![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheThis entry on Faris QC's blog (I found him when The Age mentioned his defence of torture) talks about Gerard Henderson having been 'sacked' from The Age. This is apparantly a travesty. Why? well, mainly it seems because he has been replaced by people with whom he (and Faris) disagrees. He is still published by the SMH, though, and he he still has his Think Tank job, so it is unlikely that he will starve.
Of course, The Age is wrong for not publishing Henderson. I was impressed (for the wrong reasons) by what Faris chose to highlight out of all of what Henderson had to say on the matter:
Ok. So why does Faris (and Henderson) have a problem with this? Has the Herald-Sun ceased to exist? The Australian? Channels Seven, Nine and Ten? The Bulletin?
Is the problem that 'The Left' now has an unrepresentatively large voice, now that one commentator is no longer being published in one newspaper in one state? Then why is there no complaint about South Australia, where the only local paper is like the Herald-Sun, only more so?
The more I wonder about their disgust over this, the more it looks like their problem is that 'The Left' has any voice at all. If The Age is to be allowed to exist, why can't it be more like its more-to-the-right-wing big sister in Sydney?
Oooh, ooh, is it because The Age doesn't actually represent anyone? Anyone real? That is, only latté sipping, chardonnay quaffing, effete liberal (small-l), ivory tower, idealistic, out of touch lefties read it, and it says nothing to the 'average Australian'?
Gee. How does it stay in business, with so few readers? Or could it be that there are more effete latté lefties out there than they feel comfortable admitting? People buy The Age for a reason. There is not the excuse used for the ABC that they are held down and forced to read it. Could it be that, again, the problem is that people with whom they disagree are permitted to have a voice?
What they are saying, once you strip away their protestations about free speech, is that there is too much free speech, and that the wrong people have it.
Of course, The Age is wrong for not publishing Henderson. I was impressed (for the wrong reasons) by what Faris chose to highlight out of all of what Henderson had to say on the matter:
...The Age is the most left-wing newspaper in Australia...That's it. Of all the things to take issue with, it is that The Age is left wing.
Ok. So why does Faris (and Henderson) have a problem with this? Has the Herald-Sun ceased to exist? The Australian? Channels Seven, Nine and Ten? The Bulletin?
Is the problem that 'The Left' now has an unrepresentatively large voice, now that one commentator is no longer being published in one newspaper in one state? Then why is there no complaint about South Australia, where the only local paper is like the Herald-Sun, only more so?
The more I wonder about their disgust over this, the more it looks like their problem is that 'The Left' has any voice at all. If The Age is to be allowed to exist, why can't it be more like its more-to-the-right-wing big sister in Sydney?
Oooh, ooh, is it because The Age doesn't actually represent anyone? Anyone real? That is, only latté sipping, chardonnay quaffing, effete liberal (small-l), ivory tower, idealistic, out of touch lefties read it, and it says nothing to the 'average Australian'?
Gee. How does it stay in business, with so few readers? Or could it be that there are more effete latté lefties out there than they feel comfortable admitting? People buy The Age for a reason. There is not the excuse used for the ABC that they are held down and forced to read it. Could it be that, again, the problem is that people with whom they disagree are permitted to have a voice?
What they are saying, once you strip away their protestations about free speech, is that there is too much free speech, and that the wrong people have it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-09 07:55 pm (UTC)That explains its growing circulation.
Sort of
Date: 2005-06-10 09:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-09 08:12 pm (UTC)True, but for a lot of them, that reason is either the Green Guide, the EG or the massive job section on Saturday.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-09 08:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-09 08:25 pm (UTC)Not what he says
Date: 2005-06-10 09:05 am (UTC)After all, there are left-of-centre columnists in The Oz and The Bulletin. And the conservative columnist in The Age is ....?
If it works commercially for them, it's a private enterprise and it's entitled. Still, I would argue it does affect the service people get from it -- The Age has been very quiet on some issues, such as some of the Bracks' government constitutional changes.
Re: Not what he says
Date: 2005-06-10 09:47 pm (UTC)Conservative opinion columnists in The Age? How about Tony Parkinson, for a start. And The Age prints extended pieces from conservative politicians, both letters and opinion pieces. Does the HS?
It seems to me that the people who complain loudest about The Age are those who wouldn't be caught dead reading it in any case.
Look, I don't mind if Henderson gets his half page in the Age or not. It is, after all, a good thing to be exposed to opinions with which you disagree. And Henderson has a right to bitch about how they won't let him play in their sandbox anymore. But what got my ire was Faris making the point that The Age is 'The most left wing paper in the country', as if that proves anything. 1) That's not saying much. 2) someone has to be, and 3) what is his problem with a paper being left wing anyway? He doesnt rail about the Adelaide Advertiser, nary a whimper about the Herald Sun, so it seems that he only has a problem with papers which disagree with him. That's hypocritical.
I disagree with the Herald Sun. My response to this is simple: I don't read it. No-one forces me to. If I write a letter to the editor, I know better than to expect it to be printed. I can, after all, read The Age if I prefer. People in Adelaide don't have that luxury. There is a real problem with a biased newspaper, because that town really isn't big enough for two.
Moreover, I may disagree in the strongest possible terms with the Herald Sun, but I have never demanded, or even expressed the preference for them to be forced to hire, say, John Pilger as an opinion writer. I have no right to impose my views on the Herald Sun's readership. And Faris and Henderson have no right to impose their views on me. Fair's fair, after all.
Re: Not what he says
Date: 2005-06-10 11:00 pm (UTC)Like, for example, Jill Singer, who would fit in very comfortably at The Age. The range of opinion in HS is generally wider than The Age, if obviously more right-of-centre (but The Age really is the most left-wing major paper in Oz).
