Logical Fallacies and Sensationalism

In the episode entitled “Reynolds vs. Reynolds: The Cereal Defense” from the sitcom
“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”, a courtroom setting was simulated to resolve a petty
conflict. This lead me to think about the Philippine courtroom and how the media, from print
media to the Internet, portrays it.

A courtroom’s special feature is that it is open to the public. All proceedings are made
public and are regarded as public information. The role of the media is to relay the proceedings
to the public who have no access to the courtroom. However, this is when the media’s greatest
weakness, sensationalism often comes in.

According to the Indian Information and Broadcasting Minister, Javadekar (2014),

"Media's biggest strength is that it can shape public opinion, and its biggest weakness is that it
falls prey to sensationalism." Sensationalism is a trait often attributed to media in general. But
here in the Philippines, it is prevalent in almost all major newspapers, news channels, and
Internet news sites. This is troublesome because the Filipino people are dramatic and
emotional. We crave sensational news. What could be more sensational than watching Sen.
Miriam Santiago explode with fury and start an ad hominem-laced verbal assault on fellow
lawmakers who dare cross her path?

The Philippine courtroom has been a great source of revenue for the media ever since
ex-president Estrada’s infamous impeachment trial. Dennis’ hopeless arguments with Mac
reminded me a lot about this case wherein the stumbling prosecution tried to convince the
judge despite their amateur display. The defense ceaselessly interrupted the prosecution and
brought out useless points to argue, stalling the case for days (The Economist, 2000).

Logical fallacies turn into illogical statements, which lead to illogical arguments. Logical
fallacies are essential in making courtroom drama good enough to make stories about.
Sometimes, it’s all in the acting abilities of the proponents of the case. A great example is ex-
Chief Justice Corona. He shocked the public when he revealed his true colors on the 40 th
impeachment hearing by blackmailing all lawmakers and walking out of the courtroom. The
term “The Corona Paradox” coined by a writer, Sillada (2012), was born that day.

Another famous case just two years ago is that of ex-Chief Justice Corona. His
infamous 40th impeachment hearing involving him signing a waiver to allow his dollar accounts
to be investigated will be remembered throughout courtroom history. He blackmailed all the
lawmakers and then excused himself from the hearing. The Corona Paradox was born that day.
(Sillada, 2012) According to the writer, Sillada, he could have gotten away with it by gaining the
sympathy of the Filipino people, but he just had to reveal his true motive. The case presents a
whole bunch of fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, bandwagon, ad hominem, tu
quoque, and red herring.

The last two cases I would like to point out is that of Napoles and Enrile. Both cases are
rich sources of logical fallacies, and they are great examples of courtroom proceedings here in
the Philippines. (Bordadora, 2013) From Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s ad hominem
statements to Napoles’ and Enriles’ appeal to emotion, the list of logical fallacies committed by
both the prosecution and defense goes on and on. Let’s not get started with the RH bill debate,
the mother lode of all fallacies.

With all the cases I have pointed out, I was curious as to how the media portrayed them,
and what I found disgusted me. With all the scandals recently plaguing our country, from the
PDAF scam to the Binay estate, the media has been continuously gaining profit from all the
stories. When the cases get too boring, or when the next scheduled hearing will happen ages
later, the stories are still there. What they do to sensationalize the cases is that they dig up the
colorful past of the accused. Sometimes they even fabricate stories or spread false rumors
concerning the case. I understand that there is competition in the media, but when it goes too
far, fooling people and playing with their emotions, the media ceases to serve its purpose: to
convey relevant and credible information. The courtroom is a serious matter, not a teleserye.
Why will we want to know that Napoles prays 2,000 rosaries a day? (Quismorio, 2014)

In conclusion, logical fallacies should be banned from the courtroom. This is in order to
save time by eliminating pointless arguments and false lines of reasoning. Instead of
announcing Sen. Santiago’s latest ad hominem attack, the media can focus on the matter at
hand. Netizens will save their time by arguing less over trivial matters. I understand that logical
fallacies can aid a debater, but there are only a few acceptable fallacies. Name-calling is not one
of them. (Whitman, 2005)
Sources:

Bordadora, Norman. (2013). Santiago accuses Enrile of committing 7 sins. Philippine Daily
Inquirer. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net

Quismorio, Ellson. (2014). Napoles prays 2,000 rosaries a day. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://www.mb.com.ph/napoles-prays-2000-rosaries-a-day/

Sillada, Danny Castillones. (2012). The Corona paradox (The truth and elegance of reasoning).
Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from http://dannysillada.weebly.com/the-corona-
paradox.html

The Economist. (2000). Courtroom melodrama. Retrieved from

http://www.economist.com/node/451400

Whitman, Glen. (2005). Logical fallacies and the art of debate. Retrieved from
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html