You don't expect logical
argument from politicians, but you expect at least
a crude, kindergarten level of logical analysis from the "respectable"
media (eg BBC). But apparently that's too much to ask. Tony
Blair was widely reported (eg August 2004)
making the following "argument":
The war removed Saddam Hussein.
Removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing. Therefore the war
Logically, this is equivalent to saying: "Robbing
old ladies helps to pay the rent. Paying the rent is a good
thing. Therefore robbing old ladies is justified".
Maybe Blair could attempt to construct a less flawed argument
if pressed (eg add premises/qualifications, insert logical
steps on the way to his conclusion, etc). But he isn't pressed.
BBC reporters and commentators seem incapable of even the
most elementary logical criticism (which is an entirely different
matter than issues of so-called "political neutrality",
When bad logic gets mixed with semantic
propaganda it becomes more difficult to unravel. But the
BBC employs over 2,000 journalists you'd think they
could manage a few analytical critiques of government
PR, thus helping to prevent consequences such as illegal wars.
More often they act as a mouthpiece
for that PR.