We seem to have gone a few weeks without any public figures saying regrettable things on Twitter or Facebook. Perhaps people are beginning to learn from others’ mistakes.
One of the earlier gaffes came last year when US Congressman Pete Hoekstra compared Republican obstructionism to Iranian democracy protesters. Then there was the Fairfax sub-editor who was sacked for ’blogging about how boring his job was. Earlier this year a rising star of the Queensland Young Liberals, Nick Snowden had his political career cut short (or at least postponed) after commenting on Twitter during Kerry O’Brien’s interview with Barack Obama that it would have been cheaper to send O’Brien to Taronga Zoo if he wanted to interview a monkey.* And more recently, we have had Catherine Deveny’s outbursts. Miranda Devine wrote a very good reply to her, then went and negated it all by suggesting that a critic of her position on gay marriage had been rogering gerbils. She then redeemed herself with a sensitive defence of David Campbell.
All this is symptomatic of people thinking they understand the internet better than they really do. It amazes me that so many apparently “tech savvy” people, are stuck in the 1990s notion that the internet is some kind of counter-culture where one can say what one wants, unobserved by the suits or the straights or the wrinklies. They really need to drag themselves into the 21st century and understand that we all have the internet now. The occasional clueless person talking about “the Google,” or “a series of tubes,” or even the hipsters’ own ironic references to “teh interwebz” is not going to change that. Your boss has the internet too. Your teacher has the internet. Your parents have the internet. Your partner has the internet. Your opposition has the internet. It’s not your private playground any more.
I think the other problem is that a lot of people are treating online social media like their own personal sit-com. You know the shows where the audience can hear what the main character is thinking but the rest of the cast can’t? I think that’s what a lot of people are expecting their Twitter and Facebook accounts to be. They forget that online, the cast is also the audience and the audience is also the cast. I expect Pete Hoekstra and Nick Snowden thought their comments would be as well received by their online audience as they would be by their mates down the pub, which is where such comments probably belong. This is another thing that the internet is not. It’s not your secret speakeasy, it’s not your own series of Herman’s Head, and it’s not like making comments to your mates while watching tele.
No-one is suggesting that people shouldn’t be able to say whatever they want in whatever forum they want. But as I wrote last year, the right to free speech does not protect you from the consequences of exercising that right. You don’t have to constantly act like Big Brother is watching, just remember where you are and act accordingly. It’s possible to make a Twitter account private so that only approved followers can see what you’re saying. I have a Facebook account, but I’ll lay odds that you won’t be able to find it, even if you know my last name, my email address and where I live.
What’s missing, is a name for this impulsive behaviour that can often translate into a career limiting move. I suggest, Twourette’s Syndrome – the frequent, uncontrollable posting of inappropriate comments online.
* Just for the record, although I’ve had a lot to say about George W Bush, and very little of it complimentary, I never had any time for all the Bush/chimp stuff. That was inappropriate on several levels. I’ll give Nick Snowden the benefit of the doubt that he was calling Obama a monkey in the same way people called Bush a monkey and that it was not a racist comment. It’s still not a good look for an aspiring politician.
Showing posts with label Twourette’s Syndrome. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twourette’s Syndrome. Show all posts
23 May, 2010
11 May, 2010
My reply to Catherine Deveny
Catherine Deveny has written at the ABC's Unleashed site about her sacking from The Age. I posted a reply, but if anyone would like to read it without wading through the 600 other comments, this is what I wrote:
Dear Catherine,
That was rather moving in places between the self-justification. I think you're still missing a few points though.
You can't claim to be taken out of context on Twitter. The whole point of Twitter is that there is no context. You can't expect someone casually following the #logies tag to automatically know your back-story with Rove. All they see is someone making what seems to be a really tasteless joke. Personally, I didn't have a problem with the Bindi comment. I saw where you were coming from with that but again, thousands following the tag wouldn't. I can think of several other commentators who could have gotten away with it, since they don't already have such a history of trash talk.
As you said, "True sentiments are lost in Twitter." If you knew that and chose to take your chances anyway, then you have to accept what happens next. Freedom of expression doesn't mean immunity from blowback. If you'd chosen to show some contrition and admit that you'd made an error in judgement, I expect you'd still be on the payroll at The Age. If you choose to stand by it all, citing the "I'm edgy, me," defence - if you really think that's a fight worth fighting, worth losing a gig that thousands would give their left nipple for, then good luck to you. I guess Miranda Devine chose differently.
There's nothing wrong with admitting you pushed the envelope too far and saying you're sorry. Refusing to admit mistakes and blaming everyone else? That's such a guy thing!
The other thing is, it's a bit rich to look for compassion a couple of weeks after calling soldiers greedy and racist. I'm sorry you're heartbroken. I imagine there would be a few diggers and their families who are heartbroken over what you said about them without knowing them. But as you said at the time, fuck respect. You get what you give.
