Roger Scruton (‘philosopher’) was on tonight’s BBC Question Time. The subject of British maths education came up (because the PISA tables have, once again, exposed us as performing abysmally).
He argued that part of the problem was the indolence of young people, e.g. (spouting the usual cliché) not choosing the hard degree subjects like Maths but opting instead for Media Studies.
Another pseudo-intellectual, James Delingpole, also likes to deride that subject.
But here’s what’s laughable about these ignorant snobs (apart from their complete lack of self-awareness): Media Studies is simply the modern version of their own disciplines – Philosophy and English Literature.
In all such subjects, you just waffle about what others have created in whatever medium: books, newspapers, film, etc. In fact, Media Studies is more demanding: you must also create new material, not simply ‘critique’ others’ work.
In fact, the only way to inject some respectability into ‘waffle’ subjects is to make them more scientific. That is exactly Assange’s mission with journalism: make the same information available to everyone so that your own interpretation of it can be subject to peer review. And that (scientifically) is exactly how Media Lens operates: arguments must be robust and based on facts.
Scruton’s area of ‘expertise’ is ‘aesthetics’. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so he can never go wrong – which is convenient because he’s always wrong when he speaks on any subject outside himself. Since the aesthetic quotient of anything is purely subjective, whenever you write about it, you’re really just writing about yourself. That is, it’s a narcissistic exercise.
And that’s what pro-establishment prostitutes typically are: narcissists.