|
« Re-classify cannabis upwards
Main |
January 10, 2004
The flight from reason
Daily Mail, 10 January 2004 Until four days ago, conspiracy theories that Princess Diana was murdered were thought to be restricted to Mohammed Fayed, green-ink letter writers and those sad internet freaks who have nothing better to do but recycle the latest fantasies posted into the ether by any old crackpot or mischief-maker. Last Tuesday, the royal coroner Michael Burgess changed all that. Opening the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed, he acknowledged the theories that they were not caused by a ‘sad but relatively straightforward’ car crash and called in the Metropolitan Police to make inquiries. By taking these theories seriously enough to have inquiries made, he raised the possibility that there might be some truth in them. Even if the police dismiss them, many people will believe more unshakeably than ever that this is an establishment fix and that the princess was murdered by MI6 acting on the direct instructions of Prince Charles, President Bush, the Pope and the World Association of Landmine Manufacturers. Of course, a coroner is bound to consider all the evidence. But if people make totally off-the-wall allegations such as … well, that the heir to the throne wanted to murder his ex-wife, for example, one would no more expect the coroner to ask the police to investigate than to consult the works of Nostradamus, who some believe predicted the death of Diana along with 9/11, the assassination of President Kennedy and the rise of Hitler. As a person in authority, a coroner surely has a duty to rule out preposterous or irrational theories, however widely they may be believed. Instead, Mr Burgess has set the police on a lengthy process in which they may have to interview the Prince of Wales about the apparent claim by the mentally fragile Princess Diana that he was trying to have her killed. In a rational world, one would no more seriously entertain this possibility than speculate that the missing Beagle space probe had been kidnapped by Martians. Yet it is clear that significant numbers of people — including perfectly sane, sober, intelligent folk — do believe she may have been murdered. They ignore the many changes in itinerary that night by Dodi Fayed that make such a plot wildly improbable. They brush aside the more plausible explanation that a car driven at 100 mph by a drunken driver may crash, and that someone who has chosen not to wear her seat belt may die. Indeed, despite the lengthy investigation by the French authorities, they believe that the French were also somehow in on the plot to cover up what happened. But then, this is by no means the only conspiracy theory in which substantial numbers people appear to believe. Indeed, despite the fact that we imagine we are living in the most enlightened and rational society in the most enlightened and rational age known to mankind, a startling proportion of us appear to have taken leave of our senses. Certainly, real conspiracies do take place from time to time. In 63 BC, a discontented noble called Lucius Sergius Cataline fomented a revolt against the Roman republic which was foiled by Cicero. In the Cato Street conspiracy of 1820, a Jacobin plot was discovered to assassinate the entire British Cabinet. And in our own time, there was the Cambridge spy ring and the Watergate cover-up. But historical conspiracies are rare. The vast majority of apparently inexplicable events turn out to be caused by chance, accident or individual error or culpability. Nevertheless, many of us veer from one loopy conspiracy theory to another. Thus, crop circles are the work of aliens trying to communicate with us; the moon landings were faked; the AIDS virus was spread deliberately to kill off black and gay people. And whole industries have sprung up around the theory that Elvis is still alive, or that the Beatles’ Abbey Road album cover contains a hidden message that Paul McCartney is dead. We have been deluged by theories that President Kennedy, his brother Robert and Marilyn Monroe all died at the hands of the mafia or the CIA or foreign interests — or even each other. Yet no such evidence has ever stood up to serious scrutiny. The murder of the Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh last year was blamed by some on the Bilderberg group, a forum for European and American leaders represented by conspiracy theorists as a sinister power élite controlling the world. In fact, the lone man who confessed to the murder this week had been suffering from mental illness. There is a popular reluctance to believe that people who are larger than life or have some kind of iconic status are actually just like the rest of us, with flawed and messy lives, and that their ends may be just as banal. People refuse to accept that their deaths may be due to accident, incompetence or a random lunatic because this would puncture the inflated and unrealistic view