In his screed of self-justification yesterday (you can find it yourself if you want to), Andrew Bolt referred to two years of worry over his court case which was settled this week. Forgive me if I’m not convinced. In the end, Bolt and his employers couldn’t lose.
If the decision had gone the other way, the Hun would still have given him the front page, only it would have been to praise a victory for free speech rather than decrying a blow for it. Sales would have been exactly the same. People who read Bolt are going to read Bolt no matter what he’s writing about.
If Bolt or News Ltd had really been worried, they would have quietly settled out of court, added confidentiality clauses and found something else to write about. Instead, they played it out under the guise of taking a stand on principle. In reality, whether he’s a champion or a martyr for free speech, it keeps Bolt and the papers he’s published in visible, notable and talked about. As we all know, the one thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.
This story will be dragged out for a few more weeks, and then Bolt will most likely try to get taken to court for something else. That will keep him as the centre of attention and save him, his colleagues and even his competitors from the drudgery of writing about anything that might resemble news.
Just like their banner says:
30 September, 2011
Andrew Bolt is Not a Journalist
Much has been written and said – and much more will be – about the Andrew Bolt verdict this week and how it pertains to free speech. I have already written several times about how the right to free speech does not entitle you to be published or paid for it, or give you immunity from the consequences of exercising that right. I see no reason to restate that point with fresh examples. As to whether the law he was sued under is an ass, I will leave that to people who are more learned and passionate on the subject than I am.*
What I take issue with is the way Andrew Bolt is frequently referred to as a journalist. He is not.
Journalists break stories. The closest Andrew Bolt has come to breaking a story in recent memory was dropping a teaser about having a story that would force Julia Gillard to resign, and then throwing a hissy fit (again, related to free speech) when the story he was (presumably) referring to had to be quickly pulled on the grounds that it wasn’t true. What kind of country are we living in when you’re stopped from publishing a story just because it isn’t true?
Andrew Bolt makes more new than he reports. Like an Australian Ann Coulter (a comparison he would probably consider a compliment) he makes a career out of saying increasingly outlandish things and then cries about censorship whenever he is called out on that outlandishness. That’s not journalism.
Journalists report the news. It could be an impending political scandal, a war, a traffic accident or a cat stuck up a tree – you just never know. Journalism is more than staying in your office, doing all your research on Google, writing a daily “Here’s what I reckon about that” column, and posting photos that readers have taken through their windows on your ’blog.
I am not saying Andrew Bolt has never been a journalist. I know that when he first got his job at the Herald Sun, it was as a journalist. I don’t doubt that he has some journalistic blood. I know he chooses to identify as a journalist. I am saying that what he does now, is not journalism.
“But Bill, you’re not a journalist. Who are you to say who is a journalist and who isn’t?”
No, I’m not a journalist. I never have been one and most likely never will be.
But I reckon I know one when I see one. And I reckon I’m at least as qualified to decide who should or shouldn’t be called a journalist as Andrew Bolt is to decide who should and shouldn’t be called Aboriginal.
That’s free speech for ya!
* My pick of the commentary on the case:
David Marr: "In black and white, Andrew Bolt trifled with the facts"
Jonathan Holmes: "Bolt, Bromberg and a profoundly disturbing judgement"
Michael Gawenda: "Bolt's columns did not deserve to see the light of day. End of story"
Mike Carlton: "Nuts come out after the truth has bolted"
What I take issue with is the way Andrew Bolt is frequently referred to as a journalist. He is not.
Journalists break stories. The closest Andrew Bolt has come to breaking a story in recent memory was dropping a teaser about having a story that would force Julia Gillard to resign, and then throwing a hissy fit (again, related to free speech) when the story he was (presumably) referring to had to be quickly pulled on the grounds that it wasn’t true. What kind of country are we living in when you’re stopped from publishing a story just because it isn’t true?
