Share
30th July 2016
02:51pm BST
Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.
But is there a bigger issue at hand here? The first question that has to be asked is if all pundits are being tarnished with the one brush?
Are all pundits being criticised because people don't like what Joe Brolly has to say?
And surely that's just as bad.
Brolly does it sometimes. He went too far when he said you could forget about Sean Cavanagh "as far as he's a man". He crossed the line when he went one better than slating Paul Grimley's tactics and began bringing his brothers into the firing line as well. He does it too often, he gets carried away and he gets personal.
Does that mean there's a problem with GAA punditry? Or does it mean that there's a problem with one man?
A lot of people got their backs up about the coverage of the Aidan O'Shea incident against Fermanagh. He's an amateur, don't make it personal and all the rest.
Stephen Rochford agreed that it was a big talking point so of course it's going to be discussed and it has to be.
But suggesting that Aidan O'Shea dived is not getting personal. Analysing something he did in the game and giving your opinion of it is not personal. Perhaps calling him a diver, saying he's a cheat, summarizing his character because of it is getting personal. But to say that diving is cheating is not.
Point out that a player is having a bad game isn't personal. Claiming he's gutless, he's not interested, he's shite is personal. But that line is rarely crossed - not outside of the Brolly monopoly anyway.
Don't make the mistake of thinking pundits aren't criticised as much as any of them.
Pundits, journalists, commentators have a duty to the viewing public to call games and performances and issues as they see them. If they dodge the question, play down a problem or be too nice in their analysis, then they're lambasted more than players ever are.
They sit on prime time television without the protection of hundreds of yards of grass and 29 other players and every word they say is being scrutinised. They're pulled up on any little thing and they're responsible for the country's entertainment.
Should they fall short, there's no mercy.
Should they fail to take some counties to task, to call out a dreadful tactical decision, or to highlight a performance we all want highlighted, their heads are on the chopping board.
If they generalise, if they delve into young people's manhood, bring families into it or even mention their overall character then, yes, of course that's personal and unnecessarily so and it should be pointed out that they've crossed the line.
But if they don't get up to that line or toe it, then they're letting their national audience down on three counts: engaging entertainment; reporting the actual news and analysis that needs reporting, not the safest bits; and being honest in their opinions.
Just because one man crosses that line far too often, it doesn't mean that everyone else should have the brakes pulled on them. Especially considering we'd probably only get "personal" criticising their punditry as a result.
Listen to the full discussion with Colm Parkinson and Barry Cahill on The GAA Hour. Click here to subscribe on iTunes.
https://soundcloud.com/sportsjoe-gaa-hour/personal-abuse-from-pundits-and-dull-quarter-finalsExplore more on these topics:
