You see, when I write about topics such as election law and psephology, I frequently check to see what is said in peer-reviewed academic papers. Particularly when I’m disagreeing with what people have claimed in such academic papers because, after all, saying something is wrong without actually taking a look at it is a bit of a risky leap of faith isn’t it?
But seeing what James Delingpole says, I can see where I’ve been going wrong. Clearly if I want to be a serious proper writer who gets published regularly by the Daily Telegraph or the Spectator the thing to remember is that criticising peer-reviewed papers (and indeed accusing authors of being in a conspiracy) is most properly done by never actually looking at them yourself:
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A remarkable politician
Well done Planting Up Sunniside
Lib Dems complain to Ofcom over 'undue prominence' BBC gave to Reform
Reform UK councillor was 'pen pal' of top Al Qaeda terrorist who masterminded 9/11
Joe Otten
Nick Baird
Brenda Will
Craig Levene
paul barker
14 Comments
I saw this myself, and was amused by how poorly he came across. I happen to be reading Ben Goldacre’s book, ‘Bad Science’, at the moment, which makes many of the same points as the professor-type on this programme.
I saw this too and was amazed too at how badly James Delingpole came across. I thought Paul Nurse, who presented the programme, did I really good job of explaining how science works and explaining some of the reasons that some areas of science are under attack.
Sir Paul did a brilliant job in his presentation. It was laughable that a journalist who couldn’t be bothered to check the facts thought his view superior to that of the Nobel Prize winning President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, OM.
In an age when presentation often scores over substance Sir Paul came out on top in both. Predictably I was taken to task in Telegraph ‘Comments’ for saying so but why? If the experts have it wrong we can breath a sigh of relief. If the doubters get the upper hand and they are proved wrong, it will be too late.
Writers in the Telegraph and Spectator are simply paid to spout the prejudices of the owners. That’s why the Telegraph tells you the euro’s about to collapse in a major article just about every day and has done ever since it was first introduced. They used to be serious, if right wing, papers. Now they don’t deserve to be any more than a laughing stock.
As for Delingpole, his opinions on when it might or might not be OK to beat up children are the measure of the man (a couple of links below). He’s a thoroughgoing s**t.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/10079233/What_the_BBC_didnt_want_you_to_know_about_the_Belfast_Romanians/
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/3715728/you-know-it-makes-sense.thtml
Wow! How embarassing for Delingpole. His offense at the supposed caricaturisation of his position was incoherent and basically incorrect. But what is really devastating for him is that he is guilty of the very thing that he accuses climate change advocates of being, he is at the mercy of the opinion of scientists, who are, at least in his opinion, fallible. So really he has no reason to think the skeptic is right, if he can’t form an opinion on the science on his own.
Hoist by his own petard.
Many years ago I was telephoned by a so called reporter from the Daily Telegraph who asked about 12 questions, all of which he answered to his own great satisfaction, thanked me for an interview in which [unusually] I had said nothing at all except confirm my name. He then hung up. When his piece appeared it contained a quote attributed to me. Later on after an engineering disaster I was at a Publishers conference and there was much smoke and noise to the effect that engineers who made mistakes should be personally liable for the consequences. The debate came to an abrupt halt when I said that as an engineer I could go along with this as long as the same rule applied to publishers and journalists. Petros – modesty, concern for truth, and respect have not been of much concern to the media for decades. The only paper I will buy is the Financial Times.
“Journalists” like James Delingpole only exist because they act as a mouthpiece for the increasingly capricious, self interested and downright nasty views of proprietors like the Barclay Brothers. This is now true of the vast majority of columnists and “star” contributors of what used to be called the “quality press”. I am glad I can read most newspapers for free online because frankly, given the quality of what is written, most of their journalists are subtracting value from the facts rather than adding it.
@ Coldcomfort
The only thing I will say in their defence is that the conditions faced by journalists have rapidly worsened over the past decades. Pay levels at the bottom rung have stagnated to the point where freelance per day fees on The Times, for example, are often the same as they were 15 years ago (i.e. there has been a real pay cut of around 35%).
Furthermore, work pressures have been piled on. Think for example of the difference between having to file copy for one deadline per day versus having to add on articles for online editions, blogs, podcasts etc. etc. Multiple rounds of job cuts have increased insecurity, while experienced and knowledgable journalists know they are under constant threat of being replaced by someone younger and cheaper who is more willing to bend the facts to suit the editorial policy and the proprietor’s will.
Meanwhile, the quality of work from sub-editors, charged with writing headlines, topping, tailing and trimming the stories, checking grammar and spelling and often subjecting pieces to radical surgery, deteriorates in relation to the quality of the output of our educational system and its ability to teach good, precise English.
Is there any wonder the quality of newspapers in this country is at an all time low?
Not all peer-reviewed academic papers are freely available. A lot (even though the research is government funded) are behind a publisher paywall, limiting the audience to university students, academics and those involved in research.
This makes it harder for journalists and the public (who often fund research through taxes) to read the actual paper, which can lead to sensationalism and reporters just plainn getting it wrong.
However, having said all that the example you use is just lazy journalism and the climate change deniers clutching at straws in order to try and influence public opinion.
@John Brace
Most publishers would supply a copy of the work for newspapers etc. Delingpole etc just needs to contact the press office.
What a pompous a*se – a behavioural psychologist would have a field day deconstructing Delingpole’s defensive body language.
I remember a time when the Spectator, though I may not have agreed with its politics, was always full of intelligent and well-written articles, which I enjoyed because they were thought-provoking. Indeed, it tended to be what I would buy if I had a longish journey to make and wanted something to read.
It has really changed in recent years, however. So much of its material is just crass stupidity, lazily rehearsing the assumptions which are now commonplace amongst those with large amounts of money and little else. I’ve stopped buying it because it’s a waste of money, it isn’t thought-provoking any more, just anger-provoking. Struggling to think of how to describe it, the word that comes to mind is “vulgar”. Like the once great Sunday Times, vulgar. Full of trash masquerading as sophistication, and not even trying too hard to do that much, getting closer to being just trash.
@Mark Pack
Thank God you are not paid by either of these joke sheets! No credible centre ground (right or left) really could be.
I do not agree with everything you write (and I’m certain that that would apply vice versa !) However, I do believe that you do write with reasoned arguments not something they put much store in.
@Chris
“Writers in the Telegraph and Spectator are simply paid to spout the prejudices of the owners. That’s why the Telegraph tells you the euro’s about to collapse in a major article just about every day and has done ever since it was first introduced”
You are so right, of course the Euro has been a huge success. Greece, Ireland and Portugal all demonstrate the benefits of fixed exchange rates