In the age of fake news, accredited journalists are faced with the mammoth task of debunking huge volumes of misinformation on a daily basis. Unaccredited conclusions, bogus claims and inappropriate lines of questioning are broadcasted to millions of people over the unregulated internet every day, without any verification by the accredited media or trusted fact-checking organizations. It is our job to discredit and distract from these lies, while offering approved narratives to replace them.
Accredited journalists employ a number of effective rhetorical writing tools to achieve this, which together are extremely powerful. Much like Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals, these tools allow progressives to dominate the media, just as they dominate academia and social activism.
Rules For Accredited Journalists
Use Double Quotes
Double quotes are an extremely effective tool for mocking and dismissing facts and positions put forward by the right. For example, if somebody refers to a study with a ridiculous conclusion such as more guns leading to less crime, you can refer to it as a “study”. This subtly indicates to the reader that it is not a real study, while maintaining plausible deniability in case someone actually calls you out on this.
Use Catch Phrases
Catch phrases are powerful rhetorical tools which add credibility to your arguments and prime people to accept your position. For example, stating that “this is the 21st century” indicates to readers that your vision is destined to be reality and its time has come, rendering your adversaries helpless to argue against it.
Shame Your Opponents
When people on the right put forward morally deplorable positions, the best thing to do is to simply shame them as morally reprehensible. Responding to these arguments with facts and evidence only legitimizes these deplorable positions and signals that it is OK to publicly express hateful views. For example, if somebody argues that sanctuary cities should be abolished, you can respond by saying “You should be ashamed of yourself – you really should know better!”.
Label Your Opponents’ Arguments
Sometimes it’s more effective to simply describe your opponent’s position in negative terms, instead of coming up with a counter-argument. For example, if your opponent is arguing for Brexit or building a border wall, you can respond by saying that “Your line of thinking creates division instead of unity, and pulls people apart when we should be building bridges between nations”.
Minimize Your Opponents’ Arguments
It’s important to use adjectives that weaken your opponent’s position and make their concerns appear insignificant. For example, if an Islamophobic bigot is condemning Muslims for a series of terrorist attacks, you can refer to the attacks as “rare and isolated incidents”.
Dismiss Your Opponents’ Arguments
In many cases, it’s best to simply dismiss your opponent’s position altogether, by stating something like “That is so ridiculous that I’m not even going to entertain it with a response” or “If you don’t even understand that <insert progressive position here> then you’re not even worth talking to”.