they had of them while they were alive. The saturation of our society by the media, which unscrupulously mixes fact with fiction and prefers sensational conspiracy theories over less entertaining sober reality, is responsible for a lot of this damage. Oliver Stone’s misleading film JFK, for example, has convinced many beyond a shadow of doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald did not alone shoot President Kennedy. But belief in conspiracies goes wider and deeper still. Theories for which there is no scientific proof, such as man-made global warming, are peddled as demonstrable fact; the anti-globalisation movement demonises an allegedly malevolent conspiracy of big business; the belief in sinister links between the military-industrial complex and the intelligence services underpins anti-Americanism and opposition to the war in Iraq. All these prejudices belong to the ideology of the left, which is constructed on a gigantic conspiracy theory which blames capitalism for all the ills of mankind. Since the left now occupies the commanding heights of our culture, these assumptions are now commonplace. And since such determinism effectively removes individual responsibility for what happens, it is a creed tailor-made for a society devoted to the ruthless pursuit of self-interest, which has rejected mainstream religion and its moral codes. Yet having dispensed with religion, people still have a desperate need to make order out of chaos. They are doing so not merely through conspiracy theories but by embracing many other areas of the irrational like the occult, paganism or the paranormal. Our super-scientific age has seen a popular flight from science to New Age therapies such as faith-healing, energy-giving crystals or feng shui — beliefs associated with no less a personage than the Prime Minister’s wife. Obsessions with charlatans and quacks reflect widespread insecurity by people who, adrift without the consolations of religion, feel helpless and at the mercy of events. The more threatening the world becomes, the more they turn to the irrational. It all goes to prove GK Chesterton’s famous remark that when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. But religion is not necessarily a bar to the irrational. One of the most far-fetched conspiracy theories around is the widespread Muslim belief that Israel is somehow behind every outrage in the world, including 9/11. It is the same theory which holds that Princess Diana was murdered because she was carrying Dodi’s baby, who would have been a Muslim. Such delusions are rooted in the pathological need by some Muslims to prove they are being systematically victimised by the west. This finds common cause with the left, which is also motivated — for rather different reasons — by hatred of the west. The result is an extraordinary axis that has emerged between the conspiracy theories of the left, radical Islamists and the far right. Classic antisemitic libels that the Jews are plotting to take over the world, which were once the province of the far right, are now doing the rounds in the Muslim world. Yet the left, for whom this myth fits its own desire to demonise America, now also holds frequent discussions about the extent to which the Jews control US foreign policy. At the heart of this descent into irrationality is a denial, not just of truths but of the very idea of truth. Post-modernism holds that there is no such thing as objective truth, merely individual opinions. This has destroyed the understanding that opinion is arrived at only after consideration of factual evidence and logical reasoning. Instead, evidence is increasingly viewed through a prism of prior opinion. The result is a collapse of reason and rationality in favour of prejudice and emotion. We can see this at work over attitudes towards both Iraq and the Hutton inquiry, which go beyond legitimate differences of opinion into the wrenching of every development to support a prior prejudice, and a rush to judgment before the facts are even established. Part of the problem is an official lack of candour and the fact that, too often, our political leaders do tell us lies. Part of the responsibility also lies with the media which amplifies such public distrust. But the loss of trust in authority goes far deeper. There is now a belief that authority itself is some kind of conspiracy against the individual. So people leap to the worst possible conclusions. Thus, the worst is repeatedly assumed of Prince Charles, all because the country took the side of Princess Diana — precisely because she embodied emotion over reason. We are living through a flight from reason itself, a kind of collective paranoia. Unchecked, this can lead to dictatorship or totalitarianism as people no longer have the wherewithal to defend themselves against the lies that bring dictatorships to power. Far from a harmless curiosity, our emergence as a conspiracy culture should set an alarm bell ringing.