Dear Catherine,
That was rather moving in places between the self-justification. I think you're still missing a few points though.
You can't claim to be taken out of context on Twitter. The whole point of Twitter is that there is no context. You can't expect someone casually following the #logies tag to automatically know your back-story with Rove. All they see is someone making what seems to be a really tasteless joke. Personally, I didn't have a problem with the Bindi comment. I saw where you were coming from with that but again, thousands following the tag wouldn't. I can think of several other commentators who could have gotten away with it, since they don't already have such a history of trash talk.
As you said, "True sentiments are lost in Twitter." If you knew that and chose to take your chances anyway, then you have to accept what happens next. Freedom of expression doesn't mean immunity from blowback. If you'd chosen to show some contrition and admit that you'd made an error in judgement, I expect you'd still be on the payroll at The Age. If you choose to stand by it all, citing the "I'm edgy, me," defence - if you really think that's a fight worth fighting, worth losing a gig that thousands would give their left nipple for, then good luck to you. I guess Miranda Devine chose differently.
There's nothing wrong with admitting you pushed the envelope too far and saying you're sorry. Refusing to admit mistakes and blaming everyone else? That's such a guy thing!
The other thing is, it's a bit rich to look for compassion a couple of weeks after calling soldiers greedy and racist. I'm sorry you're heartbroken. I imagine there would be a few diggers and their families who are heartbroken over what you said about them without knowing them. But as you said at the time, fuck respect. You get what you give.
26 April, 2010
Catherine Deveny is a Mug
I’m sure that comedian/columnist Catherine Deveny fancies herself as an inconoclast, but she totally jumped the shark on Saturday with a series tweet disparaging ANZAC Day, which included,
There have been many wonderfully written rebuttals to Deveny’s outburst. One of the best is by Gibbot, HERE, and there’s a rather more ribald response HERE.
Fortunately, even the edgiest of leftie writers have run a mile from her.
It’s not just a case of Thou shalt not say a bad word about ANZAC Day. The contention that commemorating the sacrifices of war can be used as a Trojan horse for nationalist group-think is a discussion worth having (although I happen to disagree with it), but not like that. Clearly, much of Deveny’s position is based on ignorance – particularly of the fact that ANZAC Day commemorates sacrifices made in ALL wars, not just World War I. Like Gibbot, I could tell the story of my great uncle who was killed in New Guinea fighting to defend Australia, not any British Empire interests. However, I worry that all the eloquent and passionate responses to her, simply fall into the trap of arguing with a mug.
The notion that all wars are the fault of white men is such a pissweak, eighties, uni bar argument that it really doesn’t deserve a response. If the argument were being made by black or Asian people, they might cut out the gender specificity and blame it all on white people in general. If the argument were being made by an elephant, it might blame all humans. If the argument were being made by a dolphin, it might blame all land-dwelling mammals. All of these arguments are technically true and make perfect sense if one chooses to ignore every other factor.
And blaming wars on the soldiers ordered to fight them went out of fashion after the Sunbury festival, and damn good riddance to that kind of thinking!
I’ve seen a few critiques of ANZAC Day recently, by various members of the commentariat that make similar points to Deveny’s but without the career suicide factor. Most of them make the same mistake of laying out why the Gallipoli campaign was an unmitigated balls-up. So what? That fact is not in question and never has been. ANZAC Day is about remembering the sacrifices of all war veterans in all wars. The anniversary of the Gallipoli landing was chosen as the date because it was Australia’s first military engagement as a nation. (The Boer war straddled Federation). The specifics of Gallipoli, while important to remember in their own right, are not the be-all and end-all of ANZAC Day. It’s the day we remember. Some countries choose Armistice Day, we choose ANZAC Day.
As to the notion that ANZAC Day promotes nationalism, militarism and jingoism, there can be the slight danger of that, especially in the way some choose to observe ANZAC day, but I think most Australians are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between honouring the sacrifices made in war, and jingoism. If there are people out there who are too simple to get the difference, either in the way they celebrate ANZAC Day or the way they criticise it, I really don’t give a shit. We’re not going to dumb things down to the lowest common factor. That’s cultural cringe thinking. People who think that remembering the sacrifices of others is a glorification of war because it’s called ANZAC Day instead of Peace Day, are not my problem. Show me one conflict of the last ninety-five years that can be directly linked to remembering past wars. On the contrary, most can be linked to not remembering them. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
And now I’ve fallen into the trap too. I’m arguing with a mug. These people really don’t deserve the air time. Whether it’s Catherine Deveny on the left, Andrew Bolt on the right, or Pauline Hanson on whatever her act is, they are attention whores first and foremost. On the one day we dedicate to our returned soldiers, and the ones who didn’t return, she has to pipe up and say, “Never mind them, look at me!!!” And we did. So who are the mugs?
