Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Sydney Morning Herald'

Tag Archives: Sydney Morning Herald

Advertisements

Mike Carlton’s Career suicide bombing via twitter

tele-header1-660x440

You  just  got to love crap like this:

In a letter to the Fairfax chief executive, Greg Hywood, and editor-in-chief, Darren Goodsir, the Australian National Imams Council, Islamic Council of New South Wales and Muslim Legal Network New South Wales, among others, said they would boycott the Sydney Morning Herald unless the outspoken columnist was reinstated.

Carlton quit the Herald on Wednesday after being told he would be suspended for the language he used when replying to readers who objected to an article he wrote discussing the conflict in Gaza. The editor-in-chief of the SMH and Sun-Herald, Darren Goodsir, said Carlton had used “inappropriate and offensive language” – not in the column, but in his responses to readers.

In Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald, Carlton’s column was replaced by one by author and columnist John Birmingham.

The letter to Fairfax said the Muslim groups would consider notifying community organisations and spokespersons to cease cooperating with Fairfax journalists for media interviews.

“As representatives of the Muslim community we have always regarded Fairfax to be one the more balanced media organisations in the country and where possible we have co-operated with your journalists on countless stories,” it said.

“But with the resignation of Mr Carlton from your publications we have now lost one of the very few voices advocating for the Palestinian cause in the country.”

A media campaign targeting Fairfax advertisers was also being considered, the groups said.

Source

Lets face it Mike Carlton has always been a rather nasty piece of work in the boorish leftard mould and it was his boorishness that has cause Fairfax to give him the opportunity to resign. He forgot the most important thing in public life which is no matter how nasty your interlocutors may be one has to maintain a certain level of decorum and you certainly don’t publicly abuse them on twitter or any other forum.

As for the threat to boycott Fairfax from the   “the Australian National Imams Council, Islamic Council of New South Wales and Muslim Legal Network New South Wales, et al” I can’t help thinking that the only significant thing about these groups is their overly grandiose titles and inflated notions of their own self importance. Honestly who could possibly care if they won’t talk to Fairfax?  I ‘m sure that the Fairfax editors are laughing into their Lattes this morning at such an impotent attempt at blackmail.

As for Carlton anyone want to give me odds that he will soon be embraced by that leader in apologia for Islam, The Guardian, sooner rather than later? After all it is where all of the otherwise washed up hard left Journos all seem to end up.

Cheers Comrades

ggggjpg

Advertisements

The media landscape when the sheep begin to meow

As someone who has taken a stick to the minions of Fairfax journalism on a regular basis I find the panic among the Latte sippers rather amusing. Watching Dave and Jezza’s sycophants having conniptions in the soon to be closed Pure Poison comment threads just makes me roll with laughter. The biggest joke of all is this notion of “editorial independence” that is thrown around by the fans of Fairfax with gay abandon as if it means anything worthwhile. In the age of the internet if you want “independent” journalism then you have only one option and that is to turn to bloggers who do it for love rather than “journalists” who write for a pay cheque. I think that the age of professional interlocutors between the political action and the public is in serious decline, especially when just about very person with a fancy phone and an internet connection can upload footage of events in real time well ahead of the professionals who massage the story to suit their own agenda.

Of course I may well be a bit ahead of the wave here and it may be a while before the old media has its machine that goes ping turned off and it ceases to make any money at all for its proprietors so in that indefinite interim we will see some big changes like the takeover of Fairfax  by Gina Reinhardt who I suspect sees the possibility of making a quid out of its digital service rather than its big city mast heads in Sydney and Melbourne. With the move to a more digitally focused service does anyone want to bet that we won’t see more of its journalism being casualised or that they will be paid on piece work basis rather than them being on an expensive salary? Remember though that a casual worker who wants to earn has to try harder to please their boss…

If my scenario is correct, and it could be, what does it mean for the people in terms of them getting  clear and factual information? I certainly don’t think it means that we will be totally at the mercy of Gina’s personal agenda  quite simply because the voices that she sponsors through her  media interests will certainly be a long way short of any kind of a monopoly on the eyes and ears of the people. I am sure that for most of us who are interested in politics these days no longer rely entirely on any one source as it was in the golden age of the newspaper. Therein lies the problem for anyone who wants to make a quid from news and reporting it in world with every person can be the eyes and ears of the world even if its just once in their life time what value is there in paying large amounts of cash for someone to, for example, watch fuzzy wuzzy   twitter and write silly articles that no one wants to read?

