The Omega watch company withdrew its ads from Vogue magazine in protest over what it called distasteful pictures of an emaciated model in the June 1996 issue. The brand director of Omega argued as follows: “Since Vogue presumably targets an audience that includes young and impressionable females, its creators must surely be aware that they will inevitably be influenced by what laughably passes for fashion in these pages. It was irresponsible for a leading magazine that should be setting an example to select models of anorexic proportions.”

Question

The Omega watch company withdrew its ads from Vogue magazine in protest over what it called distasteful pictures of an emaciated model in the June 1996 issue. The brand director of Omega argued as follows: “Since Vogue presumably targets an audience that includes young and impressionable females, its creators must surely be aware that they will inevitably be influenced by what laughably passes for fashion in these pages. It was irresponsible for a leading magazine that should be setting an example to select models of anorexic proportions.”

The publisher of Vogue responded:
“[The brand director’s] comments appear to be motivated by sour grapes, because he had objected to the way Omega watches had been photographed for a feature on watches.”
Identify and explain the error of relevance in Vogue’s response.

Answer 1

Vogue responded with name-calling rather than a legitimate answer.

Answer 2

The Vogue response attributes a motive to the watch company that it has no way of knowing of and cannot support.

Answer 3

it might be an ad homine fallacy maybe

Answer 4

The error of relevance in Vogue's response is known as the "tu quoque" fallacy or the "appeal to hypocrisy" fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one attempts to discredit or dismiss someone's argument by pointing out their own hypocrisy or inconsistency. In this case, Vogue's publisher is suggesting that the brand director's criticism of the magazine's portrayal of an emaciated model is invalid because he had objected to the way Omega watches had been photographed.

However, the publisher's response is irrelevant to the brand director's argument. Whether or not the brand director had objected to the photography of Omega watches is unrelated to the issue at hand - the use of an emaciated model in Vogue's pages. The publisher's response does not address the concerns raised by the brand director about the potential influence on young and impressionable females.

To address the error of relevance, the publisher should have directly responded to the brand director's argument about the selection of models with logical reasoning or evidence rather than attempting to discredit him based on unrelated issues.