As for Tony Parkinson, I wouldn't describe him as conservative particularly, more just sceptical of received opinion. And he does very much stand out from The Age's in-house commentators.
(The people who I know who complain most about The Age actually do read it.)
Faris' comments about The Age being the most left-wing (major) paper in Oz is surely just descriptive and true. And his comment was that it was narrowing its range of in-house opinion by dropping Henderson, which is clearly true. The Age has a long history of not persisting with non-left commentators. As for outside writers, I would have thought that conservative and economically-liberal outside commentary was clearly a minority of such contributors to The Age.
Indeed, he seemed at lot less outraged by The Age being left-wing that much commentary on FoxNews from people on the left (who often do write as if they are outraged FoxNews exists).
There does sometimes does seem to be some snobbery involved, as if people want a broadsheet that is less left-wing rather than just reading the tabloid. Of, for that matter, reading the AFR (though that is more expensive), which does particularly well in Melbourne, presumably as a reaction to The Age.
Re: Not what he says
Date: 2005-06-11 10:07 pm (UTC)That may well be. So what?
What is the problem with having one left-of-center (whatever 'the center' is supposed to mean in this context) mainstream newspaper? Please, I really want to know.
It is not like the Herald Sun doesn't exist. It is not like the commercial TV channels don't exist. It is not like the commercial Radio stations don't exist. Faris' point, however, was that the Age being so far to the left was in and of itself wrong. He would, it seems, prefer for the choice not to be exposed to the right-wing commentariat to go away.
Moreover, if the readership of the newspapers is so far to the right, 1) does that mean therefore that I don't exist? and 2) why, as I said, does The Age get as high a readership as it does? It's not simply the Green Guide, as the Sunday Age and the Herald Sun do their own TV guides. It might be the Saturday Age Jobs Section, but you yourself pointed out that the Sat. Age numbers are dropping (probably because of Internet Job sites). At least some of these readers must like what The Age is doing. Oh, sorry, I forgot, they are all left-wing Leunig-loving Leninist Latté-sipping ivory-tower academics, and therefore aren't real people, and so don't count.
Faris drew attention to precisely one statement: The Age is Left Wing. Well, yes, it is, compared with all the other newspapers in the country. Why is this an issue? If he doesn't like The Age, no-one is forcing him to read it. No-one is silencing Henderson, as he still has his SMH gig.
Are you really comparing FoxNews with The Age? Seriously?
Because The Age does, you may be surprised to know, print articles attacking both Federal and State governments. FoxNews, on the other hand, is infamous world wide as a 24hour source of lunatic far-right propoganda. The Simpsons episode where the FoxNews crawler had such messages as 'Democrats Cause Cancer' and 'JFK posthumously joins GOP' was funny because they were not far off what are really shown.
What I got from what Faris chose to highlight about Henderson's dropping was that this allowed more space in a Left-wing newspaper for Left-wing columnists. The Horror! If Kenneth Davidson had been dropped, to make way for a columnist who was prepared to say that whatever the government was doing, it must be the right thing, then there would not have been a whimper of protest. Nor, I suspect, if Murdoch were to buy The Age outright and do his usual trick of replacing the entire editorial team with a more compliant one (as he did in Britain).
The problem is not that there is a narrower range of opinion in The Age. The problem is that the center of the range of opinions in The Age has been shifted in the wrong direction. Faris explicitely compared The Age with the SMH, in the context of the SMH printing more conservative columnists. Why couldn't the Age be more like them? Why couldn't they have been grown-up, and sensible, and seen the light, and been more like the right[!]-thinking us?
Re: Not what he says
Date: 2005-06-11 11:35 pm (UTC)When I was following IR issues, it was very conspicuous that the AFR coverage would be a day later, but much much more informative. And it is quite remarkable how many Fairfax journalists despise The Age, precisely on the above grounds
And your comments about FoxNews are much like Faris' comments on The Age only more so. FoxNews is right wing. So?
Re: Not what he says
Date: 2005-06-12 02:20 am (UTC)There is putative bias, and there is raison d'être.
The Age does attack the Labor government, even if it isn't always acrimonious enough for your liking. There was even a large investigative report published in yesterday's (Saturday's) edition, over several pages.
FoxNews regards any evidence of US misdeeds or atrocities as mere trivial abberations (even after the nth repetition), and questioning of the neo-con agenda as treasonous (and, yes, they do use that word).
FoxNews puts me far more in mind of classical Pravda than The Age ever has. (The new Pravda is more or less the Weekly World News in Russion.) The same (dis)regard for objective truth, the same attitude towards dissent to power, the same vitriol towards The Enemy (whether it be Eastasia or Eurasia this week). The main difference is that Pravda never had Bill Reilly or Anne Coulter.
Re: Not what he says
Date: 2005-06-12 08:26 pm (UTC)The Age usually attacks Labor governments for not being left-wing/progressivist enough (the level of acrimony is not the issue). And it is in the news business, so it can hardly avoid genuine stories. Even there, it's narrowness can get in the way -- I remember a former prominent Age journalist telling me that the problem with their coverage of issues under Kennett was that readers were left working out whether the latest attack was justanotherAgeattack or whether there was substance to it this time. Similarly, potential stories go begging because they don't "fit in" with the worldview.
When I was in Canberra, people would read the Oz, the AFR and the SMH. At best, we would glance through The Age because it was like the SMH only worse (more predictable, less substantive content).
As for FoxNews, it seems fairly clear to me that the rhetoric of each side in the US feeds off the other -- the right yells about treason, etc; the left yells about stupidity, etc; both yell about tyranny-being-just-around-the-corner. It is all way overdone, though it is natural to notice more the stuff that insults oneself than the stuff that insults other folk.