From fact-checking to rhetoric-checking: extending methods for evaluating populist discourse

One of the existing methods for assessing populist discourse is by fact-checking. This practice, however, is limited in scope in that it only assesses the truth of an isolated statement of fact. In order to enlarge the existing repertoire for critically responding to populist discourse, Plug and Wagemans propose to develop a method for what they call ‘rhetoric-checking’, which is informed by insights from argumentation theory and rhetoric. In this chapter, they make the first step in this direction by developing a procedure for what they call ‘bridge-checking’. This procedure enables an assessment of the support relationship between the premise and the conclusion of an argument. After having explained its theoretical background, the authors describe the various steps of the procedure and illustrate its use by means of analyzing examples of arguments that are put forward by politicians that are labeled as populist and have been fact-checked by others.