When it comes to the now notorious coronavirus, or COVID-19, there has been an overwhelming whirlwind of information (and misinformation) reported by the media. This has created mass hysteria and panic worldwide.
(Photo: Mumbrella)
As a subscriber to The New York Times, I’ve noticed that the news outlet has 24-hour live coverage about the coronavirus and the damage it has caused. There are multiple times a day that I get a notification on my phone with the latest news on the virus. I’ll admit, if I see a headline that reads something like, “UPDATE ON CORONAVIRUS”, I am always swayed to read more. The constant coverage is panic-provoking, but the most insidious aspect of the media’s portrayal of the virus is deeply rooted in the xenophobic and racist idea that this virus is a “Chinese Virus” — something that the Herald Sun explicitly plastered across the front of newspapers in Victoria, Australia. But the Herald Sun isn’t alone in their sentiments. Other media outlets (like NYT) and social media platforms have made the same implicit claim, urging people to stay out of Chinatown or to avoid consuming Chinese goods. This viewpoint has been interpreted violently and globally, which has resulted in increasing numbers of racially-fueled attacks against Asian people. The media coverage of and the reaction to coronavirus is not only fallible but fallacious. The woefully constructed claim—that the virus is linked to Chinese people— is spreading faster than the virus itself. This unsound argument is symptomatic of a logical fallacy; more specifically, the fallacy of composition.
OKAY—Before we get into this and before you click away because of the words LOGICAL FALLACY, I want to pause for a minute. When a lot of people see the words LOGICAL FALLACY, they have visions of Aristotle posturing about science or philosophy in some ancient room with constellations drawn on the ceiling. Or, people just get bored and skip to the pictures. After all, the words LOGICAL FALLACY do seem ancient and inaccessible on first glance. At least, I thought so when I first caught wind of them.
But really, logical fallacies are much simpler, and more interesting, than they appear at first glance. They are just erroneous ways of forming an argument. More people are aware of them, albeit subconsciously, than one would think. For example, if someone says, “I just do whatever Beyoncé tells me to do,” that’d be a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority because the person is persuaded by Beyoncé, an individual with authority and esteem. Gwyneth Paltrow and her goop-ness would be another example: a famous person with authority talking about pseudoscience dressed up as real science, discussing something she may not have the authority to discuss. But people listen. Because she’s Gwyneth Paltrow. And just think about the bogus dilemma that girls are taught from a young age: “If you have sex, you’re a whore and if you don’t, you’re a prude” (bogus beliefs deserve bogus answers so just say, “I’m both!”).
How can one define an argument? Basically, an argument is any claim that is made with an intent to persuade. Explicit claims are stated clearly. An example would be: “The movie Parasite definitely should have won Best Picture”. Implicit claims are not as clear-cut, rather they argue something subtly, such as, “None of the Hollywood movies nominated this year should have won the Oscar for Best Picture”. Arguments are usually judged on either their validity or soundness to determine how true they are. Using a logical fallacy would render the argument unsound. So, to reiterate, fallacies are constructed in all different forms of argumentation by many people—regardless of whether those people know that they are being fallacious.
. . .
While I was walking in Soho recently, I heard a woman ask her friend, “Does every Asian person already carry the virus inside of them? Will they all need to be vaccinated and quarantined?”
Although this question is almost laughably ignorant upon first look, it is evident that people worldwide may think in a similar way, however implicit— they may eye Asian people who cough or wear a mask with intense suspicion, even if those people are Parisian or American born citizens who have never been to China. And while the media frames coronavirus as a “Chinese Virus”, either explicitly like the Herald Sun, or implicitly, with photos of a desolate Chinatown or a sea of mask-clad Asian people, the fallacy that is most notably used to spur xenophobia is called the fallacy of composition.
The composition fallacy occurs when a claim implies that something that affects one part also affects the whole or the assumption that what is true of an individual unit is true of the entire entity. It arises when there is a failure to recognize that a group is made up of individual parts or peoples all distinctly different from one another, or when there is a claim that one individual represents the group entirely. An example of this fallacy that hits close to home (literally, for me) is, “John John Florence is an amazing surfer and he is from Hawai‘i. That must mean that every person from Hawai’i is an amazing surfer.” I can personally attest to the inaccuracy of this statement. Yes, I am from Hawai‘i and yes, I love the ocean but no, please do not ask me to surf (unless you want a good laugh). While there are many great surfers from Hawai‘i, it would be incorrect to assume that everyone who lives there is a surfer. There are quite a few people out there who hate sand. And microscopic organisms. And the beach has both.
But the sinister—and more complex—version of the composition fallacy occurs when the fallacy is used as a reason to exclude or harm groups of people. This is what we bear witness to with the coronavirus. An example that I’ve heard is, “The coronavirus started in China and some Chinese people have it. Therefore, that must mean that all Chinese/Asian people also have it.” That example is explicit, but a more implicit version of this would sound like: “The virus started in China so that means all Chinese things are contaminated, possibly carrying or coming in contact with the virus.” These claims are used as reasons to treat entire groups of people with cruelty and suspicion, justifying xenophobic behavior.
When the media labels the coronavirus as a “Chinese Virus,” it is insinuating that China is responsible for the outbreak and by extension, that all Chinese and Asian people are also responsible. However, Tim Soutphommasane, a professor at the University of Sydney and a previous race-discrimination commissioner, was quoted in The New York Times saying, “viral diseases don’t have ethnic, racial or national characteristics,” adding that the misinformation (regarding COVID-19) was “alarming”. Therefore, the media must consider the extent of their reach and realize how much control they have over public opinion. While coronavirus falls squarely into the sphere of legitimate controversy, the media is not operating with such transparency. Biases are pushing the topic to the centerfolds and causing the anger and panic to rise, resulting in volatile outbursts.
If one believes that the xenophobia surrounding the coronavirus is an exception, I’d urge them to take a glance at our history books.
For example:
“This one terrorist is Muslim, therefore all Muslims are terrorists”,
or:
“This robber is a black man, therefore all black men are criminals”,
or more recently:
“This Mexican person is an undocumented immigrant, so we must profile all Mexican people because they’re all illegal immigrants”.
Using the fallacy of composition to justify ignorance and cruelty toward a group of people has been viewed as a valid form of argumentation. For. EVER.
The correct way to report on the coronavirus would have been to treat the outbreak and its spread without making the explicit or implicit claim that this is a “Chinese Virus”, or a “Wuhan Virus”. The claim would no longer contain a logical fallacy perpetuated by the media and any fault would lie within the public. To simply call it “coronavirus” and accurately report the origin and the virus’ spread without implicating China or Asian people would be far more valid and appropriate. Another way to ensure that people do not call the coronavirus the “Chinese Virus” would be if the media consistently referred to the virus by its medical name, COVID-19, which would lead people to say “COVID-19” more readily and may deter people from making racially insensitive remarks.
In the case of the Herald Sun, they could have simply used the headline: “Coronavirus (or COVID-19) Reaches Australia”. In the case of the news outlets that used pictures of Chinatown and Asian people to spread panic, their implicit claim could be rectified by using photos of people of all ethnicities who are suffering from the virus instead of only Asian people, which only furthered the belief that all Asian people are contaminated. By implicitly making this claim, media outlets are using a sneaky fallacy called an unaccepted enthymeme: an argument that is not stated explicitly, but still made implicitly, which leaves the audience piecing the argument together in an effort to understand meaning and intent (i.e almost everything President Trump says.)
Cognitive biases and fallacies, such as the fallacy of composition, are the default mechanisms that the media resorts to in times of uncertainty and panic, and the most recent and prominent example is tying the coronavirus to all Asian people as an entirety. By acknowledging and resolving these false claims, we can hopefully become a little more aware, logical, and empathetic when dealing with this unfortunate pandemic. Treating our fellow earth-lings with respect will be the first step to unraveling fallacious and unsound attempts at constructing arguments based on racism, xenophobia, and hatred.
So, be kind.
Don’t senselessly attack anyone.
And as always, wash your damn hands.
. . .
Citations:
Pirie, Madsen. “Verecundiam, argumentum ad.” How to Win Every Argument: the Use and Abuse of Logic. Bloomsbury, 2016, pp. 210-212
Pirie, Madsen. “The bogus dilemma.” How to Win Every Argument: the Use and Abuse of Logic. Bloomsbury, 2016, pp. 52-55
Pirie, Madsen. “Composition.” How to Win Every Argument: the Use and Abuse of Logic. Bloomsbury, 2016, pp. 62-64
Pirie, Madsen. “Unaccepted Enthymemes.” How to Win Every Argument: the Use and Abuse of Logic. Bloomsbury, 2016, pp. 203-205