The absurdity of Brendan O’Neill’s poor-me whinge about being oppressed on Q&A (““No job is lonelier than defending freedom of speech in Q&A land”) can be summed up by his response to criticism of News Corporation’s excessive power and influence over government:
And no, we should not invite the state to dismantle Rupert’s regime.
Instead, if you really don’t like what his papers have to say, you should set up your own post-Murdochian, pot-stirring paper. That’s one of the great things about press freedom: anyone with the nous and the know-how and a fundraising sidekick can press their own ideas and offer them up for public consumption.
Yes – if you don’t like Murdoch domination of the media in Australia, then inherit your OWN newspaper from your father. If Rupert could do it, then why can’t you?
Thanks, dad.
Meanwhile, on that argument we and many others have been having, in the light of the Oslo massacre, on the subject of just what, if anything, should be done about those who spread the hysteria and hatred that the killer claimed justified his actions? Well, O’Neill has a line – that he also put on Monday night on Q&A – that he thinks deflects that criticism neatly: that those arguing for restraint from the polemicists have no faith in the ability of ordinary people to think for themselves and not, even if asked to, commit acts of mass violence:
That is the implication of Plibersek and Mayne’s discomfort with provocative discourse: that the little people’s minds are so putty-like that one shrill comment from an un-PC loudmouth might be enough to push them over the edge towards murder.
No, Brendan, that is not the implication at all. The clear implication is that any responsible broadcaster or journalist should be aware that there are crazy people out there, people who could be inspired into going over the edge if they were to be convinced, for example, that their very lives, that everything important to them, were really about to be taken over and destroyed by some other group. People naive enough to believe that newspapers wouldn’t print total lies, and to be open to be persuaded – particularly if the provocation were relentless enough and hysterical enough – that there really was A Grave Threat that required A Drastic Response.
Words don’t cause violence – but they can unleash it.
Ordinary people of course aren’t going to heed Alan Jones’ light-hearted suggestion that it would be amusing if they were to put the Prime Minister in a chaff bag and throw her out to sea, presumably to drown. Or the suggestion by a supporter published by the Liberal Party last month that it’d be great if someone would “murder” someone in the Greens or Labor. But what we’ve surely learned by now is that an atrocity doesn’t need very many participants at all. You don’t need a majority of Alan Jones’ audience to take him seriously – just one or two, sufficiently equipped and motivated and unhinged.
Hence the call for limits on professional media outlets publishing utterly deranged paranoia designed to create anger and fear. They would need to protect the very real need for press freedom so that the powerful are held to account – hell, it’s something we need to see a much more of; there are many of the genuinely powerful in our country who get away with very little coverage at all – but that doesn’t mean there should be no limits at all.
There’s “scrutiny” of those in power – which is vital, and important – and there’s inciting panic that spills over into violence.
And they’re a lot less similar than certain people appear to think they are.
21 Comments
Another shocking example is on AB’s blog today – “Racists Attack!”
It’s Zimbabwe all over again (according to the comments). Blacks targetting innocent whites.
See comments on weekend thread.
Never mind the whingers. Another one of Rupert Murdoch’s senior executives has been arrested:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/02/phone-hacking-stuart-kuttner-arrested
In the US, the FBI is broadening its investigation of the journalistic practices and corporate behaviour of News Corporation after uncovering evidence of computer hacking:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/04/fbi-news-corp-investigation?CMP=twt_gu
He basically said on the one hand that any criticism of Murdoch’s dominance of the aus media IS an attempt to censor the press and vilify Murdoch. And on the other hand, people in power to have delusions about people attacking them. I guess he was right…
Why is it that the people who complain loudest about defending ‘freedom of speech’ against totalitarian ‘political correctness gone mad’ invariably do so using a major newspaper or tv platform? Have they no concept of irony? I mean, to go on a national, publicly funded talk show, and argue that the show itself is trying to stop debate, seems utterly ludicrous.
I don’t think anyone on Q&A argued against freedom of speech. All they were arguing was that: a) with freedom of speech goes responsibility. Words are powerful, and can inspire action, and if that action is distasteful, the speaker should at least acknowledge that (I mean, the whole purpose of the opinion section of a newspaper is persuasion, isn’t it?), and b) it would be great if we had MORE voices in the Australian media, not less.