Andrew Bolt makes more new than he reports. Like an Australian Ann Coulter (a comparison he would probably consider a compliment) he makes a career out of saying increasingly outlandish things and then cries about censorship whenever he is called out on that outlandishness. That’s not journalism.
Journalists report the news. It could be an impending political scandal, a war, a traffic accident or a cat stuck up a tree – you just never know. Journalism is more than staying in your office, doing all your research on Google, writing a daily “Here’s what I reckon about that” column, and posting photos that readers have taken through their windows on your ’blog.
I am not saying Andrew Bolt has never been a journalist. I know that when he first got his job at the Herald Sun, it was as a journalist. I don’t doubt that he has some journalistic blood. I know he chooses to identify as a journalist. I am saying that what he does now, is not journalism.
“But Bill, you’re not a journalist. Who are you to say who is a journalist and who isn’t?”
No, I’m not a journalist. I never have been one and most likely never will be.
But I reckon I know one when I see one. And I reckon I’m at least as qualified to decide who should or shouldn’t be called a journalist as Andrew Bolt is to decide who should and shouldn’t be called Aboriginal.
That’s free speech for ya!
* My pick of the commentary on the case:
David Marr: "In black and white, Andrew Bolt trifled with the facts"
Jonathan Holmes: "Bolt, Bromberg and a profoundly disturbing judgement"
Michael Gawenda: "Bolt's columns did not deserve to see the light of day. End of story"
Mike Carlton: "Nuts come out after the truth has bolted"
24 September, 2011
The Message We Are Sending
The interception of two more boats of asylum seekers off Christmas Island this week had Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott blaming each other for the arrivals. Predictably enough, each of them claimed the other had sent a message to people-smugglers that Australia is open to them. I honestly can’t be bothered delving into the logic of either position except to say that it beggars belief that the utterances of either leader has a direct influence on people’s willingness to risk everything to flee their country of origin, or those who would take advantage of such desperation.
What I will say is that if we’re really concerned about the message we send overseas, we need to look a bit higher than the daily partisan bickering for domestic consumption.
What I will say is that if we’re really concerned about the message we send overseas, we need to look a bit higher than the daily partisan bickering for domestic consumption.
For those who’ve come across the seasI guess there’s a reason we never sing the second verse.
We’ve boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/nat_anthem.html
Labels:
Australian politics,
bullshit detector
14 September, 2011
Whither Satire?
Tom Lehrer once said that he gave up satire after Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, declaring the profession redundant after that. It’s tempting to suggest that political satire is redundant in Australia too. We have a government that offers no leadership and an opposition that offers no alternative. In these most laughable times, there’s no-one on television specifically making an act out of saying how laughable it is. Perhaps there should be.
When talking of television political satire, it’s impossible not to mention The Gillies Report in the nid-80s, but there has also been the most excellent BackBerner around the turn of the century. Right now, there’s bugger all. All we have that approaches satire are the 7PM Project, At Home with Julia and The Gruen Transfer – and they all approach satire very timidly.
The 7PM project started out as an attempt at a local version of The Daily Show, but they stuffed up in trying to mix in actual news. So we had, “Here’s a news headline. And here’s a joke about it. Here’s another news headline. And here’s another joke. Here’s another news headline. Ooh, there’s nothing funny about that – let’s look uncomfortable and move on.” Then they gave a platform to right-wing trolls like Steve Price and Andrew Bolt, brought on as their “serious” analysts and now 7PM is basically an info-tainment program. But the host doesn’t shave – ooh, they’re just so edgy!
The point 7PM missed is that The Daily Show does more serious commentary by staying true to their mission of being a comedy program rather than trying to go half way to being serious. The one thing I dislike about the Daily Show is that they still call it fake news. It’s not. The news is real. The difference is that being a comedy program the Daily Show gets to take something that’s really stupid and say, “Hey, that’s really stupid!”
