The top story on Salon today discusses that giant and highly visible contingent of Democrats who will switch to McCain if Hilary gets the nomination because they don’t want to see a woman in the White House. I’m being facetious about the “giant and highly visible” part. Salon has a grand old history of running articles like this, most particularly by my arch nemesis, Rebecca Traister. The theme of these articles is: “I know a person who has a particular viewpoint! Without doing any actual research, I’m going to write an article about how this person is representative of a greater trend in society!”

Here’s how it works. My friend Matt works in web production. He recently bought a Honda Element. If I were a Salon writer, I would take this information and use it to write an article about how people who work in new media prefer cars that give them a sense of adventure, because they’re trapped behind a computer all day. Note that I absolutely wouldn’t write that people who work in new media simply prefer the Honda Element … that’s something that an astute reader could potentially find some statistics on and prove that I’m full of shit. What I would do is assume the false trend, and then move beyond this assumption to explain why this trend (which, remember, I’ve just fabricated out of thin air), is so. Anyone who disagrees, then, will disagree with the reasoning behind the trend and not with the facts of the trend itself, i.e. “I think people who work in new media buy Honda Elements because they want a sense of power, not because they want a sense of adventure!” And boom! I have just created a new fact that can forever be taken for granted: people who work in new media prefer big cars. Way to go, me!