Good morning one and all. Tired. Oh so tired. Stayed up last night to watch the inquiry into the News of the World phone hacking scandal and it was, umm, weird viewing to say the least. Like watching somebody sit a test you knew they were going to fail. Anyhow, catch up on the gist of it here:
1. Murdochs appear before inquiry, attacked by shaving cream wielding comedian
It was a night of high drama and awkward scenes as both Rupert and James Murdoch appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport select committee of Parliament. Yup, awkward. James appeared like a school boy who had made a grave error, apologising repeatedly and in myriad ways. “What happened at the News of the World was wrong,” he said. Mr Murdoch senior said it was ‘the most humble day of my life’. But neither accepted ultimate responsibility.
Mr Murdoch senior said he had been betrayed by people he trusted. When asked if it were a financial decision to close the News of the World, he answered: “Far from it.” But his tone wavered considerably between what were obviously his scripted lines (I am sorry, this is a humble day) when he spoke spontaneously about the BSkyB bid and why it was abandoned. He spoke of many critics: “They caught us with dirty hands and built an hysteria around it.” Otherwise the inquiry was punctuated with a lot of ‘I do not knows’ and ‘I do not recalls’ and ‘not to my knowledge’. As if to round of a highly bizarre evening, comedian Johnnie Marbles lunged at Rupert Murdoch with a plate of shaving cream, screaming ‘you naughty billionaire’.
Rupert’s wife Wendi Deng leapt to protect him before falling over. As he was led away under arrest, Mr Marbles said: “As Mr Murdoch himself said, I’m afraid I cannot comment on an ongoing police investigation.” Rebekah Brooks was also questioned, again rescinding statements she made before parliament in 2003 that police had been paid for information in the past. Instead, she said, ‘in my experience, the information we get from police has always been free’. She said she was not, when she was editor of News of the World, responsible for payments that might have been made to private investigators or phone hackers but that was the remit of the managing editor.
Top Comments
I think we should always give fair (and proportional) airtime to the critics of scientific consensus. I have researched a lot of the history and philosophy of science and there are endless examples of when the consensus is wrong. This has both been to political, social and scientific limitations.
This is a hugely important question - investigate the abundance of stories like Rachel Carson and DDT or Clair Patterson and tetra-ethyl lead and it becomes apparent how wrong science and scientific consensus can be and how much power and politics factor into the subject.
When poor old Boltzmann tried to convince the scientific community about the statistical basis of thermodynamics - No respectable scientist would have a bar of it. It was unimaginable that the vaulted laws of physics could be statistical in nature. Some say Boltzmann committed suicide because of the stress of being ostracised so severely by his peers (others posthumously diagnosed him as bipolar) . The statistically based second law of thermodynamics is now considered the most incorrigible law of phyics. I could go on ad infinitum.
One of the most fundamental aspects of the most generally accepted model of scientific knowledge and methodology is that it is based on the idea of refutability. Every theory must continually be subjected to rigorous and critical attempts to refute it. Science is not dogma - The current environment of science is hugely problematic. There should always be room for scientific dissent. Respect and time for scientists who go against the consensus. Debate should always be open and respectful.
It is the media's role to be just as critical and skeptical. The public should always be treated as intelligent enough to be given all sides of the debate. If the science is valid and solid - community understanding and support will follow eventually.
What the BBC is doing is hugely wrong and dangerous and does not reflect the basic philosophy and logic of what science actually is. The adulation of supposed *scientific fact* by some people has simply substituted the unthinking, uncritical acceptance of religious dogma with a new *God* - 'science' - but is quite divorced from the formulation of the scientific method and theory. It can and often has been manipulated by those with an agenda and power.
We should most certainly not do it here. Ideally journalists should be challenging the scientists, seeking to prove them wrong, questioning them, making them accountable. Like they are supposed to do with government. I could go into considerable depth about this topic but this is just a quick post of my thoughts. I'm not saying give skeptics equal airtime but they should always be given a voice in the media.
And the Aurura Australias is sublime - I hope to see it one day with my own eyes.
Good on Rebecca Black for having a go and making the most of her opportunities. I think she has a terrible voice and I want to slap her because her facial expressions are so annoying, but if people keep watching her clips and buying her songs why should she stop?!