Today i listened to Counterpoint on ABC Radio National, because there was a report on a book called "Silencing Dissent", about the Howard Government's effective politicisation of the public service (which is an incredibly interesting subject. No, really.).

Directly afterward came an interview with someone called Melanie Phillips, apparently a pundit in Britain. And it struck me just how much rubbish she was able to slip past the interviewer (Michael Duffy) without any critical analysis.

Melanie Phillips made several claims that just sounded like the ignorant rantings of a Herald-Sun reader whose highest qualification in life is the post of Australian Attorney-General, and not once was she called on it. She never had to back up any of her statements, and i guess this is exactly why governments and right-wing pundits are able to manipulate the media so skillfully: journalists act as if they're impartial observers, not critically thinking human beings. They don't test claims, they just pass them on.

Compare the transcript of the Counterpoint interview of Melanie Phillips to this interview of Phillip Ruddock by Kerry O'Brien on the 7:30 Report. O'Brien contested every controversial statement that Ruddock made. Ruddock had a set of media soundbites that he was trying to get out there, and Kerry basically demanded that he justify each and every one (i might add that Ruddock performed miserably in this task).

Compare that to the way the footage and recording of Ruddock's statements was subsequently used by the "mainstream" media; Channels 7, 9 and 10's trademark six o'clock "lite news" programs. They neatly clipped out Ruddock's soundbites, and made them the story. We didn't see any of the challenges or counterpoints, because, of course, those critical challenges were made by a journalist. And journalists are supposed to be impartial observers. Bullshit. There is nothing remotely impartial about clipping out a person's soundbite or Press Release and pretending that that is what the "news story" was. (This is what the Herald Sun's Gerard McManus did when reporting on Greens policies before the 2004 election; McManus basically copied elements of Family First and Liberal Party press releases to construct his article, and never even contacted a Greens representative, nor did he ever critically examine any of the claims he was repeating (the Herald-Sun was subsequently told off by the Australian Press Council, i might add, but this brand of journalism is not the slightest bit rare). Afterward, conservative politicians were able to quote the Herald-Scum article in political advertising criticising the Greens - but they were basically re-quoting their own people's press releases, that had just been laundered through the incompetent reporting of Gerard McManus!)

In fact, compare the Counterpoint interview with David Letterman's - a comedian's - interview with Bill O'Reilly. Particularly this section:

Letterman: I don't believe you.

O'Reilly: It's true.

Letterman: I don't believe you. I don't...I don't believe you.

O'Reilly: You think I'm making this up?

Letterman: I do.

It's not exactly a rigorous logical debate, but it illustrates the key point i'd like to make: Letterman was actually willing to beleive that O'Reilly was a liar, that this was a realistic possibility. Journalists in general seem to go by some principle of "Accept anything anybody says at face value". This is not a feature of critical thinking; critical analysis demands that we accept the possibility that we are being lied to (or that our interviewee is wrong), and thus require that the person we're interviewing support their statements. Otherwise, what is the point of interveiwing them? If they don't have some basis behind what they're saying, then why are we bothering to waste air-time on them?

Let's go back to Micheal Duffy's interview with Melanie Phillips:

Melanie: Young would-be terrorists are caught in "... a whole society in Britain which has decided that the whole idea of a majority national identity is itself racist, so it basically tells all new immigrants, well, there's no majority culture here for you to integrate into because we think Britain basically stinks and therefore we'll celebrate where you came from."

David (i.e., me... with my imaginary response to that): Wait a second Melanie. Isn't that internally contradictory? "The whole idea of a national identity is racist... so we'll celebrate where you come from"? And wait a moment Melanie, who are you claiming has said "we think Britain just stinks"? Who tells new immigrants this, and exactly where is the empirical link between that and the rise in "jihadism" you're claiming exists? I have to say Melanie, this sounds more like a conservative Letter-to-the-Editor than a piece of real social research.

Micheal (i.e. the interviewer, with his actual response): "Is it possible to say what proportion of younger British Muslims have turned to this radicalism?"

Sigh. Thats just one example. Earlier in the interview, Micheal asked Melanie why she doesn't call her views conservative;

Micheal: "I'd just like to try and position you on the British political landscape for our Australian listeners. You have what many would consider conservative views on matters such as education, drugs, equal partnership rights for gays...do you consider yourself a conservative?"

Melanie: "No, for two reasons; first of all I don't like labels at all and try and resist them wherever possible, but secondly, to me 'conservative' means something a bit different from the way in which it's commonly used. To me a conservative is somebody who wants to hold on to the status quo" ... "And so I parted company from the left quite dramatically, and because the left does not tolerate any dissent and because the left thinks that anyone who is not of the left is automatically of the right and not only of the right but that all right-wingers are off the moral map and beyond the moral pale, thus I have been categorised but it's not a categorisation that I myself would recognise or accept."

David (imaginary response): I'm sorry, Melanie. I'd like to clarify some things. First of all, were you ever "of the left"? Would you like to actually list your views on these topics, and explain to me how they are or were "left-wing"? Because it just strikes me that ones position on "education, drugs, equal partnership rights for gays" can form quite a useful list of defining traits on modern "left-" or "right-wing" views. Can we please have a slightly more substantial excuse to beleive that you have been demonised by being called right-wing or conservative?

Micheal (actual response): "Is that a lonely position in Britain or are there lots of people, polemicists such as yourself?"

Geez, Micheal! Lay off the heat!

Melanie: "...to me 'conservative' means something a bit different from the way in which it's commonly used. To me a conservative is somebody who wants to hold on to the status quo" ...and, slightly later on... "But there are a lot of people in Britain who, while not attaching labels to themselves, tend to feel that something very strange has happened to Britain, that everything has gone sort of upside-down and pear-shaped and back to front, and that what people consider to be normal, decent, rational views and attitudes and beliefs, suddenly they find themselves demonised and called all sorts of unpleasant names for holding on to these views."

David: I'm sorry, Melanie, weren't you just telling us before how you weren't a conservative? How left-wingers are now, magically, transfigured into the "conservatives" since that label became unfashionable? How do you reconcile this with your ranting about how the world has all gone upside down, pear-shaped and back-to-front, losing sight of normality and decency? Weren't you just telling us how different your rhetoric was from anything resembling conservativism?

Micheal: "Let's talk about some of this through the lens of your book Londonistan."

Gee whiz Melanie Phillips. Tell us more about your book. Where can we purchase this fascinating polemic on the modern world.