and that means what? A 4 year degree does not mean what it used to. Need I remind you that some of the most successful and informed people in the world are not college graduates?
Or maybe the disingenuousness would be from those who claim to have a plan to lower gas prices, then gain power only to see gas prices rise by 39%. Reporting on that would certainly be fair and balance . Especially since it turns out that the topic was about high gas prices and the headline in question was a lead in to introduce a Democrat Congressman to discuss why prices are so high.Those who say that there isn't any deception in Fox News' caption.
Of course the caption is being deceptive as it seems many here, less the obvious few, understand the implication of cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
The real question is do you think any left wing blogs will post the entire segment so people can hear Cavuto discuss the topic with the Democrat Congressman allowing people to determine for themselves. Fox says, "We report, you decide". Left wing blogs apparently say "We report and decide for you. That way you don't have to think", Then they call Fox disingenuous
Most blogs, left and right, link to the item they're commenting on, so you can check to see if they're taking quotes or items out of context and twisting the meaning. The ones that don't are suspect. FoxNews is a different medium so that doesn't apply - meaning FoxNews can't link but can be linked to either video or transcript.
And of course no such fallacy applies since Fox stated a fact and had a Democrat Congressman on as a guest to discuss the rising prices and the Democrat plan. There is a reason left wing blogs posts freeze frames. It's easy to deceive that way and there is no shortage of Fox haters to swallow and propagate the deception
This response just tells me you have not one clue what a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy is.
I was going to say the same thing about you. However, I would excuse your own error except that you refuse to accept the fact that you don't know what followed that freeze frame. You don't know what Cavuto said and you don't know what the guest said and you don't want to know. You want to hold onto the misbelief that Fox blamed Pelosi
What followed the frame given the interview just perpetuated the disingenious caption and has not one thing to do with the fallacy, which is why you have no clue what it means as if that would clarify anything.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
