Is The Oz Admitting Its Mistake?

In its editorial 'Reality Bites The Psychotic Left' of June 11th this year The Australian launched a scathing attack on Australia's "Left". Of particular focus were the economist Clive Hamilton and intellectual Robert Manne (the last of which the paper in question is quite obsessed with). The editorial had this to say about 'Silencing Dissent', a book edited by Hamilton and Sarah Maddison and introduced by Manne:

'This is the institute after all that believes in a vast corporate conspiracy to stall action on climate change, accuses David Jones and Myers of "corporate pedophilia" and claims that Australia is becoming an increasingly authoritarian state where dissidents are silenced.'

'This last thesis, expounded at length in Silencing Dissent published earlier this year, would seem difficult to sustain at a time when the marketplace of ideas has never been so crowded. In newspaper opinion sections and magazines and on radio and televisions and increasingly online, Australians are engaged in intelligent conversation about the issues of the day great and small. Blogs and internet chat rooms have given everyone a seat at the debating table. Technology has lowered the barriers to publishing. A host of new periodicals online and in print including The Monthly, New Matilda and The Australian's own Australian Literary Review are providing new platforms for discussion while established journals such as Quadrant and the Griffith Review are reaching new readers and providing a home for new writers.'

As I've argued before, this is a dishonest distortion of the main thesis of 'Silencing Dissent'. The book doesn't ever try to claim that people aren't allowed to express their opinions publicly, the main point of the book is that the Government has shown contempt for public debate by vigorously prosecuting whistleblowers, plugging leaks and politicising the public service and all this without a word of objection from its barrackers, until now that is.

A coalition of concerned media companies began a campaign a while back called 'Australia's Right To Know', of which News Ltd is a key supporter, and they commissioned a report to look into the state of today's freedom of information laws, the prognosis sounds familiar:

'The report's findings show how little dissent the federal Government is willing to tolerate when it comes to the unauthorised disclosure of information'

What's that you say!?

'In each of these cases, the disclosure of the information caused no damage except political embarrassment for the Government'

'Moss accuses the federal Government of harbouring a cold and calculating attitude to whistleblowers, criticising its "dogged refusal"to provide them with legal protection and a "relentless determination to track them down"'

Moss' comments appear to me as though she is actually reading straight from the pages of 'Silencing Dissent', these are two of its core criticisms after all. So where does this put The Australian's editorial position after lambasting Hamilton, Maddison and Manne for daring to say such things not 6 months earlier?

'News Limited, publisher of The Australian, long ago grew weary of the erosion of press freedom and appealed all the way to the High Court for the right to know. It lost the battle, but still fights the war. In May last year, a coalition of media organisations known as "Right to Know" -- led by News Limited and including Fairfax Media, FreeTV Australia, commercial radio, ABC, SBS, Sky News, ASTRA, West Australian Newspapers, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, AAP and APN News and Media -- funded an independent audit into media freedom.'

'The report, launched by News Limited chairman and chief executive John Hartigan yesterday, finds that journalists are struggling to gain access to court documents for no apparent reason. Sometimes, nobody in the court has any idea who is allowed access to what, and all tend to err on the side of secrecy. There is too little protection for whistleblowers, and none at all for journalists such as Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus, also of the Herald Sun, who today have criminal convictions because they refused to reveal the source of a story about planned cuts to veterans' benefits.'

'If you, as a reader, care at all for the exhausted, crumbling pillar of democracy that is a free press, demand at this election that both parties breathe life into the Freedom of Information legislation, protect whistleblowers, provide the media with a shield law so journalists can protect their sources, and open the courts to scrutiny.'

It doesn't acknowledge it and proceeds to paint itself as a pioneer on these issues. Are they admitting a mistake? Hell no!

The Telegraph vs Media Watch

Media Watch has had another go at The Daily Telegraph for it's blatant hypocrisy this time concerning a silly, although harmless comment made by Anthony Mundine:

“A black player would have to do three or four times more than any other bloke to be a chance in NSW”. — ABC Sports Desk website, Choc's warning: get out of NSW, 10th May, 2007

The Tele has decided that it's so outraged by racism that it'll now boycott Mundine for his supposed racial attack. It's a pity it didn't act earlier against such speech as Media Watch demonstrated by showing comments moderated and allowed on their website:

'In 32 years I'm yet to meet a good Leb, whether they be drunk sober or doped. — The Daily Telegraph online, Racist pub bans Arabs, Islanders, Readers' comments, 3rd May, 2007'

'I used to teach at a all girls highschool where 84% of the students are lebanese muslim & they were the most obnoxious people I have ever come across...I dont know why they bother even going to school, barely any of them end up going to university or even working, they end up barefoot & pregnant by the age of 20 & then collect welfare for the rest of their lives to support their 6 kids who grow up to be complete terrors to society. This guy will probably end up being a terrorist anyway in one way or another…Posted by: Piss of Lebs— The Daily Telegraph online, 'Terror' pupil: I was stressed, Readers' comments, 11th December, 2006'

'Hey Mundine, go and eat some Coon Cheese and run it off around Nigger Brown Oval.— The Daily Telegraph online, Backlash over Mundine attack, Readers' comments, 10th May, 2007'

'…Howard Government rescued them and if they don't remember this act then they are worst than dogs. — The Sydney Morning Herald online, Muslim immigration. Is it is fair to discriminate?, Comments, 16th February, 2007'

To name a few.

David Penburthy, editor of the Tele defends posting them by using the old freedom of speech excuse. But seriously, if I wrote on the Tele's blog that David is a f#*king wanker with no f#*king brains and all of his f*$king race are pigs, do you think it'd get posted? This isn't freedom of speech at all. If language like I've used would be considered too offensive to post then why isn't racism? Surely it should be considered far more insulting than naughty words.

Tim Blair got served as well for posting similar tripe and attempted to defend it by pointing out some anti-Semitic Islamist nonsense posted elsewhere that media watch 'missed'. But was this a defense? Can you really just say 'they do too, you're just biased!!!!' and that's that?

Surely we can all agree that these comments are insulting and racist. If we allow these, then why not a whole bunch of naughty words and personal jibes? Why is deleting racist comments censorship, yet deleting my 'David is a f#*king wanker with no f#*king brains and all of his f*$king race are pigs' isn't?