Imagine that Newsnight convened a panel to discuss, say, the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars. A scientist offers his perspective, marvelling at the engineering achievement, the use of Newtonian physics and the benefit that the space programme has given to humanity. Opposite sits a perpetually outraged conspiracy theorist, who argues that the mission is in fact a lie and the latest in a long line of frauds perpetuated by NASA. Over many minutes he makes a number of claims without adducing any evidence. When challenged he simply increases the volume, flailing from one logical fallacy to another, demanding that the BBC explain why they have given a platform to somebody pushing an obviously Marxist agenda.
Bizarrely, this is not his first appearance on television. When he isn't denying the existence of the space programme he's on Question Time stating, in all sincerity, that the politicians who seek dominion over us are actually shape-shifting lizards from the lower fourth dimension, or he's on the This Week sofa railing against the 9/11 orthodoxy. It makes for a deeply infuriating viewing but complaints are batted away with the reasoning that the BBC must account for all views.
In reality, such a figure (and there really are plenty like him) would never be invited onto a serious discussion about the space programme. When it comes to science we do not ascribe an invisible line of possible opinions, from the realist at one end to the conspiracist at the other and then stick Eddie Mair in the middle to officiate.
When it comes to Hitchens and his ilk, there's no need for facts, no humility when faced with overwhelming evidence, no reticence when it comes to invoking religion in order to make a claim for moral superiority. This is what it means to be a columnist: every red-faced, spittle-flecked, knee-jerk assertion is elevated to the level of profundity, simply by the fact they're granted a platform from which they can shout down others.
About four years ago Melanie Phillips was enjoying the latest of her many appearances on Question Time. During the programme she gleefully claimed that Arctic ice was in fact increasing and that AGW was unproven. Assuming she might have written about it in her latest column, I immediately headed to the Mail website and found the story was at that moment second on their front page. I found the scientific paper in question and nearly fell off the sofa when I read that ice had decreased year on year, with the study ending during a period of limited increase. The science showed that there was a pattern of decrease, refreezing to a smaller area, decrease, refreezing and so on, in the familiar zig-zag pattern of decline. The report ended with a warning that the scientists were deeply alarmed and saw no evidence to suggest the pattern would change. In other words, Melanie Phillips was as misguided as my imaginary conspiracist and yet she's invited back, time and again, invariably treated as if she actually has something valid to say.
I'm so fucking sick of these gobshites, of all political hues, distorting the public discourse. Bring us the evidence, delivered calmly by people who have gathered the facts and then allow time for a full debate. I want the evidence behind the claim that legalisation will increase drug use. I don't want people who start with their conclusions and then work back from there. To hell with Newsnight. People are dying. They deserve better than Russell Brand and Peter fucking Hitchens.
Cocaine IV maintenance solution delicious yummy yum PHARMACEUTICAL yayo :D
