reductio ad absurdum

sometimes i read something that i think is so good that i just cant help but share the article.

other times however i read something which i dislike so much that i feel compelled to whinge about it

today's post is very much the latter. today's bad article is this one from the abc commentary site:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-15/berg-its-about-muckraking-not-kingmaking/5022976

essentially, the argument is that by virtue of the abbott government recently coming under criticism from the media over politician's expenses claims it can therefore be seen that the persistent complaints  from "left intellectuals" (as the author puts it) about media bias were unjustified:

"The expenses scandal demonstrates how off-target all that outrage about the media really was." 

i'm not really so concerned with refuting the main premise of the piece, because i don't think it's really needed, and so, very quickly:

it is indeed true that critical articles about the government prove beyond a doubt that the newspapers of this country are not 20th-century-dictatorship-style propaganda machines. unarguably, it is incorrect to say that the newspapers flat-out refuse to criticize the liberal or national parties

however the fact that newscorp and fairfax have since the election written articles critical of the abbott government simply does not equate to proof of an absence of entrenched bias. it's a shitty straw-man argument and it ignores a pretty convincing body of evidence to the contrary.

indeed it is telling that no links to any of this "leftist intellectual" criticism is provided in the piece-- especially considering the author had time to find and provide an anti-labor link, a pro-liberal link, and even casually dismiss a very good example of media bias as a"mad conspiracy"

that stuff warrants only a passing mention here. it's stupid- but crucially, it's also not so interesting (to me)

what im more interested in is a little bit of the article that betrays just how reactionary and ideologically extreme the author, and the institute from which he hails, is.

the aforementioned "left intellectuals" bit

in an article that is apparently based on facts the use of the qualifier "left" before intellectual is cause for much concern.

essentially it demonstrates that to the author scholarly and scientific expertise does not exist in and of itself-- both are very much conditional upon whether the individual hails from the "right" or "left"

an intellectual from the "left" will always argue for leftist positions. conversely, the reasoning goes, only a firmly "right" intellectual can be relied on the counterbalance the original left-leaning bent

objective facts, as such, do not exist. there are simply "right" and "left" (read: wrong) ways of interpreting the world.

for this dickhead, a scientist who agrees that the world is warming as a result of human activities is not using his considerable analytic and critical thinking skills to interpret observable patterns and trends, oh no. he is cherry-picking information to make it fit his diabolical "leftist" perspective of the world,  essentially making him a member of an ongoing global conspiracy of the "left "

the idea that intellectuals are ideologically split between "left" and "right" is a recent one, intentionally developed by vested interests to stifle crucial reforms that would threaten the status quo. in reality, intellectuals (ACTUAL ones) are not defined primarily by their ideological bent and almost always hold a broad consensus on issues relating to their area of expertise

because facts are objective, and emphatically not slaves to perspective, however much people such as this author might argue otherwise.

down at the bottom of the article is the following summary:

"Chris Berg is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. His most recent book is In Defence of Freedom of Speech: from Ancient Greece to Andrew Bolt."

once i got over laughing at the fact someone compared the ancient greeks to bolt in the title of a book, i took a quick look at the background and policies of "the institute of public affairs"

not too many surprises there

the institute of public affairs is a private think tank funded primarily by a mixture of mining and oil companies and has established links to the liberal party

it advocates (you guessed it) privatization of government assets, lower tax rates for the rich, and the deregulation of the economy

the institute of public affairs wants an end to government welfare, especially for aboriginals, and is convinced the ABC is irreparably tainted with a "left" bias (can you believe it!). oh and plain packaging for tobacco, they don't like that, either.

AND they totally reject the science of global warming! "Whaaaaat" i hear you say, "the faux-policy group made by and for oil tycoons doesn't accept the science?? say WHAAAATT??" 

essentially, all of the very worst aspects of american neoliberalism are concentrated in to this very well-funded institute which basically exists just to churn out shit like this to misinform idiots and make them vote pro-business. sound fucked up? it is fucked up!

as is commonly understood, people have a right to their opinions but not their own facts. we know full well what happens when reactionary fools and ideological extremists are given free reign to polarize and misinform: government literally ceases to function, like in america right now
call me extreme but in the immediate context of incredibly dire and increasingly urgent warnings from all the scientists of the globe and the actual breakdown of the us government as an institution, articles originating from a body so transparently evil as the institute for public affairs probably shouldn't be included in the adult debate

take out your "okay to kill" list and add the institute of public affairs, then underline and circle it like 50 times