Gerard Henderson, 'Left Wing Media' and wondering what the problem is.

[catsidhe]

This 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 well, mainly it seems because he has been replaced by people with whom he (and Faris) disagrees.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:

...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.

Comments

[catsidhe.livejournal.com]

Then whether Gerard has a half-page in the commentary section or not is more or less irrelevant, isn't it?

[lokicarbis.livejournal.com]

To those people, yes.