Posted by melanie at January 10, 2004
Comments
Well Melanie, the lady in question was not 'mentally fragile' she was on the borderline between schizophrenia and complete neuroticism.........the only thing her former husband is responsible for is marrying a dysfunctional woman from a broken home with serious personality disorder. Then to employ staff at the company offices and at home who did not sign the Official Secrets Act when State documents are on the premises this would seem wise. The country is gripped by those of no religious faith who construct their own tissue of belief based upon paranoia and fantasy; and those who were most mawkish a few years back tended to be people themselves with latent mental or psychological distrubance......I find it helpful to ask each prospective female in my social life her reaction to the death of the former wife of the P o Wales.....it tells me if she is capable to being trusted with the 'knife test'. Perhaps they should get Lord Justice Savile to investigate now Peter Sellers is dead and Clouseau is no more, I mean £200 million to invesigate the shooting in Belfast 30 years ago seems a good precedent. I tend to se Prince Charles as a modern living martyr; the amount of cr@p he has had to put up with since he crashed that Aston Martin DB5 from the 007 film set when he was 18 has been incredible.......if only he had not wrecked Jimmy Bond's car ! Anyhow, why did Mag Thatcher ever let the Phony Pharoah buy Horrids ? I think Tiny Rowland was a much more appropriate and respectable character, and I could not imagine Toby Rowland hurtling down a tunnel in Paris with a sauced-up chauffeur in a souped-up car wearing no seatbelt and faffing around with the ex-wife of the PoW on the back seat...........nothing quite so tacky. Still it is Hollywood's need for B-movie stars to have sufficiently spectacular deaths to make a series of conspiracy movies. Cynicism aside, I do feel genuinely sorry for her sons who must surely curse the memory of their mother for the trashy and cheap legacy she has left them. Posted by: John of Gaunt at January 10, 2004 11:18 AMMelanie: My muse has remained dormant for several years now, but she woke up this morning and prodded me with the following offering, even before I read your article. Even she seems to have been blogging on your website, unnoticed, over my shoulder! The Twin Terrors - Red Alert! The Militant Muslims are everywhere The Gramscian Gremlins are everywhere; I'm still trying to work out whether my muse is a conspiracy theorist or whether she is drawing reasonable conclusions from a welter of recent evidence. Oops! She just prodded me again and insists that she agrees with every word you write in your brilliant piece. But she did'nt make it rhyme this time thank God. And by the way, she doesn't mind the groans emanating around the globe from Melanie's faithful bloggers, she tells me. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 10, 2004 12:49 PMAs far as daft conspiracy theories go, most of them seem to fall out of the mouth of Melanie Phillips. That ample evidence of global warming is fabricated in order to further leftish attacks on the oppullence of US energy consumption, that the desire to raise legitimate questions regarding Israel's occupation of Palestinian land is sectretly driven by anti-Jewish hartred, that the only reason the rather lunatic opinions circulated in this forum go unnoticed in the UK media is that its main outlets are controled by mad lefties etc.
Bob Franklin - There are fewer more rational individuals, better thinkers and writers of greater clarity than Melanie Phillips, and you would do well to remember that you are a guest on her site. She's a robust thinker and she would surely be interested in any attempts to demolish her arguments with fact. You attack her on generalities. In other words, you do not approve of her thoughts. Frankly, I found the skill and elegance with which she pulled together all the threads of contemporary Western conspiracy theories without once faltering rather breathtaking. I felt that her argument was convincingly put. If you don't, you should tell us why. And you should try to do it by working your way towards real conclusions, in real sentences. Posted by: Caroline at January 10, 2004 05:28 PM Once again I applaud Melanie's perceptive observations on another of the world's evils. I particularly agreed with her comment that the media must bear some responsibility for the dissemination of much of this nonsense. Yes, craziness is spread so easily these days - and is apparently very attractive to millions of people. It's most effective when it involves good looking people. For example, Marilyn Monroe was murdered on Robert Kennedy's orders because John had offloaded her onto him and he personally was fed up with her demands that he divorce his wife. Ooooh! And then the book depository in Dallas and Jackie in a pink suit and smart little pillbox hat. Then we have royalty, a beautiful princess, infidelity on a grand scale - certainly on her part, although her fans seem to feel that somehow, it wasn't her fault - and a dramatic car crash with a Middle Eastern playboy in the world's most romantic city. I mean, top that! And how strange that, despite 50 years of loyal service, the Queen was depicted as an enemy of the people, via Diana. I remember going to Safeway on the day of her funeral, needing a few things, and being infuriated that they had closed for the day "out of respect". What respect? I would have been doubly furious had I been a shareholder in Safeway. But the point is, an amorphous but unidentifiable "establishment" had decided we were all going to grieve for this whacko whether we had any