At Home With Julia buries the occasional satirical observation so deep inside a painfully unfunny sitcom that it’s not worth waiting for, and the Gruen Transfer tells us all how we’re being lied to while praising the cleverness of those lies. There has also been the Chaser, but too often they tarnish their brand by going for the “OMG! I can’t believe you just did that,” laughs. The only place we have for actual, literate satire is the perennial Clarke and Dawe.
While this is going on, supposedly serious programs are leaving it to the audience to make their own jokes. Q and A has given up on its “experiments in democracy,” and is instead going for just being good television (where “good television,” is a euphemism for an entertaining train wreck. Most of the guests are commentators more than anyone involved in policy, the questions are mostly grandstanding and the on-screen tweets are mostly bad jokes and attention-seekers. (Yes, I am as guilty of this as anyone else).
With so much of politics and analysis allowing casual observers to make their own jokes, I for one am beginning to miss informed, well crafted satire.
When talking of television political satire, it’s impossible not to mention The Gillies Report in the nid-80s, but there has also been the most excellent BackBerner around the turn of the century. Right now, there’s bugger all. All we have that approaches satire are the 7PM Project, At Home with Julia and The Gruen Transfer – and they all approach satire very timidly.
The 7PM project started out as an attempt at a local version of The Daily Show, but they stuffed up in trying to mix in actual news. So we had, “Here’s a news headline. And here’s a joke about it. Here’s another news headline. And here’s another joke. Here’s another news headline. Ooh, there’s nothing funny about that – let’s look uncomfortable and move on.” Then they gave a platform to right-wing trolls like Steve Price and Andrew Bolt, brought on as their “serious” analysts and now 7PM is basically an info-tainment program. But the host doesn’t shave – ooh, they’re just so edgy!
The point 7PM missed is that The Daily Show does more serious commentary by staying true to their mission of being a comedy program rather than trying to go half way to being serious. The one thing I dislike about the Daily Show is that they still call it fake news. It’s not. The news is real. The difference is that being a comedy program the Daily Show gets to take something that’s really stupid and say, “Hey, that’s really stupid!”
At Home With Julia buries the occasional satirical observation so deep inside a painfully unfunny sitcom that it’s not worth waiting for, and the Gruen Transfer tells us all how we’re being lied to while praising the cleverness of those lies. There has also been the Chaser, but too often they tarnish their brand by going for the “OMG! I can’t believe you just did that,” laughs. The only place we have for actual, literate satire is the perennial Clarke and Dawe.
While this is going on, supposedly serious programs are leaving it to the audience to make their own jokes. Q and A has given up on its “experiments in democracy,” and is instead going for just being good television (where “good television,” is a euphemism for an entertaining train wreck. Most of the guests are commentators more than anyone involved in policy, the questions are mostly grandstanding and the on-screen tweets are mostly bad jokes and attention-seekers. (Yes, I am as guilty of this as anyone else).
With so much of politics and analysis allowing casual observers to make their own jokes, I for one am beginning to miss informed, well crafted satire.
Labels:
Australian politics,
comment column
04 September, 2011
Why Books Are Better Than Kindle*
*or Kobo, or Nook, or iPad, or any other kind of e-reader
Update: John Carney has written a very witty response here: http://johncarney.posterous.com/68424958
- If you lose one, you’ve only lost one.
- You can loan a book to a friend.
- Or you can borrow one.
- You don’t have to turn it off when your flight is taking off or landing.
- Others can see what you’re reading. You might make a new friend based on a common interest.
- You can impress your date with the type of books on your shelves. Or, you can see what your date is interested in by their shelves. Both excellent conversation starters.
- You can take old books that you no longer want to a book exchange to trade for new books, or at least new-to-you books.
- Or you can donate them to libraries or charity shops so they can continue to do good after you’re finished with them.
- Or you can leave them somewhere for others to pick up.
- A book can be signed by the author.
- Books can appreciate in value. Ever seen a bidding war for a version-1 pdf?
- The battery never runs out.
- Books weather and age. A book can tell a story quite apart from what is written in it.
