Modern journalists are ill-educated fuckwits, frankly. Usually they parrot the latest press release without a hint of challenge, tell us that the drivel pushed by the usual suspects is “science” when junk science is a more accurate term. But now we have an arch moron who doesn’t even understand logical fallacy when it is pointed out to him.
Nick Ferrari asked a loaded question – a false dichotomy – so was reminded of this by his guest.
A trade union leader was taken off air after repeatedly accusing the show’s presenter of beating his wife while defending a train driver who failed a breath test.
It’s also worth pointing out that the Telegraph falls into the same trap as Ferrari, mind…
Now, I remain sceptical regarding some of the claims being made by the RMT. Not least, having obtained a positive result, I would expect the donor to challenge it and seek a review including a blood or urine test to ensure that it was breath borne acetone and not alcohol giving the reading. We don’t know the full facts yet, but the yes or no question was to ignore the point being made by Hedley; that there were problems with the test and its results, i.e. a false positive, so “failure” in this context would not be the right choice of words. You may not agree. I’m not sure I do, however, that was the line he was trying to explain, so let him do so and then challenge it.
Ferrari, being a moron, failed to grasp what was going on so claimed that he was offended because Hedley was accusing him of domestic abuse. Fer cryin’ out loud… The “have you stopped beating your wife” question is the classic textbook example used to describe the loaded question – it’s making a point about how the debate is being conducted, it isn’t an accusation of domestic abuse and only a complete knumbnut would think it was. Hedley was reminding the twat interviewing him that he was guilty of doing this. Ferrari, being terminally thick, didn’t get it. Is it any wonder, when we have stupid journalists that single issue pressure groups, quangos, health Nazis and fake charities as well as politicians get away with blue murder? There is no one with critical thinking skills holding them up to examination and challenge.
If Ferrari had been half competent, he could have properly examined Hedley’s case. As it was, he came nowhere near close. Neither participant came out of the exchange with any merit, though. I’m not sure I would want someone of Hedley’s ilk representing me at a disciplinary hearing.
Can I applaud you for nobly leaping to the defence of someone who could not be further from your own views? Hedley would never do the same for you.
Ferrari either revealed his own ignorance or stitched Hedley up. It was an odd line for Hedley to take however given the allegations of domestic violence by his former partner and fellow ultra-leftist to which you linked. Hedley may not need media training, as Ferrari sneered, but should surely have considered the consequences of listeners Googling “Hedley domestic violence”.
The link leads down a noxious hard-left rabbit hole, where any sensible person’s compassion for (depending on the facts) a woman assaulted or a man vengefully defamed will rapidly dissipate. These people can’t discuss issues of right and wrong without layering on ideology until you realise that – in their world view – innocence or guilt actually depends on your politics. Follow a few links and you will soon be imagining yourself at their mercy in some labour camp, where your opposition to their political views would make you guilty regardless of your actions or your intent.
Sad stuff, but all the more reason to admire your principled defence of such unprincipled people.
It’s easy to defend people you agree with 😉
The RMT are losing the PR war here. Whether this chap is a dangerous lush rightly sacked, or a medical miracle whose disability makes him seem that way despite being a teetotaller, the management can point to the RMT as ‘people who strike so drunks can drive you to work OMG FFS WWJD?!’
And idiots like Hedley getting riled and storming out of radio interviews don’t help the situation.
He didn’t storm out, he was cut off. That doesn’t alter your point about winning the PR battle though.
I listen to LBC quite a lot, because sometimes (only sometimes) some of the better presenters raise some interesting questions. Sadly, those presenters are often “moved on” or shifted to less popular slots. It may just be coincidence, of course, but pretty much all of their most independent-minded presenters who would occasionally “break ranks” and present a question at odds with “the common consensus” always seem to be the ones who don’t last – Marcus Churchill, who was the only presenter I could find who was openly critical of the absolute nature of the smoking ban from the moment it was voted in; Nick Margerrison with his single-minded determination to make his own mind up about anything and everything, yet with the open-mindedness to be persuaded to change his views when presented with a decent argument (which – unusually for a call-in presenter – he actually did from time to time, and always with great grace); Julia Hartley-Brewer, the Europhile-turned-Eurosceptic who wasn’t afraid to say so. Ferrari, who, it seems, has been presenting the breakfast show for the past 300 years, is a great “line toe-er” and so remains firmly in situ. Unfortunately.
I sometimes wonder whether the big cheeses at LBC see their role as stereotype-reinforcers, rather than the independent news and commentary reporters that they like to pretend they really are. I’ve noticed that they very often do this – they get one of their “pet” presenters (like Ferrari) – one who can be guaranteed to take the stance of whatever the most-fashionable viewpoint is – and then find an “opponent” who either hasn’t got a clue what they are talking about, who can’t coherently string two words together (so they sound dim, even if they aren’t), or who is so media-unsavvy that the presenter can run rings around them by pressing a few verbal buttons to make them get angry and blustery, or upset. I’ve never, ever heard someone ringing in with a non-mainstream viewpoint who is able to get the better of one of their presenters. This isn’t because the presenters are ultra-clever or know more about the subject than their opponents, because most of them would appear to be hand-picked drones who are told exactly what their opinions must be, and who, as obedient serfs, simply do as they are told – few of them give any evidence of having the remotest ability to form their own viewpoints about anything, if the surprisingly standardised set of opinions are anything to go by; it’s because the opponents who are selected are selected precisely because they are weak and will be easily overcome by grandstanding, verbal bullies like Ferrari. And if those opponents stray from the predicted arguments (which have, of course, all been pre-planned for and anticipated), as this one did, then the presenters simply cut them off, either angrily, under a faux sense of outrage, like Ferrari today, or under some thinly-veiled excuse of “having to stop for the news” or “because we’re at the end of the programme” or “because we have lots of other callers to fit in.” Convenient, eh? It happens so often that it just can’t be a coincidence …
Agreed. Listening to the interview, it is obvious that Ferrari set out immediately to sucker Hedley. “Did he or did he not, fail a breath test?” is hardly the best way to get to know what the Union’s decision to call a strike was based upon.
Strange, is it not, the BBC being all ‘leftie’ and that, that Ferrari was so aggressive and rude.
“Listening to the interview, it is obvious that Ferrari set out immediately to sucker Hedley. “
Did Hedley not realise that going in? The man’s dimmer than I thought!
““Did he or did he not, fail a breath test?” is hardly the best way to get to know what the Union’s decision to call a strike was based upon.”
Nonsense! It’s the question that any journalist (of this type) would ask. Hedley should have been ready for it.
He was. Ferrari wouldn’t let him reply. He tried to get the moron to understand that a false positive is neither a pass nor a fail, so the question was a false dichotomy. Ferrari should have let him reply and then challenged the assertion. Twat.
As in: “Breath-tests are KNOWN to be dodgy if the subject has diabetes & so a n other test (like urine) has to be made, otherwise the so-called “result” is meaningless” – or something like that, yes?
I note that, apparently LUL took a urine sample – & then threw it away, which strikes me as unutterably stupid.
In fact, that is probably why they won’t go to a Tribunal, because said tribunal may easily rule that: “You screwed-up your own procedures, so you cannot dismiss him, whatever else is on the cards” ….
If so, then no wonder they are blustering & making all sorts of unproven allegations, which some sections of the so-called press are swallowing whole.