interest in doing so or not. How else could shareholder held businesses take it upon themselves to close for business on a working day? It was totally bizarre. As though a national disaster had happened - although if there had been a national disaster, the Safeways of the world would have taken pride in staying open and muddling through. But there was a bizarre, unBritish air of thought fascism and chippiness about the whole thing that chilled the blood. Posted by: Caroline at January 10, 2004 07:22 PMIt seems to me that far from being loony, there are more than enough unexplained facts involved in the death of Diana to justify the suspicion of that she was assassinated. But anyone who thinks that bumbling Prince Charles was behind it is loony, that’s for sure. People with much more to lose from her behaviour than him were most probably the culprits. President Kennedy was the President during the height of the cold war and the emergence of black civil-rights movement, and he was killed by a communist who visited Cuba, went to live in Russia, and returned to the US with a Russian wife. The president and his brother were heavily involved in a war with organised crime and with granting blacks equal rights. The circumstances of the case fuelled rational, not loony, conspiracy theories. The majority of people are not loony and don’t believe in anything loony, such as Feng Shui and other New Age bunk. There are probably more tithe-paying members of the Church of England than there are adherents to New Age rubbish. The people who believe the loony theories, such as the one about Elvis still being alive, are loonies. But most of the people who think that it’s most probable that Diana was done in aren’t loonies, they’re thinking people whose suspicion has been aroused by many highly suspicious, unexplained facts. Saying that the movements of Diana and Dodi on that fateful night were too unpredictable for it to be possible to engineer her death is naïve to say the least. If you’ve been watching the programmes on the SAS on television, you’ll know that the Special Forces, whose job it would have been to do the dirty deed, are trained to be able to adapt their plans to suit every possible eventuality. The whole area could easily have been covered in such a way that they could quickly take advantage of a change of travel plans. They would have been waiting for a usable opportunity. A few electronic bugs in the right places could have given them the information they needed to adapt their plan of attack in good time. The only so-called evidence that the driver of the car was drunk came from the analysis of a sample of blood that no longer exists, and which the French refused DNA tests on. He didn’t appear in the least bit drunk in the video shots of him leaving the Ritz, and the ex-SAS security man, who was also in the car and survived the accident, certainly didn’t notice any drunkenness in him, or he would have stopped him from driving the car. Strangely enough, or wisely, he doesn’t remember anything about the “accident”. It also doesn’t seem to make much sense to most people why the US is so concerned with aiding a small and insignificant country – Israel – uphold its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the country, thereby inflaming the whole Islamic world, when it could so easily bring pressure to bear on the Israelis to sort the situation out in the same way as apartheid was sorted out in South Africa. So, people aren’t being irrational if they believe that the Jewish lobby in the US and Jewish politicians are somehow behind the seemingly irrational US support for the upholding of Israel’s version of apartheid. The reason that so few people believe in religion these days is because they can now see what utter rubbish most religious belief is based on. Most of them aren’t irrational or emotional loonies that believe in anything just because they no longer believe in utter rubbish. They are now thinking people who can weigh up the facts and come to sound conclusions. Melanie Phillips is trying to make us not see the wood for the trees here by trying to mix up good reason with real irrationality. I myself think that this has to do with her defence of Israel, which, it seems to me, is her main concern. She knows that many people have good reason to blame Israeli intransigence for the current crises in the Middle East (it gives the Muslim extremists the excuses they need to justify their behaviour), and she wants to mark these people out as loonies in this somewhat convoluted way. It’s not a brilliant article, but it is brilliantly convoluted. Posted by: Eric Legge at January 10, 2004 07:52 PMEric Legge: You seem to have got Melanie sussed out. Could you perhaps apply your razor-sharp mind to the Knightsbridge Egyptian Bazaar Keeper and give us your critical analysis on his motivation for stirring up all this? Another thing, I would like to avail myself of your expert opinion as to why, if the SAS are so brilliant at adapting their strategy to murder enemies of the state, how come he is still around? Given his record of ... how should I put this ... somewhat questionable activities, prior to arriving in the sceptered isle, isn't it just possible that Ali Baba, or whatever alias he is currently using, might have a number of motives other than that of a grieving father just wanting 'justice' for his son. And given the tendency of SAS officers these days to write books about their 'secret' assignments and other derring-do escapades, or appearing in pixilated disguise with helium treated voices on TV, don't you think it might be just a little risky for HM QE II, or her eldest son, or - well who do you think might have initiated an order