- You can write a dedication in a book you give as a gift.
- They have page numbers.
- You can throw a bad book across the room, out the window or up a creek with minimal damage.
- You can tell when a book has been read and how much it has been returned to.
- Books can be beautiful.
- Books are biodegradable.
- You can use cool bookmarks.
- You can highlight passages or make notes by whatever means suit you.
- Books are compatible with anything.
- No DRM.
- Books smell awesome.
- Books make a house feel like a home.
- Books have different fonts.
- A well-loved book will naturally fall open at your favourite part.
- A cookbook can be open in the kitchen with minimal risk of damage from spatter.
- If you buy a book from one store, you can still books from other stores.
- Books come with their own customised dust jacket at no extra charge.
- Paper is not a proprietary format.
- You don’t have to worry that a newer, better version will come out next year.
- Books aren’t printed in Chinese sweatshops. (yet)
- Books don’t crash or need their OS updated.
- Once you own a book, you own it. The store can’t take it off your shelf when the licencing arrangements change.
- Books don’t automatically update when you don’t want them to.
- Bookshelves are works of art.
- Books are tactile.
- Books don’t need protection. They’re either flexible enough to take a bit of bending or hard enough to resist it.
- Instant on.
Update: John Carney has written a very witty response here: http://johncarney.posterous.com/68424958
02 September, 2011
How to Manufacture a Leadership Crisis
[Headline]
Speculation is mounting about the future of the prime minister’s leadership.
This will always be true. There mere act of saying so automatically increases speculation.
[Question to frontbencher]
Is it true that there is dissatisfaction amongst the parliamentary party with the prime minister’s leadership?
[Answer]
No, I am not aware of any such dissatisfaction. We are all completely behind the prime minister.
[Report]
They deny it. It must be true.
[Question to deputy leader]
Have you been approached to challenge the prime minister for the leadership?
[Answer]
No, I have not.
[Report]
He denies it. It must be true!
Now that the questions have been asked, the natural paranoia and ambition of politicians takes over. The prime minister checks to see if there really is a challenge in the offing. So does the deputy leader. The party, having read of leadership speculation in the papers, assumes it must be what people are thinking about and begin to wonder whether they should question the prime minister’s leadership.
The only thing that is really up to the party is whether the prime minister calls a spill to consolidate the leadership or the party puts up a challenger having read of widespread speculation and dissatisfaction.
A spill is called.
[Headline]
As first reported in these pages two weeks ago, there is a challenge to the prime minister’s leadership.
The prime minister is either re-elected or replaced.
[Headline]
We told you so! But the tightness of the result means the new/old leader is still in a vulnerable position.
Repeat any time you’re bored or when policy is too complicated to bother with. Remember: keep it simple, stupid.
Speculation is mounting about the future of the prime minister’s leadership.
This will always be true. There mere act of saying so automatically increases speculation.
[Question to frontbencher]
Is it true that there is dissatisfaction amongst the parliamentary party with the prime minister’s leadership?
[Answer]
No, I am not aware of any such dissatisfaction. We are all completely behind the prime minister.
[Report]
They deny it. It must be true.
[Question to deputy leader]
Have you been approached to challenge the prime minister for the leadership?
[Answer]
No, I have not.
[Report]
He denies it. It must be true!
Now that the questions have been asked, the natural paranoia and ambition of politicians takes over. The prime minister checks to see if there really is a challenge in the offing. So does the deputy leader. The party, having read of leadership speculation in the papers, assumes it must be what people are thinking about and begin to wonder whether they should question the prime minister’s leadership.
The only thing that is really up to the party is whether the prime minister calls a spill to consolidate the leadership or the party puts up a challenger having read of widespread speculation and dissatisfaction.
A spill is called.
[Headline]
As first reported in these pages two weeks ago, there is a challenge to the prime minister’s leadership.
The prime minister is either re-elected or replaced.
[Headline]
We told you so! But the tightness of the result means the new/old leader is still in a vulnerable position.