I’ve often said that my worst habit on the internet is not being able to look at something really stupid without stopping to say, “Hey, that’s really stupid!” And although others have done so far better than I have, I couldn’t help but do it again. What we really should do, is deny them the attention they so clearly crave – or only give it to them when they merit it.
Of course, I am not saying that Deveny should be silenced. She has every right to say whatever she wants about whatever she wants. I could argue that soldiers have fought and died for her right, but that would be just as overly simplistic as her ill-informed assertions. However, freedom of speech cuts both ways. Deveny has the right to say whatever she wants, and others have the right to say she’s talking shit.
Don't support Anzac Day. Refuse to celebrate a glorification of war that ignores the suffering and carnage of (mostly female) civilians.
Anzac Day IS a glorification of war. They didn't die for us but because they were risktaking testosterone fuelled men with a pack mentality
Anzac Day. I abhor people whose self-esteem is fuelled by nationalism approved misogyny, homophobia, racism or cruelty administered by relosand probably the worst of a bad lot,
Anzac Day. Men only enlisted to fight for the money, for the adventure or because they were racist.(She posted that one twice)
There have been many wonderfully written rebuttals to Deveny’s outburst. One of the best is by Gibbot, HERE, and there’s a rather more ribald response HERE.
Fortunately, even the edgiest of leftie writers have run a mile from her.
It’s not just a case of Thou shalt not say a bad word about ANZAC Day. The contention that commemorating the sacrifices of war can be used as a Trojan horse for nationalist group-think is a discussion worth having (although I happen to disagree with it), but not like that. Clearly, much of Deveny’s position is based on ignorance – particularly of the fact that ANZAC Day commemorates sacrifices made in ALL wars, not just World War I. Like Gibbot, I could tell the story of my great uncle who was killed in New Guinea fighting to defend Australia, not any British Empire interests. However, I worry that all the eloquent and passionate responses to her, simply fall into the trap of arguing with a mug.
The notion that all wars are the fault of white men is such a pissweak, eighties, uni bar argument that it really doesn’t deserve a response. If the argument were being made by black or Asian people, they might cut out the gender specificity and blame it all on white people in general. If the argument were being made by an elephant, it might blame all humans. If the argument were being made by a dolphin, it might blame all land-dwelling mammals. All of these arguments are technically true and make perfect sense if one chooses to ignore every other factor.
And blaming wars on the soldiers ordered to fight them went out of fashion after the Sunbury festival, and damn good riddance to that kind of thinking!
I’ve seen a few critiques of ANZAC Day recently, by various members of the commentariat that make similar points to Deveny’s but without the career suicide factor. Most of them make the same mistake of laying out why the Gallipoli campaign was an unmitigated balls-up. So what? That fact is not in question and never has been. ANZAC Day is about remembering the sacrifices of all war veterans in all wars. The anniversary of the Gallipoli landing was chosen as the date because it was Australia’s first military engagement as a nation. (The Boer war straddled Federation). The specifics of Gallipoli, while important to remember in their own right, are not the be-all and end-all of ANZAC Day. It’s the day we remember. Some countries choose Armistice Day, we choose ANZAC Day.
As to the notion that ANZAC Day promotes nationalism, militarism and jingoism, there can be the slight danger of that, especially in the way some choose to observe ANZAC day, but I think most Australians are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between honouring the sacrifices made in war, and jingoism. If there are people out there who are too simple to get the difference, either in the way they celebrate ANZAC Day or the way they criticise it, I really don’t give a shit. We’re not going to dumb things down to the lowest common factor. That’s cultural cringe thinking. People who think that remembering the sacrifices of others is a glorification of war because it’s called ANZAC Day instead of Peace Day, are not my problem. Show me one conflict of the last ninety-five years that can be directly linked to remembering past wars. On the contrary, most can be linked to not remembering them. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
And now I’ve fallen into the trap too. I’m arguing with a mug. These people really don’t deserve the air time. Whether it’s Catherine Deveny on the left, Andrew Bolt on the right, or Pauline Hanson on whatever her act is, they are attention whores first and foremost. On the one day we dedicate to our returned soldiers, and the ones who didn’t return, she has to pipe up and say, “Never mind them, look at me!!!” And we did. So who are the mugs?
I’ve often said that my worst habit on the internet is not being able to look at something really stupid without stopping to say, “Hey, that’s really stupid!” And although others have done so far better than I have, I couldn’t help but do it again. What we really should do, is deny them the attention they so clearly crave – or only give it to them when they merit it.
Of course, I am not saying that Deveny should be silenced. She has every right to say whatever she wants about whatever she wants. I could argue that soldiers have fought and died for her right, but that would be just as overly simplistic as her ill-informed assertions. However, freedom of speech cuts both ways. Deveny has the right to say whatever she wants, and others have the right to say she’s talking shit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)