Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison – A Crikey weblog

News Ltd outraged when other people call Julia names much milder than their commenters do

   

Pure Poison IconSome serious stupidity from the Herald Sun in this vacuous smear on the ABC, attacking it for private tweets by two contributors.

How it twists the tweets into an attack is just classic News Ltd.

The first, from Paul Verhoeven, was

Boo you whore

The Herald Sun version?

Triple J presenters label Julia Gillard a ‘whore’, Tim Mathieson ‘gay’

ONE broadcaster called Julia Gillard a “whore”… [Verhoeven] later deleted it, claiming it was merely a reference to a popular movie.

The Triple J presenter later tweeted that the original tweet had been taken down “because the ABC were copping complaints from people who clearly haven’t seen Mean Girls”.

“Claiming”? It’s not like they couldn’t check whether it was a reference or not.

YouTube Preview Image

Well, that took two seconds of typing “Boo you whore” into Google. (I suspect that the context of that scene clarifies that the character – and thus the PM – isn’t actually being accused of being a prostitute.)

Why didn’t the Hun journo check whether Verhoeven’s defence stacked up? Why did he leave it as the doubt-inspiring “claimed”? I don’t know, but I’m sure it was for some legitimate reason.

Meanwhile if News Ltd wants to complain about people calling Julia nasty names, perhaps it might consider reviewing the supposedly “moderated” comments it regularly publishes about her and her colleagues. They’ve published much worse about her than “whore”. Maybe the next story will be:

Herald Sun moderators publish comments labelling Gillard a “dictator”, a “shape-changing vampire”, a “trollop and a shrew”, a “mongrel”, a “bitch”, “slitty-eyed”, a “fungal growth” who has “given up all attributes of what it means to be a human being”, “Australia’s very own Jezebel”, a “compulsive liar” whose “milk is sour”, “pure evil”, a “slimy con-artist”, a “slag of the lowest order”, “a disgusting, lying slag without one ounce of integrity or decency”.

Yeah, I know, that headline is too long. But they could pick two and give it the same prominence as their ABC bash – if they wanted to be consistent.

Meanwhile, there was a second tweet, this from Brendan McLean:

Just because you don’t want to marry your gay boyfriend doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be able to marry mine.

[McLean] accused [Gillard's] partner Tim Mathieson of being gay in blistering Twitter attack… as the Prime Minister prepared to open the ALP national conference.

The attacks underlined the heat being generated by Labor’s debate this weekend on same-sex marriage.

McLean is gay. He clearly doesn’t consider being gay an insult. To interpret it as an attack on Mathieson requires concluding that being gay is something to be ashamed of, rather than equivalent to accusing Mathieson of liking blondes.

Anyway, it was all naturally grist to the silly mill of Southbank’s regular self-parodist, Andrew Bolt:

Why must taxpayers pay people so vicious?

We pay the salaries of such barbarians? And isn’t gay marriage meant to be pushed by people motivated by compassion and tolerance?

It’s strange that the Left gets a pass for brutality that conservatives never do.

It’s also strange that grown men still haven’t figured that tweeting is for morons.

Oh, wait.

Well, taxpayers pay the two in question because, I suppose, they’re good at their jobs and their private Twitter accounts have nothing to do with it.

And, as we’ve regularly seen, if tweets that are crude or insulting to the Prime Minister render the posters “barbarians”, then Andrew’s audience is largely comprised of “barbarians”.

Ironically, Andrew’s link under “the Left gets a pass for brutality” is to a story describing how Catherine Deveny was sacked by The Age for a personal tweet, which hardly sounds like “getting a pass”.

(And I don’t think “brutality” means what Andrew thinks it means.)

Meanwhile, here are some of Andrew’s colleagues with active Twitter accounts who he’s therefore just called “morons”:

Malcolm Farr, Caroline Overington, Miranda Devine, Sally Bennett, James Campbell, Mark Stevens, Matt Johnston, … the journos whose stories were at the top of the Herald Sun website when I looked, Shelley Hadfield, Jessica Craven, Phillip Hudson…

Ah well, at least now they know what he thinks of them.

10 Comments

  1. 1
    Jack Sparraaggghhh
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    Well, I did say yesterday Andy has taken to [Self-EDIT].

    Beyond the HS’s foolishness, it’s interesting how the word ‘whore’ is becoming, through the prism of popular culture, emptied of meaning to the status of almost a generic sledge.

    I don’t know which movie that ‘boo you whore’ thing comes from, but the adorable poppets who engage in such ‘barbaric’ banter seem to be generically middle class. Is it a Fox movie? Disney?

  2. 2
    Aliar Jones
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    It’s an outright attempt to smear the ABC…incredible when you think of the vile spew that comes from their own columnists and commenters. I’ve seen this idiotic lie of a story being regurgitated on social media. Personally I think its a desperate and creepy attempt to make their own brand of lunacy appear ‘normal’…

    There really is no depth they won’t sink to.

  3. 3
    silkworm
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Why must taxpayers pay people so vicious?

    Why must Murdoch pay people so vicious?

    It’s strange that the Left gets a pass for brutality that conservatives never do.

    Why Andrew’s fetish with demonizing the Left? How is it that the opposite of “left” is “conservative”? Why does Andrew have a problem with admitting that he is right-wing?

  4. 4
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    I actually sensed a bit of confusion running through the comments in that thread. Yes, obviously these people were bad because they (a) work for the ABC and (b) andrew said so, but … weren’t they kind of attacking JuLiar and her man-bag boyfriend? And isn’t that, you know, ACCEPTABLE intolerance? Ack! How to respond?

  5. 5
    Jack Sparraaggghhh
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    weren’t they kind of attacking JuLiar and her man-bag boyfriend?

    Yes, but they were ABC bods attacking JuLIAR for her position on Same Sex Marriage. That’s a cognitive dissonance-dissonance.

  6. 6
    Archer
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    @silkworm
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 11:11 am

    “Why must taxpayers pay people so vicious?”

    “Why must Murdoch pay people so vicious?”

    The ABC is payed for by the tax payer (I’m one), it’s meant to be fair, impartial and not vicious.
    Murdoch can pay who ever he wants, it’s his money.

  7. 7
    Cuppa
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    I’d be ashamed to admit to being a right-winger too.

  8. 8
    silkworm
    Posted December 3, 2011 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    You’ve put your finger on it, Cuppa. He’s ashamed.

  9. 9
    Rich Uncle Skeleton
    Posted December 4, 2011 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    The ABC is payed for by the tax payer (I’m one), it’s meant to be fair, impartial and not vicious.

    And, pray tell, on which ABC platforms did these words appear? Were they spoken on JJJ? Published on The Drum? Should they be fired for holding a position different to yours? Why are you trying to silence free speech?

  10. 10
    The Pav
    Posted December 5, 2011 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    Perhaps the News Group has recognised that Abbott has no chance of winning the next election and that they’re going to have to live with Gillard for a fair while longer so thety’re going a bit of making up?

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.