Fisking as a Rhetorical Construct

Recently Jill Walker lamented that it was hard to teach her students to blog critically. Perhaps we should first teach them to fisk.

Over the past month, I've seen the verb "fisk" pop up in weblogs discussing media coverage of Iraq.

The eponymous verb is named for Robert Fisk, an award-winning reporter for the UK Independent. His writing talent is without question:

Did I sit on President Saddam's throne? Of course I did. There is something dark in all our souls that demands an understanding of evil rather than good, because, I suppose, we are more fascinated by the machinery of cruelty and power than we are by angels.|So I sat on the blue throne and put my hands over the golden armrests and surveyed the darkened chamber in which men of great power sat in terror of the man who used to sit where I was now. -- Independent 12 Apr 2003

While not flinching from calling Saddam evil, Fisk has been highly critical of the U.S.-led coalition's invasion of Iraq. He is extremly popular with anti-war forces, in part becaue of his opinionated writing; but his consistent pro-Palestine slant does not escape the watchful eyes of pro-Israel media watchdogs, some of whom find his statements anti-Semitic.

But just as "boycott" derives not from something that the evil English landlord Captain Boycott did, but rather what the Irish villagers did to him, so too "fisk" *does not refer to what Fisk does, but rather what is done unto him*. In the blogosphere, some feel motivated to respond to Fisk's writing by refuting him in minute detail -- often repeating long chunks or the entirety of his articles, and interlineating their challenges. See: "Fisking Fisk."

The best definition I have found so far is by Eugene Volokh, who recalls an article in which Fisk "(1) recounted how he was beaten by some anti-American Afghan refugees, and (2) thought they were morally right for doing so." This, then, would seem to be the very first "fisking". Volokh credits an August 8, 2002 Instapundit post, and asked whether anyone had found an earlier usage. I wonder whether the term owes something to "MiSTing" -- a form of cultural criticism that formed the premise for "Mystery Science Theatre 3000," in which silhouetted wise-crackers in the lower right corner of your TV screen comment on and ridicule bad movies.

In general, then, the term "fisking" can be applied to any point-by-point critical annotation of another text. It is a mode of criticism well-suited to the WWW, since it begins by copying the full text of the target text, and proceeds to point out logical flaws and raise doubts. Since the fiskee's fixed text cannot respond to the challenges, the fisker can without too much trouble make the fiskee look ridiculous. While the term seems to have originated in conservative attacks against liberal positions, I recently came across a postmodern blogger who fisks an anti-postmodernist.

tags:  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

First "Fisking"?

I'm all for neologisms, but point by point replies have been a part of electronic mail for years. I remember engaging in point by point debates on BBSs in the early 90s, and I'm sure it's older than that.

Am I missing something here?

cbd

Re: First "Fisking"?

There is nothing new under the sun... but the recent popularity of the term suggests the practice is getting more attention as a rhetorical construct.

Re: First "Fisking"?

Very good.

cbd

Re: Fisking as a Rhetorical Construct

I agree with cbd's observation, it's nothing new to respond on a point-by-point basis. I've used it for years, both in threaded conversations and in e-mail.

What is new is the label; I had nothing to call the process by which one breaks out each point and responds to each individual issue. "Fisking" could just as easily have been any other word or name. Mr. Fisk drew the short straw, I'm afraid, to become a verb in his lifetime.

What's somewhat different about the particular exchange regarding postmodernism is that I pointedly told my fellow bloggers involved in the exchange that I was fisking their arguments, upfront. There were no disagreements with the fisking, only with the content. (The topic itself is a whole other story...)

A peeve of mine: Fisk did not say they were justified

This summary of Fisk's article is a long-standing peeve of mine: "(1) recounted how he was beaten by some anti-American Afghan refugees, and (2) thought they were morally right for doing so."

If you actually read the Fisk article, you might notice that he says that they "should never have done so": he's not saying he finds their actions justified, he's saying they're understandable. And the main thrust of the article is that he doesn't want the incident used to justify any further violence against these refugees.

An alternate definition of "fisking" might be "a term designed as a clever attack by right-wing armchair chickenhawks on a committed journalist who repeatedly puts himself into harms way."

The definition that I like, however is "the way we've always done things on usenet". (If you newbies could just get caught up on the state of the art of the net pre-1994, the net would be a better place.)