for them to do this? And which military senior officers would collude with them if they suddenly had this bright idea to solve the 'Diana Problem'. I mean suggest a couple of examples if you have a few quid to spare for the ensuing libel actions - I understand there's a cap on the amount juries can award for libel these days. And you never know, you might win, if you produce some evidence. Evidence ... you know what that means, do you? That stuff that you adduce to put before a Court hearing. It's - like - the hundredweights of testimony and forensically conclusive data that convinced the French authorities that Diana, ex-Princess of Wales died in a catch-us-if-you-can-romp with her boyfriendand the papparazz; when they had to drag an off duty pissed and junked up off duty chauffeur out of the bar to drive the 'happy couple' around Paris, whilst their own vehicle was, unsuccessfully it seems, used as a decoy. Now - I'm not keen on the French authorities, particularly in light of recent history (any history, come to think of it) but even I am prepared to accept that they got this right. And why is it that you think the French Government might have any interest in assisting the British Government? Personally I can think of no precedent for that. But as you have Melanie sussed out, I'm sure you can enlighten me. In the meantime, if you don't mind, I'll go on treating Melanie's article as the most rational of all the miles of copy that has been spewed out on this subject for the last ... how many years? Seems like about 20 to me. And I am afraid, Mr Legge, I shall treat yours as the most stupid and paranoid, not to mention anti-Semitic. You haven't got a Legge to stand on. You never know, though, if the Yard 'celebrity squad' screw up this 'investigation' the way they have all the other 'Royal Investigations' it may turn out that you are right and Melanie is wrong. In that case I shall apologise and immediately cease posting. And emigrate. Assassinated! My arse! Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 11, 2004 02:40 AMEric Legge that is truly bizarre. Just supposing someone wanted to kill the woman in question, wouldn't you think the ski slope was a much better place ? After all if you watch enough James Bond films they always try that; and just why the SAS which is after all nothing more than Regular Soldiers trained in survival would operate in an urban environment is truly bizarre. There is no evidence that the SAS has ever been used in a 1st World urban environment in any role beyond ending sieges........or do you think the 2eme Bureau did it to upset Tony Blair ? Do you think the Mysterons destroyed Beagle II.?.......I saw years ago on TV how they destroyed Captain Black's mission to Mars for Spectrum. Posted by: Romulus at January 11, 2004 05:25 AMEric Legge. Looks like you've been watching too many SAS programmes on TV, old chap. >>It also doesn’t seem to make much sense to most people why the US is so concerned with aiding a small and insignificant country – Israel> ... uphold its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the country>So, people aren’t being irrational if they believe that the Jewish lobby in the US and Jewish politicians are somehow behind the seemingly irrational US support for the upholding of Israel’s version of apartheid.>(Melanie) knows that many people have good reason to blame Israeli intransigence for the current crises in the Middle East (it gives the Muslim extremists the excuses they need to justify their behaviour), and she wants to mark these people out as loonies in this somewhat convoluted way.<< Unlike your good self Eric, I don't claim to know what Melanie knows, but I can tell you what I know - it takes two to conclude a peace deal. Israel wanted to negotiate peace after the 1967 war, but Nasser and allies refused point-blank to have anything to do with her. Apart from 1977/8, when Anwar Sadat courageously visited Israel and pushed for peace (his reward was assassination), and 1994 when King Hussein signed a peace treaty in the aftermath of the Oslo accords, the Palestinian terror groups, led by that corrupt Egyptian Yasser Arafat, have always pushed for the annihilation of Israel - "Palestine from the river to the sea", and "million martyr march to Jerusalem" have been his catchcries! Despite offering them almost everything they asked for in land, they walked away from 2000 Camp David and Taba negotiations and commenced a reign of terror. So, Melanie wrote her article about conspiracy theorists - your contribution, Eric, provides rich illustration of her point. Posted by: Tony at January 11, 2004 11:08 AMDear Eric. Don't know how my response got so jumbled in format, so I'll try a repost (hopefully without the technical gremlins). (Must remember to preview.) Looks like you've been watching too many SAS programmes on TV, old chap. "It also doesn’t seem to make much sense to most people why the US is so concerned with aiding a small and insignificant country – Israel ... ". It's called supporting the only democratic country in the region. It's something that the USA has been increasingly practising of late, just like its support for Churchill's Britain during its darkest hour. "... uphold its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the country." What "ethnic cleansing"? You use a term as it was coined from the 1990's Serbian policy of separation and mass murder. Get acquainted with the facts, and try to stay away from that TV a little more. "So, people aren’t being irrational if they believe that the Jewish lobby in the US and Jewish politicians are somehow behind the seemingly irrational US support for the upholding of Israel’s version of apartheid." I agree, people aren't being irrational - they're being delusional! Measure the impact of the tiny Jewish population in the USA against the larger Islamic lobby - but remember that for every Wolfowitz, there's a Chomsky, for every Perle, there's a Soros. And try to stop being deluded by your stereotypical caricatures. "(Melanie) knows that many people have good reason to blame Israeli intransigence for the current crises in the Middle East (it gives the Muslim extremists the excuses they need to justify their behaviour), and she wants to mark these people out as loonies in this somewhat convoluted way." Unlike your good self Eric, I don't claim to know what Melanie knows, but I can tell you what I know - it takes two to conclude a peace deal. Israel wanted to negotiate peace after the 1967 war, but Nasser and allies refused point-blank to have anything to do with her. Apart from 1977/8, when Anwar Sadat courageously visited Israel and pushed for peace (his reward was assassination), and 1994 when King Hussein signed a peace treaty in the aftermath of Oslo, the Palestinians, led by that corrupt Egyptian terrorist Yasser Arafat, have always pushed for the annihilation of Israel - "Palestine from the river to the sea", and "million martyr march to Jerusalem" have been his catchcries! Despite offering them almost everything they asked for in land, they walked away from Camp David and Taba and commenced a reign of terror. So, Melanie wrote her article about conspiracy theorists - your contribution, Eric, provides rich illustration of her point. Posted by: Tony at January 11, 2004 11:14 AMDo her in on a ski slope with a hundred cameras trained on her every move? Give me a break. It had to be somewhere out of sight, such as in a tunnel with the surveillance cameras mysteriously turned off. And who says Diana wasn't wearing a seat belt? Mike Dicken of Talk Sport was on air when the accident was reported and those on the scene reported that she got out of the car alive. And no one knows where the ambulance that took so incredibly long to take her to a hospital came from. The French deny that it was one of their ambulances. Would you reveal in a book the fact that you were part of such an assassination? If you did, I doubt if you would live long enough to enjoy the proceeds. The Queen herself warned Burrell the butler that there are forces at work in this country of which we know nothing, didn't she? I stand by what I wrote - 90% of the public are not loonies!
EL What percentage are then? Please include yourself in the number as you calculate. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 11, 2004 12:57 PMPersonally, I think Princess Anne's dog Dottie did it. The clues are all there. The royal family was upset because Diana, with the encouragement of her adoring butler, was visiting prostitutes and throwing fur coats in skip and was clearly dotty (get it?). So, although she had no more knowledge than anyone else where the two vacuous loonies would end up in their empty quest to add some interest to their lives, she knew they were HQ'd at The Ritz. So she sneaked one of the Queen's corgis into The Ritz bar incognito, wearing one of the fur coats that Diana had dropped in a skip. Anne was wearing the fur coat, not the corgi, who was au naturel. If you've seen the film of Diana and Dodie leaving the Ritz yet one more time that evening, you may have noticed a quick streak very close the carpet. That the was the corgi, who was accustomed to running and jumping into the open doors of limousines. Acting quickly, Anne released Dottie from under the long fur coat and Dottie raced off snarling after the corgi. That was the famous "second streak" near the carpet -- similar to the "second shot" that came from the book depository in Dallas. (The French authorities have since doctored the film and erased all evidence of these two streaks.) Meanwhile, Anne opened the farside door of the Mercedes and the corgi jumped back out, which enraged Dottie. (Diana was going to fasten her seat belt, but Dottie had chewed it in a fit of fury.) Then they approached the Alma Tunnel. Princess Anne knew that Dottie lost all sense of control in tunnels and had counted on them taking that route. Dottie sprang for the driver's neck and bit him deeply imagining the Queen's corgi. He was unable to shake her off due to being drugged and drunken stupor (Dottie had emptied a Mickey Finn into his last drink under the pretext of begging for a pretzel). After the crash, Dottie jumped out of the limo and chased after the little white car that had been following them. Princess Anne slowed down, opened the door and Dottie jumped in. Everything had worked out exactly as Princess Anne planned it. Driving back to the airport, she dropped the fur coat into a municipal poubelle. As you can see, there are absolutely no holes in this story. Everything hangs together perfectly and is irrefutable. To say that the SAS was involved is absolutely crazy. Posted by: Caroline at January 11, 2004 01:08 PMWay to go Caroline! I love it. Posted by: Henry Kaye at January 11, 2004 01:12 PMCaroline: You have my vote for this years Bloggitzer(comedic section) special award. Hilarious! Please let us know where we can avail ourselves of your professional writing - I feel uneasy at always being able to receive it gratis. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 11, 2004 02:09 PMwell said, one and all - the only thing missing in your knowledge is reading the autobio of trevor rees-jones, dodi's bodyguard. He was the only survivor in the crash but is never mentioned in the press - buy his book - his testimony is proably the only one I would believe out of the whole lot of them. He paid a high price for his loyalty to these high-flying glitteratis - his book brings the whole fairy tale down from the stratoshphere crashing down to earth. anyway - well done Mel - keep up the good words clivey Posted by: cliveyboy at January 11, 2004 08:32 PMMelanie, Please write an acticle about the BBC and its treatment of Kilroy vs. Paulin. Thank you. Posted by: Roger at January 12, 2004 07:39 AMCan I just add some congratulations to Melanie for her win as "Most Islamophobic media personality". And very well deserved it is too. Posted by: amused_bystander at January 12, 2004 05:21 PMamused bystander, the truth must hurt a lot, does not it? Posted by: Roger at January 12, 2004 09:13 PMThose of you who were amused by that daft Dotty the dog story probably get a kick out of watching the Telly Tubbies with a dummy in their mouths while wearing a nappy. I didn't say the SAS were responsible, I said that far from being an impossiblity because no one had any idea of what the couple's movements were going to be, the SAS could have done the job relatively easily with the help of a few bugs placed in the hotel, and by setting things up around the hotel so that they could quickly make use of any avenue of opportunity. If the SAS could have done it, any other specially trained outfit could have also carried it out. Instead of just calling me loony, why doesn't one of you guffawing, sandal-wearing yogart knitters take the time to explain those facts to me -especially why the Queen issued a warning to Burrell the butler about the forces at work in this country that we know nothing of? All he did was make the Queen acknowledge that he wasn't a thief after all, because Diana told her that she had given him the right to keep some of her possessions in his home. Posted by: Eric Legge at January 12, 2004 10:19 PMMelanie, Surely the statement that "the left now occupies the commanding heights of our culture" is incompatible with the claim that Postmodern scepticism is our new religion. If the former were true, we would all be unthinking dogmatists. Most Postmodernists were former Marxists who emerged in reaction to the dogmatic self-righteousness of the left. This movement, which celebrates irony and absurdity against any moral foundations, is testimony to the morally bankrupt society which you rightly condemn.
I think part of the problem is the tendency of many journalists, especially Europeans, to be overly ideological. They don’t seem to give a hoot about objectivity or about honestly weighing and presenting all the facts they have at hand. They would say that objectivity is an illusion, something that is impossible to achieve or that doesn’t even exist. They may also rationalize a fudging of the facts by saying that it’s done in the service of greater truths. I think that the result is that you have a lot of journalists writing for the converted, offering reports and analyses that would not stand up to the scrutiny of anyone but the converted. They don’t seem to question their assumptions and deeply held beliefs. They don’t seem to have any curiosity about the possibly honest motivations of those they oppose. And they tend to either ignore or dismiss facts that don’t fit into their worldview. In fact, it seems that many journalists decide on their political views early in their careers, and then conform all their reporting to their decided ideological bent. I wonder if many of these journalists (especially on the left) go out of their way to avoid admitting where the other side might be right, for fear of ostracism by their colleagues, editors, and their audience. In my view, this approach to journalism often ends up being shrill and vicious, with a tendency to caricature. The integrity and My ideal approach would be to always try to reach objectivity, even in the knowledge that you may never get there. I remember learning in calculus class that you can approach a point "asymptotically." That is, you get nearer and nearer, but there is always a space (however microscopic) separating you from your goal. I think that there are objective truths regarding current or historical events. Probably the objective version would be a combination of the concrete events, the motivations of the participants, and the differing perceptions of the participants as to what was going on. These elements can be difficult to decipher. Perhaps impossible in most cases, especially when a deadline is looming. Still, I think the best approach is for a journalist to constantly test his own assumptions with aggressive reporting and research, to allow for greater nuance, to hold back before jumping to conclusions, and to be satisfied with conclusions that are not black-and-white. This may make for less colorful writing, something newspapers and magazines won’t like, but the articles will be richer and more informative. Posted by: Joanne at January 13, 2004 11:16 PMJoanne On the other hand, this is a blog; Melanie does more than her share towards objectivity and truth searching and so do many of her guests. But it is also a good site for a rough and tumble - entertainment as well as enlightenment; better than the BBC in that regard. Hang out here from time to time, you'll see what I mean. Nice post though, very thoughtful. Keep searching for the Holy Grail - a worthy endeavour. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 14, 2004 03:02 PMEric Legge - "especially why the Queen issued a warning to Burrell the butler about the forces at work in this country that we know nothing of?" Uh, Eric, and who reports these words of the Queen? Why none other than the very butler himself! There was no neutral third party present. Do you honestly think the Queen talks like Darth Vader? Give us a break!
