Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

Mad Mel: What’s the world coming to when a man can’t murder his cheating wife?

Really?

Really.

The Groucho approach to awards

Sunny, among many others, is dismayed by the prospect of fuckwit Melanie Phillips winning some British blogging award. And I can completely understand. If that no-talent venomous witch were to emerge victorious it would be an appalling travesty, given that her career and blog consist of spouting batshit insane nonsense, often demonstrably untrue and often so wildly far from the truth that you have to wonder exactly what grasp on reality the woman really has. Seriously. It's not as if the "The Jews did 9-11" ravers are given airtime in the mainstream media (and quite rightly so), yet Phillips, just as bonkers but with different political views, is allowed to continue as if she's actually any good.

What the legitimisation of Phillips does is give a totally false impression. As if she's regarded as anything other than a fucking massive fruitcake. Surely most Jewish people wince when they read her column and blog (at least I hope they do), where the conspiracy theories get wilder and wilder than the things she's permitted to publish in the Spectator and Daily Mail. It's complete and utter fucking nonsense. It's drivel. It wouldn't be allowed from any other writer in the country; and if it were from any other political slant, it wouldn't be allowed at all. Not that I really care, but it's damaging to the reputation of the Spectator and the Mail to have such a despicably useless non-journalist twat spouting such cobblers on a regular basis. It demeans every other thing in those publications.

But then, on the other hand, you have to take a step back. The blog awards in question involved various submissions, which were then looked at by the organisers and then put through as finalists. As far as I'm aware, the number of submissions for a particular blog (ie due to a concerted effort from a small group of rather tragic individuals who support Mad Mel and her stupid views) didn't count towards whether or not a certain entry was put through as a finalist.

Therefore, there's only one conclusion to reach: that the people in charge of the awards actually thought it was good.

Much as it's important that Phillips doesn't win, you have to bear in mind that the awards are rather tarnished by the fact that she was selected as a finalist in the first place. You know, someone went to the blog, read what was on there and considered that it was actually any good, and not a pile of steaming shit.

Who would want to win an award whose judges think Melanie Phillips is anything other than a fucking fruitloop?

But still, let's make her lose.

Mel Phillips opens up a big can of whoopass

Rhetorically Speaking has spotted a rather remarkable item that's appeared on Mel Phillips's Spectator blog:

Your article, “Carpe diem -- or can we all relax now?” by Melanie Phillips (26 November 2008), repeats a number of patently false assertions about Robert Malley that are currently blighting the more dubious corners of the internet and do not belong in a respected publication.
Mr Malley did not work for the Obama campaign, nor is he working for the transition team. He did not travel anywhere for Obama, neither before nor after the election.
...
A simple phone call to the International Crisis Group when writing the article would have cleared up all of these points, but your author apparently found it easier simply to copy-and-paste a libellous statement from an American web page.

Whoopsy! Make no mistake, this letter wouldn't be on there if there were any doubt about its veracity. And to think just a simple phone call to check the facts would have sufficed... but why bother when you're a high-profile journalist? Shades of Ross/Brand, I fear. But will the Spectator learn the same lessons that the BBC had to about the power of 'talent' and the need for checks and balances?

Mad Mel's 'Carpe Diem' appears to have been snipped from the Spectator's website, but happily it persists elsewhere on the internet, where it's reprinted verbatim and doubtless won't be updated in the light of new information. In a deliciously unselfaware paragraph, Melanie opines:

The Republicans, who really don't begin to grasp just what has hit them, similarly fail to acknowledge that among their own ranks are many who, just like in the British Conservative party, share with the left the desire to neutralize American power and throw Israel under the bus. Some of those people came to power under George W Bush and set him on the disastrous path to appeasement — which his demented detractors on the left somehow failed altogether to notice.

You can't help but chuckle at Phillips saying that batshit-insane nonsense, then claiming that anyone who disagrees is 'demented'. Hell, maybe she is right and there is a worldwide conspiracy, from the 'Left' all the way through most of the Conservative Party and including many of the Bush administration (though not the great man himself, luckily) which is determined to destroy Israel. Or maybe not.

Blimey

Thanks to Steve in the comments yesterday for pointing me in this direction: if you were in any doubt whatsoever of Melanie Phillips's tenously slender grasp on reality, have a look at this Spectator article here. And then, if you have a couple of hours and can stomach the churning mass of insanity, read the comments. And then have a little cry, if you like.

A voice of reason amidst the frothing hate:

De Toqueville
October 26th, 2008 1:59am
James (above 9.59pm) writes:

"Many have remarked that this election is the one during which journalism finally died. Not just in America either - the disgraceful BBC has officially thrown its own Charter under the bus and has allowed hacks like Justin Webb to use their BBC blogs to claim that anyone thinking of voting for McCain must "hate America."

This could in fact be the end of the mainstream media as more and more of us discard it in favor of online sources we can trust.

It does not seem like five minutes since the phrase "I read it on the internet" inspired mockery and derision. Now the roles are changing and the internet is gradually being seen as the only place you can actually find objective information and reasonable viewpoints.

**

No, James, the BBC's Justin Webb has not said anything of the kind and would be instantly dismissed if he did.

Is your post some kind of postmodern satire? If not, I suggest you go and have a good lie down in a quiet room and only get up when your computer has been safely locked away in a cupboard by your carers.

Melanie P is a fairly skilled polemicist, always has been -- even when she was a leftwing journo mostly writing about social policy for the Guardian. Good for her. These days, sadly, she is more of a demagogue. Her piece is interesting enough, but it is relies on any number of bald assertions and rash generalisations. Perhaps she should go and have a nice chat with Stella Rimington, the ex-MI5 boss who has a very different view of the threat posed by Islamists.

But more to the point, as an interested bystander and British friend of America who believes in democracy, I am frightened by the vicious tone of the debate, even here on the Spectator website. Is any one else?

Assuming Obama wins, are we going to have to put up with four or more years of internet nutters talking about anti-Americanism, palling around with terrorists, and the rest, or is all that dreck just a campaign tactic? God let's hope so.

I'm pretty sure Mr McCain himself will do everything he can to rally round if Obama wins. He is after all, a patriot and a democrat.

As we know, democracy is the worst system of government yet devised, except for all the others. But the tricky bit is your own team doesn't always win. Failing to respect the verdict of the people and labelling your opponents as unpatriotic is a slippery slope -- one that ends in McCarthyism and/or on Elm Street, Dallas TX -- and it's one that too many people, even here on a Spectator blog, appear to be in danger of sliding down.