« Do divided parties matter? | Main | Protecting the Clinton brand at all costs »

May 27, 2008


The "whiggism" fallacy is so common in journalistic meta-accounts of events (like Klein's) that I don't think the journalists know they are undulging in it. It seems to function as a perfectly acceptable trope for the entire profession.

Other than strictly factual reporting (which does happen), I wonder if virtually all journalistic commentary (like Klein's) isn't defined by epistemological fallacies like whiggism.

Mightn't it be one of the things that distinguishes journalism from well written history?

The comments to this entry are closed.