Repeat any time you’re bored or when policy is too complicated to bother with. Remember: keep it simple, stupid.
Labels:
Australian politics,
bullshit detector
20 August, 2011
Why I can’t get behind Soften the Fck Up
I wanted to like it. I really did. Mike Stuchbery and Ben Pobjie, who I linked to in the previous post about depression and who I respect both as writers and survivors are involved, which gives the initiative some credibility. But the more I looked at it and the more I thought about it, the angrier it made me.
I felt the same way about RUOK? Day. While on one level, it’s wonderful that people are getting the message out about depression and mental illness, it’s being done in such a dumbed down, made-for-tv way that I wonder whether it’s simply trivialising something that was previously ignored. Definatalie wrote an excellent piece on RUOK? Day simply titled, I am not OK. Don’t ask anyone how they are if you’re not prepared to hear that.
Soften the Fck Up is trying to reach men who bottle up their feelings due to the whole ‘boys don’t cry,” thing, and that’s a worthy objective. But there’s no point in telling people to open up and get help if you’re not going to quantify that help.
“Talk about it,” we are told. Yep, good advice – I have no argument with that. “To who?” they then ask. Good question. That’s the one that we really need an answer to. “Could be your mates, your family…” Well yes, it could be, but it has to be someone who would understand and if we going with the premise that these blokes are in a dark place because they’re too tough to open up to people, I’d say their family and their mates may have had an influence on that. This is assuming the bloke has mates he can talk to at all. Then shit gets weird. “Could be your neighbour…” yes, could be, “…the postman…”
WTF? The postman? Is this for real? I don’t know where you guys live but my postman has got shit to do. He doesn’t need to hear all my problems. The biggest problem in talking about depression is trying to find someone who gets it, because millions don’t. It’s not the blokey blokes who need to soften the fuck up, it’s the people they might be turning to. Not everyone can be the listener.
I’ve been that postman before. Okay, I’ve never been a postman, but I think you get the idea. I’ve stayed with friends, helping them through dark times until I was sure they would be alright, but that’s one thing. It’s another to get a call at work, out of the blue, from someone you taught the previous year. This happened to me. I had a student with a fairly severe acquired brain injury in one of my basic computer classes. For the purposes of this story, we will call him Hank because nobody else does. It was a four-week course, one day per week.
Six months later, when my role had expanded to reception work when I wasn’t teaching, I get a phone call:
“Hello, can I talk to a teacher?”Hmm, strange request, but okay.
- I’m a teacher, can I help you?How do you answer that? How does anyone answer that, especially when they have work to do?
“I don’t know what to do with my life. What should I do?”
The calls continued for a while, and sometimes they were very brief.
“Hello, are you a teacher?”Now understand that I wasn’t giving Hank the brush-off. I wanted to help him inasmuch as I could but like the postman, I had shit to do and they weren’t paying me to be a counsellor. Many times I tried to tell him that I was the wrong person to be asking, but Hank had got it into his head that teachers know everything.
- Oh hi, Hank. What’s up?
“I should say yes to education, shouldn’t I?”
- Um, yes. Yes you should.
“Okay, bye.”
“But you’re a teacher. You know things.”Then I got a call when Hank said, as casually as if he were wondering what to have for lunch,
- Hank, I teach computers. I don’t know anything about this stuff.
“I’m tired of life. I don’t want to go on living any more.”Right, that has to be taken seriously, but what can I do? I knew that he must have a regular doctor so I gave him the ‘talk to your doctor,’ speech. That didn’t seem to get anywhere. Then I remembered that he had a worker who had come with him to class. For the purpose of the story, we’ll call him Martin.
