h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Every morning when the alarm clock has failed to wake me up sufficiently my partner switches on the tv and (post the demise of Channel 4's RI:SE) presents me with the daily menu of reactionary drivel being served up on GM:TV. Each day I am ever more amazed by the ill-informed rabble rousing the programme indulges in, but the thing that always stands out is the presence of one man. Moving steadily into middle-age and glorying in his beloved Manchester United, Eamon Homes has finally managed to get my back up far more than usual. I don't know if any other researchers have been watching the cursed programme over the past two days, but for some reason the subject of insectivores was raised on the show that went out on the morning of 21/01/2003. It seems that when his broadcast colleague Phiona Philips mentioned the mammals known as the ant-eater and the aardvark, Mr Homes casually commented to the effect that both creatures were in fact one and the same. Ms Philips objected to this saying that they were different in response to which Mr Homes maintained the opposite citing the fact that an aardvark ate ants as the evidence for his argument. As is the nature of the programme this was jumped upon as a chance to throw the issue open to all and sundry and thus today the matter was of great importance on the show. Many people had contacted the programme to argue that Ms Philips was correct one person pointing out that the two creatures originate on different continents. Eventually the weight of an expert was brought in in the shape of a Dr Morris of the Natural History Museum. Dr Morris was seen to be standing in front of a cabinet containing a stuffed ant-eater and at one point footage was also shown of a likewise stuffed aardvark in order to illustrate the difference between the two. Dr Morris pointed out that the two creatures are distinctly different, the aardvark more resembling a pig than an ant-eater in physiology. To this Mr Homes requested that Dr Morris confirm his credentials; Dr Morris explained that he was a professor of zoology specialising mammilian life (more than qualifying him to comment on the subject). After this Mr Homes gripped the lapels of his jacket in what he called a "Kavannagh Q.C." posture and proceeded to question Dr Morris in a poor impersonation of a barrister in court with a witness. He then proceeded to ask Dr Morris to confirm whether or not an aardvark ate ants, to which the doctor of course replied that they do. On the strength of this Mr Homes concluded that he had won the argument and an aardvark was after all an ant-eater, he went on to comment that no jury in the land could have ruled against him in this conclusion. What Mr Homes failed to grasp was the fact that while an aardvark is undoubtably an insectivore whose diet comprises almost exclusivly of ants it is still classified as an aardvark in the English language as it was encountered by western zoology on the South American continent long after another insectivore native to the African continent had been classified as the ant-eater due to its eating habits.

My point is this: why is a person so unnable to grasp the logic of a situation and formulate a coherant argument paid so much to appear on television and spout babble?

Please tell me?