Devon Dick's faulty reasoning on Watch Night
published: Saturday | January 11, 2003
Charlene Devereaux, Contributor (In a letter to the Editor)
IF I am reading the Reverend Devon Dick accurately in his column dated January 7, 2003, a syllogism of his article would be: All events which command the largest crowd are given substantive media coverage. Watch Night services commanded a larger crowd than New Year's Eve balls. Therefore, Watch Night services should have had substantive media coverage.
One of the things I have learnt about arguments by deductive reasoning is that although seemingly logical, they invariably lead to faulty conclusions when they are based on faulty or inaccurate premises.
Rev. Dick premised that the media prioritise their stories based on numbers at an event. The little I have learnt from journalism is that what makes news is, "man bites dog; not dog bites man", and the much I have learnt from the realities of the media landscape of profitability and competitive advantage, where numerous entities now grapple to hold on to their portion of the readership, listenership and viewership is that what sells is what, in most instances, gets priority. It probably does not augur well for the future of journalism, but it is the reality called survival.
Reports on Watch Night services with the usual singing, clapping, preaching, which you named, Reverend, are nothing out of the ordinary and do not sell. Beats me how the Reverend deduced that the media coverage of New Year's Eve Balls is a glorification of materialism and a failure to discern the importance of the spiritual, a disregard for the activities of the majority at the expense of the minority... The argument is a non-sequitur. The Love Herald, a niche market Christian newspaper, failed to give substantive coverage to Watch Night services. Should I then, using similar premises, draw a similar conclusion?
I, too, would be guilty of faulty deductive reasoning were I to conclude that the Reverend's hasty justification of Love TV's un balanced coverage of New Year's Eve activities reveals his prejudices. I ask the reverend gentleman, if they had the resources to do so, does he honestly think that Love TV would have broadcast live from the Hilton or Kenny Benja-min's? The Reverend topples his own argument in stating that Love TV caters to a niche audience (so) it HAD TO go for a church. That's the law of demand and supply. The market determines what sells. Reverend Dick also conveniently missed one obvious fact on New Year's Eve night: the tens of thousands who crammed the churches, particularly at Boulevard Baptist, were many of the same who had crammed the ballrooms prior to hastening to catch the dying moments of a Watch Night service, so that at the stroke of midnight the New Year would catch them in church reflecting on their purpose in life, very good intentions I may add, but the road to hell is paved with them.
No doubt, many left the place of worship rejoicing, some of whom will continue to murder and plunder until next New Year's Eve.