Frank, Thanks very much for your response to my posting, Frank. I'm glad you liked it. But I should clarify one thing: My posting was not meant as a criticism of Melanie Phillips. It as meant to agree with her general point about the "flight from reason." I'm left-of-center myself; I call myself a Social Democrat, and I'm also—tentatively—a Howard Dean supporter. (Oh, I should've said: I'm American) But I've been long aware of the biases in left-wing journalism. Not that there isn't plenty of that on the right! But I think that left-wing journalism has a far greater impact on the educated classes, in America as well as in Europe. So the damage can be greater. On another disturbing note: At a dinner last night, I sat next to a very nice Indian fellow, an MBA in finance, and we were discussing my opinion that since 9/11 the mainstream American media has been very passive vis à vis the Bush administration—cheerleading our war in Iraq, Bush's tax cuts, etc. Then this well-educated fellow said to me, in all seriousness, that perhaps there is somebody at the top controlling all of the media in the U.S. I was floored! So I explained to him that reality is far more complicated than that—especially in a developed, democratic country with many centers of power, many communities, and many points of view. I told him that media, academic, and policy elites may influence each other indirectly, but they often don't know each other personally. They don't meet in some smoke-filled back room to plan everything. He listened to me and nodded earnestly as I explained to him that journalists will follow parameters set by their editors, and editors will keep an eye on the mindsets of their readers. They're not taking orders from the White House. They're trying to sell newspapers. He seemed to be convinced. His kind of thinking seems to come out of a comic-book view of the world. It reflects a deep skepticism that's unleavened by knowledge, a feel for how the world works, and just plain common sense. And I've heard of other cases of this kind of thinking by educated people. Look at all the educated people in the Arab world who believe that 9/11 was planned by Mossad! It's depressing. Posted by: Joanne at January 14, 2004 04:25 PMJoanna "Look at all the educated people in the Arab world who believe that 9/11 was planned by Mossad! It's depressing." Not educated - brainwashed! And that's even more depressing. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 16, 2004 03:19 AMMelanie John Laughland issues a stern rebuke in today's Speccy and names names. I'm all agog for your reponse. He seems to raise some issues, but I'm not sure he's really addressing your theme, viz. Diana's disastrous tunnel of love adventure; he also seems to have back-tracked somewhat on his own stance before and during the Iraq conflict. What say you? Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 16, 2004 01:49 PMJust how long did it take you to raise the spectre of Anti-Semitism (Those the Jews Hate) Paul Burrell ? Now there's a story for the telling........I find it good that in the Upstairs Downstairs world of the Palace the Queen seeks counsel in the wisdom of the footmen..............so it is not as stratified and socially exclusive as we were led to believe............
Muslim belief that Israel is somehow behind every outrage in the world, including 9/11. Does this appear in the Koran, Melanie? Thou shall not kill,has something to do with Christanity, I believe.But Mr Blair being a true believer answers to a higher parliment as our earthly one. Melanie, I found out long ago that I knew nothing, You still believe that you know something. Very foolish indeed. Posted by: Frank. at January 23, 2004 11:32 AM"Thou shall not kill,has something to do with Christanity" You should read The Book Frank instead of opining...it is a tenet of Judaism you quote, one of the Ten Commandments I bet you fail to honour or obey. As for Blair...he has killed noone. He runs the country and exercises the powers; if our troops kill in the course of their duties that is the nature of warfare. You would do well to recall exactly what those Commandments are, and to honour the Lord your God. Posted by: Romulus at January 23, 2004 03:06 PM"You would do well to recall exactly what those Commandments are, and to honour the Lord your God." Unless he can think for himself in witch case he wont need a list of rules some bloke wrote up a mountain no doubt enjoying some "burning bush" at the time. Posted by: Toker14 at February 2, 2004 09:50 AM |
