Before you begin reading this article in expectation of a defiant defence of the Pidgeon administration, allow me to gently prise this expectation from your grasp and replace it with something more immediately relevant to you: this is a defence of your intelligence. As students at a respectable university, we should be angered that such condescending, offensive and unsubstantiated journalism should be authorised to go to print in our newspaper. Not only is O’Reilly’s article an unprovoked, ad hominem attack on President James Pidgeon, it is also an audacious attack on our intelligence and on reasoned argument.
Using university politics as a means to obscure his true agenda, O’Reilly’s article is ultimately a display of obsessive narcissism. From writing of his favoured dance move to justifying his own made-up language (and not to mention his annoying use of parenthesis), O’Reilly manages to advertise himself as an attention-seeking catalyst for provoking anger, with a penchant for offending his reader at every opportunity.
Lacking any credible argument, the article is merely a miserable series of egotistical comments sparsely scattered by uninformed and ignorant judgement on relevant topics. If the reader admirably managed to extract the key issues from the tangled mess of conceited irrelevancies, I heartily congratulate you. From what I could discern of the article, O’Reilly limply raises three issues: climate change, the SU tent and the Fresh and Fruity nights at the SU. Regarded as a ‘popular ineffective non-issue’ in the article, I wonder if Bill O’ Reilly would like to repeat his views on climate change policy to the relatives of the 300, 000 people every year that are killed as a result climate change. And forget the university’s valiant attempt to ease the symptoms of climate change, for its aim to cut carbon emissions by 10% is dismissed as ‘a carnival sideshow of a policy act’ by O’Reilly.
But lest we become absent-minded about O’Reilly’s perverted priorities, let us remember that the lives of hundreds of thousands of people are truly insignificant in relation to O’Reilly’s ‘key issues’: the SU tent and the Fresh and Fruity nights. In bemoaning the erection of the SU tent, all O’Reilly manages to achieve is to expose his own hypocrisy. And his argument regarding the Fresh and Fruity nights is crippled by contradiction.
‘Bill O’Reilly’: your layers of pseudonyms may hide your true identity, but they cannot obscure the impudence, condescension and narcissism of your article. Readers: do not stand for this style of journalism. Defend your intelligence.