Plus, why is it that certain right-wingers go on Q&A and then bitch about being the ‘lone voice’ in an argument? That is the whole point of the show! In general, there is a formula to the panel:
- one MP from the Labor and Liberal/national parties
- An MP from either the greens, family first or an independent
- an ‘expert’ on the topic of the day
- a public commentator; either a newspaper opinion write or a comedian of some sort
The whole point is to have 5 diverse voices, which means that EVERYONE who goes on the show is a ‘lone voice’, representing one particular view on the issues being raised. The questions are selected so that over the course of a show, each of the panel in turn is questioned on their ‘contraversial’ area – each of them will, at some point, be on their own. Hence Plibersek ‘casting daggers at her tormentor’ – at times, the Labor MP was under fire from all quarters as well. Most seem to understand this as the whole reason the show exists (including the Liberal MPs). The exceptions seem to be right-wing media commentators, who invariably get particularly adversarial while the show is in progress, refusing to concede any ground or even debate things reasonably, then write an indignant article or blog post afterwards.
What an utter hypocrite.
Is this man from the same media organisation that calls for the gagging of imams and the censure/punishment of those who publish calls to Jihad or terrorism?
Or is O’Neill saying it is only Arab minds that are putty and can be influenced by calls to violence?
Ready … aim … FIRE!
Taking O’Neill’s argument one step further, it means that all the anti-terrorist and anti race-hatred legislations around the world that make calls to violence illegal, and I believe they are fairly universal, are a crock.
I’m pretty sure most libertarians would agree wholeheartedly with that actually…
O’Neill came across as someone who does not understand the situation here – an outsider with a big mouth …and worse, a bit rabid…Tanya Plibersek was the model of patience – you could tell Mr Maine was buying none of it….nor was I!
@btdg: Authoritarians have as part of their peculiar mindset that any opinion attacked is truthier than those that are not, especially their own. They need attackers so they invent them, why else does the lefty/righty exist.
This quote from Wikipedia explains a lot about Brendan O’Neill, the editor of Spiked.
” The journalist Nick Cohen described Spiked’s positions as mere attention seeking:
if you strip revolutionary defeatism of its revolutionary content, you have what modern editors and producers want: contrarianism, the willingness to fill space and generate controversy by saying the opposite of what everyone else is saying just because everyone else is saying it – an affectation most people get over around puberty.”
Down with the democratically elected Government. Long live the Corporate Media Hegemony.
There’s a history of failed Marxists becoming right-whingers.
Maybe they are just stuck in an infantile time-loop. Remember when your kids asked every time you said something, “Why?”
Why is the sky blue?
Why does the sun rise?
Why do ducks quack?
And my favourite –
Why do the traffic lights change every time I blink?
This was proved true by my young niece repeatedly and boringly – at least 8 times out of 10.
I would be interested on how many newspapers or media outlets Murdoch has actually founded, as compared to bought. I can think of The Australian, but no real others. Can anyone enlighten?
as compared to bought
… “bought” AND “completely r**ted” …
If words don’t inspire action, why is free speech a right worth defending anyway?
Ravenred,
As far as I know that’s the only one.
Good point though, because ‘how many has he CLOSED DOWN once he got market control?’
In Brisbane it was ‘The Sun’ and, ‘The Telegraph’, in Melbourne didn’t he close ‘The Herald’? (Eric Beecher would know). In Adelaide he either closed ‘The News’ or sold it just before it died.
Anyway, I’m positive he’s closed many more than he’s opened!
For me watching Brendan O’Neill on Q and A was similar to watching a FPS video game, so many moving targets to hit every time he opened his mouth.
Firstly the guy who puts a car bomb in the middle of the city blowing out every window for a few blocks and killing several people is a terrorist.
Secondly this idea that somehow “teh left” have gotten power from this act of terror is reverse thinking. To make an anology if two people walked into a room 20 years ago and one is a Catholic and the other is from Sinn Fein**, when the guy from Sinn Fein opened his mouth everyone listens because he is mates with the guys with the guns. People on the same side of the terrorist get the power. That’s how terrorism works, it’s a shortcut to power.
** Sinn Fein was the political arm of the IRA.
Reminds me of a TV interview with a young farmer some years ago who was complaining of aboriginal land rights.
He was saying some thing they should work to own land (fair enough in a way) and not just have it given to them.
The the interviewer asked him how he got his farm. Turns out he just inherited it. along with the machinery and so on.
Sure he would have worked on the land since he was a lad but the big kicker was effectively land rights for him. Funnily enough he couldnty see the inconsistancy of his position
@Ravenred: I might be wrong, but I do believe Rupert founded the Fox TV network rather than buying it. Many of the stations on the network are affiliates, and not owned by the network, but if my memory serves me right (and i readily admit it’s faulty quite often!) the foundation of the network was 4 tv stations, two of which Rupert initiated, and 2 he bought.