- Hank, talk to Martin. He knows you. He’ll be able to give you good advice.I was confident that Hank wasn’t an immediate suicide risk. He really did sound like he was just weighing up options. So once I had convinced him he should “say yes to life,” (his words, not mine), I called the disability assistance centre that I knew he had been attending, at least at the time he came to class. I told them everything that had happened, including that I’d suggested he talk to Martin. What they explained to me was that Martin had left the organisation and moved on, as professionals (or volunteers, I was never really sure) will do and Hank was a bit cut up about it. Muggins here, had just gone and told Hank he should talk to Martin.
“Martin’s out of the picture, he’s in the past.”
Foot, meet mouth.
I apologised profusely to them for the faux pas and any knock-on damage it may have caused. They assured me it wasn’t a bad thing and that it might have helped Hank by making him face up to the change in circumstances.
But here’s the problem:
Hank had done exactly what STFU are suggesting. He talked to someone. He’d just picked someone who couldn’t help him. And it was someone who had some understanding and empathy for mental conditions. Imagine if it wasn’t. Talk to someone? Yes. But it can’t just be anyone. Are STFU going to take responsibility for the consequences if the postman says, “Shut up ya poofter. Now piss off, I’ve got work to do,”?
I suppose everyone who is approached by these newly softened former blokey blokes is supposed to utter the usual platitudes – get help, see a doctor, call Lifeline. I’m going to tell a story here that I chose not to include in the Monsters post because I thought it might be counter-productive but now I feel that I should.
During one of my lowest ever phases, I called Lifeline.
They didn’t answer.
I spent somewhere between five and ten minutes listening to it ring until it finally rang out. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt that this is a reflection on Lifeline’s resources and not their services. I fully support Lifeline in every way. Even so, I cannot in good conscience advise someone to call Lifeline lest they have a similar experience to the one I had. I can laugh about it now but can you even begin to imagine what that does to someone who is trying to get help? It took me two years to get around to writing the previous post and I still haven’t yet sought a diagnosis for what happens to me. I had considered calling Lifeline previously, and when I was finally low enough and desperate enough to call, they didn’t bloody answer.
Now you can give all the rational reasons why someone shouldn’t take something like that to heart but to a depressed person, you’re wasting your breath. That doesn’t compute in a depressed person’s mind any more than trying to tell an anorexic that they’re not fat. What the person involved takes away is that even Lifeline won’t talk to them.
All that isn’t what has rankled me the most about STFU. What has really pissed me off is the stereotyping of men; that the problem is down to blokes being blokes and they just need to let their guard down and get in touch with their softer side. I wrote last time about why I haven’t done anything more than ’blog about it and the reasons are nothing to do with an excess of blokiness.
I’m as soft as they come. I was a sensitive new age guy long before there was even an acronym for it. If I were any softer, I’d be liquid. So what do I do now?
Get help, talk to your doctor, call Lifeline, blah blah blah…
It’s as if the emotional repression of macho culture has gone so far that you have to be a big tough bloke before you can soften the fuck up and if you were already there, then too bad, we’re looking out for the tough guys here.
I still want to support them. I think it’s great that people are putting it out there and sharing their stories. The fact that people are describing experiences that others might relate to is good thing. It’s at least better than Hugh Jackman waving his stupid bloody coffee cup in my face. Doing anything is better than doing nothing but doing something useful is better still. It needs to be backed up with sound advice and empowerment to go through with getting whatever help may be required, not just pulling a switcheroo on the “are you man enough?” line. That assumes that men are stupid enough to do anything if you just challenge their masculinity.
This is just my initial reaction. I honestly hope to be rebutted. If someone can show me where I’m wrong, I will shout their praises from the rooftops. I will donate, promote and participate. I am certainly not trying to shit on people who are making a worthy effort. But right now, both RUOK? and SFTU strike me like GetUp campaigns: well intentioned, great production values but falling wide of the mark in terms of achieving something useful for sufferers.
I did tweet my concerns the other night:
They were kind enough reply:
I guess I’m in the minority then. What else is new?
It’s not as if being made to feel excluded leads to depression or alcoholism or drug abuse or other forms of feeling crap, does it?
Labels:
depression
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