I think  that the angst felt by many of my friends form the left at the decline of newspapers boils down to a very simple idea from totalitarians of the past, namely if you control the information that gets to the people then you can herd  them towards your desired ideological standpoint. However if you can’t have a monopoly on their attention because there are so many voices vying for it in the internet age, then  it becomes less like herding sheep and  more like herding cats and anyone who has tried to corral them knows that it is another thing altogether.

  Cheers Comrades

Jo Chandler’s prospects after the axefest at Fairfax

So the axe is going to fall on Fairfax, and form the look of things its going to fall hard, I can’t say that I’m that surprised that they are going to take to their expensive infrastructure and substantially reduce their overheads by reducing their staff by 1900.

Click for source

Of course the influence of Gina Reinhardt may even bring Fairfax a bit closer to the centre politically and won’t that set up a wailing and moaning in the latte belts of both Sydney and Melbourne ? One would hope that they hold onto their best journalists but maybe they can take this as an opportunity to shed some under-performing ‘senior writers” Like Jo Chandler. Its very clear   though that there are  writers at Fairfax who are worth reading and its inevitable that Fairfax will consolidate their titles published in different cities into a single entity eventually, after all so much of the content is shared across the empire anyway.

I can’t help wondering just what  Ex Fairfax staff will do with themselves  once they have collected that final pay cheque, after-all in a  shrinking sector they can’t all expect to find new gigs as journalists, some may try the old standby of writing books (that however may result only in failure) others may try to turn their dalliances with the internet into a money spinner but its hard to see how they can make a quid out of that especially if their previous experience on the net was to harass and stalk humble bloggers who happened to disagree with them about politics and anonymity on the net.

Oh well perhaps they need to get some ruby slippers and hope that when the click them together and say “there is no place like home”  and be thankful that they can draw upon their potential inheritance while they dream their Marxist dreams and sip  a Chai latte while avoiding being caught in the rain (because it plays havoc with their hair)

Cheers Comrades

Union of sameness versus union of difference

This is an essay by  David Palmer posted to Online Opinion and I reproduce it here under the terms of its creative commons licence , oh yeah and because I think that its well argued 😉

Cue spluttering and  fuming from our learned friend 😉

Cheers Comrades:

If a recent report in the Sydney Morning Herald is to be believed, the intensive lobbying of coalition MPs over the Summer months by same-sex marriage advocates has failed to secure their support for a conscience vote on the issue.

According to this report,

…the gay marriage debate in Parliament will be pushed back to later in the year to give advocates for change more time to garner enough support to have legislation for same-sex marriage passed.

Instead of the debate being held immediately – which would have seen the bill defeated – the gay marriage campaign has changed focus to increase pressure on Tony Abbott to change his mind and allow opposition MPs a conscience vote.

There are several things worth saying about this matter.

The first is that August 24 last year Adam Bandt and the homosexual lobby scored a spectacular own goal over the issue of just how well supported same-sex marriage is in the Australian community last year.

At the end of 2010, Parliament approved a motion proposed by Bandt calling on all parliamentarians, “consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same-sex couples including marriage”.

Well what happened on August 24, 2011?

When thirty members of Parliament stood to give an account of their constituents views on same-sex marriage, it was discovered opinion in Coalition and Labor seats was overwhelmingly against legalising same-sex marriage, with only 6 out of 30 MP’s indicating their members were in favour of change. Most of the numbers being reported were very lopsidedly against same-sex marriage. Especially striking was the failure of the progressive left organisation, Get Up!, which likes to describe itself as a movement of almost 600,000 members, to get its members to sign their petition in favour of same-sex marriage. In fact on the morning that MPs were reporting their findings it was found that the Get Up! numbers had been trumped by the Australian Christian Lobby numbers – less than 10% of Get Up members had signed the petition. Next day, Matt Akersten on the gay and lesbian lifestyle website, samesame, wrote “We’re not going to sugarcoat this – yesterday’s MP feedback session in Parliament on the gay marriage issue was a tough setback for marriage equality”.

Given the far reaching nature of a decision to extend in law marriage to same-sex couples, a reasonable question to ask is, “what principled reason has been advanced for such a change in the law of marriage?”

