"All the news that's fit to be fallacious-the fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi on the editorial pages of The New York Times"
             A statement exhibiting Walton's fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi has an unsubstantiated conclusion, given the evidence that is presented to the reader. The conclusion itself may be valid. However, the evidence used to support the conclusion according to the author's argument is not logically valid. (Conversely, within the parameters of formal deductive logic, the syllogism all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal IS a logical statement, even if outside the logical frame of the syllogism, Socrates is, for example, a inorganic computer.) According to one Internet encyclopedia of philosophy: "the Ignoratio Elenchi is usually considered slightly narrower in focus than the non sequitur. Strictly speaking, any time a conclusion does not follow from its premises, the non sequitur fallacy occurs. Other similar fallacies include diversion, red herring, subject changing, and ignoring the issue. In law, such a response given to a question can be called 'non-responsive.'" ("Ignoratio Elenchi," 2005, Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic)
             This Internet encyclopedia uses an example from a letter to the popular advice columnist Ann Landers to illustrate the fallacy. But even a recent editorial from the otherwise respectable publication The New York Times demonstrates this fallacy. In an editorial by the publication's staff entitled: "Save the Earth and Find a Hair Gel," the authors bemoan the poor quality of information on Internet forums: "On most days, the online forums for Yahoo! Answers have all the gravity of hair salon chatter. Anyone can post a question about anything and anyone can respond. It's a sort of democratization of authority, wherein utterly unqualified and generally anonymous poseurs ca
             ...