Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. This tactic shifts focus away from the actual claim to irrelevant personal characteristics, history, or motive of the speaker.

Using a personal story or isolated example as proof of a general claim, ignoring the larger body of evidence. Single data points rarely represent the whole picture.

Using someone's status or reputation as proof of a claim, regardless of whether they have relevant expertise. Not all authority figures are experts on every topic.

Substituting emotional manipulation for logical argument — exploiting feelings like pity, pride, or outrage to bypass critical thinking. Emotional responses are valid, but not evidence.

Using fear to manipulate rather than using evidence to persuade. This fallacy exaggerates threats or consequences to pressure agreement without providing logical justification.

Claiming something must be true because it hasn't been proven false, or false because it hasn't been proven true. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Assuming something is good, safe, or superior because it is natural, or bad because it is artificial. Many natural things are harmful; many artificial things are beneficial.

Arguing that something is true, correct, or good because many people believe or do it. Popularity does not determine truth — majorities have been wrong throughout history.

Using the conclusion as a premise in the argument — a circular form of reasoning where the claim assumes its own truth. Nothing is actually proven; the argument just restates itself.

Placing the responsibility to disprove a claim on the wrong party. The burden of proof rests on whoever makes the positive claim, not on those who are skeptical of it.

Using the conclusion as a premise, creating an argument that loops back on itself without providing external evidence or logical support for the claim.

Assuming what is true of the parts is true of the whole (composition), or that what is true of the whole is true of its parts (division). Neither follows logically without additional evidence.

Using the same word with two different meanings within the same argument to create a misleading conclusion. The shift in meaning is often subtle and exploits ambiguity in language.

Assuming that because one event followed another, the first caused the second. Correlation is not causation — two things happening together or in sequence does not prove a causal relationship.

Presenting only two options when more exist, forcing a binary choice where a spectrum of possibilities is actually available. Also called a false dilemma or either/or fallacy.

Judging an argument as valid or invalid based on its source rather than its actual content. Where an idea comes from is irrelevant to whether the idea itself is true or well-reasoned.

Drawing a broad conclusion from an insufficient number of examples or an unrepresentative sample. The conclusion may be partially true but cannot be reliably established from limited evidence.

Asking a question that embeds a false or controversial assumption, so that any direct answer appears to confirm that assumption. It's a rhetorical trap designed to put the respondent on the defensive.

Assuming the truth always lies between two extreme positions when it may not. Sometimes one side is simply correct and a compromise position is unsupported by evidence.

Redefining a category on the fly to exclude counterexamples that would disprove a claim. The goalposts move to protect the original generalization from any contradicting evidence.

Introducing an irrelevant point to distract from the real issue under discussion. The new topic may be valid on its own but has no logical bearing on the original argument.

Claiming that one event will inevitably lead to extreme or catastrophic consequences without providing evidence for that chain of causation. Each step in the chain requires its own justification.

Misrepresenting someone's argument in a weaker or more extreme form to make it easier to attack. The person argues against a distorted version of the claim rather than what was actually said.

Choosing data that supports a conclusion after the fact, ignoring contradicting data. Named after the image of someone shooting at a barn wall then drawing a bullseye around the bullet hole.

Deflecting a criticism by pointing out that the other party has committed the same fault. Also called the "appeal to hypocrisy" — someone else's wrongdoing does not justify your own.

Selecting only the data, quotes, or facts that support a predetermined conclusion while ignoring contradicting evidence. The selected information may be accurate, but the omission distorts the overall picture.

The tendency to search for, interpret, and present information in a way that confirms pre-existing beliefs. In journalism, this shows up as sourcing only experts who agree with a predetermined conclusion.

Language that carries a specific coded meaning for a targeted subgroup while appearing neutral or innocuous to outside observers. The signal is recognizable to the intended audience and invisible to others.

Presenting two sides of an issue as equally credible when evidence strongly favors one side. The appearance of balance misleads readers into thinking a genuine scientific or factual dispute exists.

Presenting factually accurate information in a way that leads the reader toward a particular interpretation. The facts may be correct but the selection, arrangement, and emphasis tells a particular story.

Words chosen specifically for their emotional connotation rather than their neutral descriptive accuracy. The same event can be described multiple ways, each triggering a different emotional response.

Leaving out information that would change the reader's interpretation of a story. What isn't said can be as biasing as what is said — context withheld is context manipulated.

Consistent framing, sourcing, or emphasis that favors one political perspective over another. This can manifest across the political spectrum and is often most visible when comparing coverage of the same event across different outlets.

Emphasizing the shocking, dramatic, or outrageous aspects of a story to provoke emotional reaction and increase engagement, often at the expense of context, proportion, and accuracy.

Presenting information in a way designed to influence opinion without technically lying. Spin often involves strategic emphasis, selective detail, and careful framing to shape perception while maintaining plausible deniability.

A source whose identity is not disclosed in the reporting. Anonymous sourcing can be legitimate — protecting whistleblowers — or a signal of weak sourcing when used to make claims that cannot be independently verified.

The name of the journalist who wrote a piece, typically appearing just below the headline. Absence of a byline can indicate the piece represents the publication's institutional editorial voice rather than an individual reporter's reporting.

The separation between a publication's business interests and its journalistic decisions. Compromised editorial independence occurs when advertisers, owners, or political interests influence which stories are covered and how.

A fact is a verifiable claim that can be confirmed through evidence. An opinion is a belief, judgment, or interpretation. Good journalism distinguishes between the two — the best reporting is clear about which is which.

The opening sentence or paragraph of a news story, designed to capture the most essential information. A "buried lede" means the most newsworthy fact appears too far down in the story, often obscuring what's truly important.

A piece that goes beyond reporting facts to interpret their significance and implications. Different from opinion in that it should be grounded in evidence rather than personal belief — though the line is sometimes blurred.

Short for "opposite the editorial page." An opinion piece written by someone outside the publication's staff, presenting a personal argument or perspective. Op-eds are explicitly opinion — not news reporting.

Original, firsthand material — official documents, research data, eyewitness accounts, or original statements. The most reliable starting point for verification, as it has not yet been filtered through interpretation.

Analysis, interpretation, or summary of primary sources. A newspaper reporting on a scientific study is a secondary source — the original study is the primary source. Secondary sources are subject to the summarizer's choices and potential errors.

The criteria a publication uses to verify information before publishing. Strong sourcing requires multiple independent sources, named where possible, with primary documents preferred over secondhand accounts.