We get arguments like, “it’s time” or “my homosexual daughter (or son) wants to marry her (or his) partner” or “they can do it in Massachusetts or Holland or Spain, why not here?”.

But what’s the principle? What is the rational, logical argument that carries sufficient weight for such a significant change in the law of marriage?

Last year former NSW premier Nick Greiner reportedly said, ”(s)elf-evidently (it is) a matter of natural justice”.

It is no such thing.

It is simply wrong and misleading to depict the case for same-sex marriage as a case for ending discrimination or for equal legal recognition of relationships. The Federal Parliament amended 84 pieces of legislation after the 2010 election to place homosexual rights and entitlements on the same basis as others. The push for same-sex marriage is therefore largely ideological, because there is clearly no intention in any jurisdiction that they be subjected to any substantial discrimination on entitlement.

Peter van Onselen shortly before Adam Bandt’s show and tell argument in Parliament, like Greiner, argued for same-sex marriage as a human right but as is always the case with this assertion never actually demonstrated why it was a human right, choosing instead, typically, to construct a series of pejorative straw men and ‘stacking the deck’ arguments to hopefully convince us that same-sex marriage was the natural consequence of a long evolutionary development in marriage. Of course, having gone down this path he might have considered a further evolutionary development – the Greens’ bill for same-sex marriage still limits marriage to two persons, itself arguably discriminatory to those favouring polygamy or group marriage. How long would we have to wait for that example of discrimination to be addressed?

If a human rights basis is to be developed for same-sex marriage then it is first necessary to determine whether same-sex couples actually qualify for marriage. What is it about marriage that determines who may enter into marriage?

What we can say about marriage is that despite varying cultural expressions, it is seen as the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, of the type that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. This concept of marriage, allowing for variations in customs and ritual, is consistently found across cultures throughout history. Marriage involves a comprehensive union of spouses, with norms of permanence and exclusivity. These combine to create a special link to children, for their sake, that protects their identity and nurture by a mother and father.

It is the link to children that gives marriage its special character.

But why a man and a woman, and not two men or two women?

With one exception a person is complete within themselves as to bodily organs and their functions: heart, lungs, stomach and so on. In other words, to fulfil any of these functions a person does not require a contribution from anyone else. The one biological function for which individual adults are naturally incomplete is sexual reproduction. In sexual intercourse, and no other form of sexual contact, a man’s and a woman’s bodies are joined by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. Their bodies become one, thereby securing future generations at the same time as they are giving unique expression to their love for each other.

Marriage is deeply and uniquely orientated to bearing and nurturing children. Marriage ensures children access to both their mother and father and the security of the love between the parents. It provides for them a role model of human love of the parents relating as man and as woman, and its complementarity also ensures the unilateral love of each parent to the child and the necessary differences between motherly and fatherly love.

The fact that divorce happens, or one spouse dies early, or some couples are infertile and perhaps circumvent that lack to conceive through artificial reproductive technologies, including the use of donor gametes and surrogate mothers, or a couple beyond the years of child bearing marry, does nothing to change the reality of marriage. Same-sex couples simply do not qualify.

At its deepest level, marriage is the union of difference, the combining of a man and a woman to make one flesh, a union that is physical, emotional and as well, mystical.

To the contrary, same-sex marriage would be the union of sameness, with the distinctive and historical orientation towards the bearing and nurture of children dissolved. In its stead is to be offered a view of marriage which places sexual choice and emotional commitment at the centre.

So, let’s be clear on this: extending marriage to same-sex couples would represent a radical revision of the public understanding of marriage as a social institution. To go down this path would be for the law to teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults’ emotional unions, not complementary bodily union or children. Because there is no reason that primarily emotional unions (any more than ordinary friendships in general) should be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two, these norms of marriage would make less and less sense. Less able to understand the rationale for these marital norms, people would feel less bound to live by them, to their own detriment, and especially to the detriment of children.

According to the newspaper report I began with, the supporters of same-sex marriage claim through the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, Mr Greenwich, the existence of “an unstoppable momentum for a reform that continues to win hearts and minds in the wider community and the parliament”. Well this remains to be seen. To be sure, their efforts will not go unchallenged. Same-sex marriage in law is by no means inevitable.

%d bloggers like this: