s character
must be murky.
DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:
a.
What is true of one
thing is not necessarily true of the other.
