In 2007 the Australian Christian Lobby were upset by the TV show Californication and campaigned across the media, held protests, and lobbied advertisers not to advertise on that program. Holden and Holeproof are just two of the companies that dropped advertising on the show. The show, thankfully, remained on the air despite this heavy lobbying by a fringe group.
As a supporter of freedom of speech and a (then) fan of the show, their actions irritated me. Who are they to dictate what I watch on television? Just because it offended their sensibilities doesn’t mean it offends mine.
This week, in retaliation to Ten giving Andrew Bolt a show, The Bolt Report, idealistic lefties have started a similar campaign targeting companies to pull advertising from the show. Why? Because Bolt offends their sensibilities. For the record, I don’t agree much with what Bolt says, but since when was that just cause to have him pulled off the air?
The group trying to get Bolt pulled off the air are no better than the Christian groups trying to get Californication pulled from the air. Groups trying to push their morality by forcing censorship on opposing ideologies. It absolutely makes me sick.
That said, Operation Bolt Cutter are free to engage in this campaign. I don’t agree with it and could not be more disappointed by their actions, but they are free to do it. I visited their event on Facebook and, in protest, clicked ‘No’ to attending the event. I encourage you to do likewise.
36 Comments
You forgot to add that it’s also pointless; no-one watches Sunday morning television anyway, and apparently the show was crap and probably (hopefully) won’t last anyway.
The pointlessness of it got in the way of my righteous indignation.
The show was pretty crap, but it isn’t going anywhere. The advertisers on the show may move on, but it’s cheap to buy time on that show and others will jump on board. Especially with the fact the show will continue to be a high-profile show now that controversy surrounds it.
Also, with Gina Reinhart supporting the show, does anyone really think the show is going away?
It’s not censorship; it’s merely people telling advertisers that they do not wish the money that they spend on these products to go towards such a show.
“Free to Air” television is not free. We all pay for it through price markups in the products that we buy, due to advertising costs. I don’t want a cent of anything I buy to go to Andrew Bolt.
Bolt’s blogsite at the Herald Sun is home to some of the most ugly, hate-filled comments from his followers that have ever been published in the Australian media.
Businesses are free to associate their names with the propagation of extremist, socially-corrosive propaganda. But if they do so then let them wear the consequences. I hope the consequences on such businesses will be emphatic. I wish Operation: Bolt-Cutter success because I believe that working against toxic propaganda is a GOOD THING.
It is one tiny voice in balance to Bolt, who’s got the advantages of print, radio and television platforms to promulgate his filth.
Australia has about the most one-sided media in the English-speaking world. A small movement like Operation: Bolt-Cutter is begun to redress the imbalance … and what happens? A Crikey “media commentator” all but condemns it. As a subscriber I expect better and less reflexive analysis from Crikey than this.
Lift your game please.
It’s still placing pressure on an organisation to stop someone having a voice.
Cuppa: There are positive ways to deal with Bolt and there are negative ways. Adopting the same practices as Christian lobby groups to get opinions they disagree with eliminated smells like a dodgy practice to me.
The reason why Bolt has been so successful is because people want to hear what he has to say. Got a problem with that? Don’t try to silence him…it just makes his voice stronger. Start an education campaign against what he’s saying. Have a positive voice.
I know you’re passionate about your hatred of Bolt. I get it. And I understand why. I do believe that Operation: Bolt Cutter is going about it the wrong way. Much like how I believe that the Australian Christian Lobby went about their campaign the wrong way.
And Bolt isn’t always trying to silence “lefties”??? Look at the dozens of pieces he’s written over the years condemning alleged lefty views at Fairfax and the ABC.
Operation: Bolt-Cutter is asking businesses to be socially responsible, to decide if they will associate their business names with extremist hateful propaganda.
It is a tiny movement with the platform of a single webpage trying to prevent an already chronically-imbalanced mainstream media from becoming even more imbalanced.
I’d have hoped a media commentator writing for an independent media outlet such as Crikey might have acknowledged the benefit of what they’re tyring to DO FOR the media – rather than come out to refelxively condemn it.
If Rinehart wants a propaganda platform in the mainstream let her pay for it. If businesses choose to associate themselves with the extremism that Bolt is notorious for, let them wear the consequences of so doing. You’re judged by the company you keep in this world.
“I’d have hoped a media commentator writing for an independent media outlet such as Crikey might have acknowledged the benefit of what they’re tyring to DO FOR the media…”
What is it that this group is doing for the media?
Create an environment in which any media outlet who publishes material that fringe groups may disagree with now fear losing their advertising dollar?
Can’t agree, Dan.
If Operation:BoltCutter (or the Christians, for that matter) were using undue influence to FORCE shows off the air (by pulling strings at the regulator, or by sabotaging the cameras at the studio, or breaking into your house to stop you watching it, or by buying out the TV station and canning the program) then I would disagree with that – it’s an infringement on free speech.
On the other hand, contacting corporations who are supporting Bolt’s show by advertising on it, is quite legitimate. Nobody if forcing Holden et. al. to withdraw their support. Nobody is trying to forcefully prevent the show from airing. Just to invite corporations to reconsider their association with a particularly odious political stance.
Nothing wrong with that.
I think you’re stretching credulity to make an association between such a campaign, and an attack on free speech.
Publicly complaining about someone who publicly complains is not censorship. It’s the complete opposite of censorship. The ‘right to the advertising dollar’ is not covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is so not an issue.
Dan, My fundamental position is this:
1) The media is too lopsided at present for the health of democracy.
2) A show by someone such as Bolt makes a chronic situation worse.
3) The hardline right is just as intolerant as you decry O:B-C for.
4) Having a large number of followers does not necessarily validate what Bolt says. History is replete with examples of ‘movements’ based on extremism. Good rarely comes of it.
Capt Planet and jesse nailed it.
Dan you get all het up about rich folks’ right to have a voice but disapprove when ordinary consumers want to make themselves heard. How “positive”.
I don’t see either example of what you’ve described as censorship. To me censorship is when a central authority (usually a government or dictator) precludes information from being made available. That’s not what is happening in either case you mention
In neither case is the government stopping the information from being made available at all.
In neither case is the information unavailable in all formats (you’d have been free to buy or rent the DVDs of californication, and Bolt’s thoughts are readily available in a number of formats)
Censorship is a strong word to bandy about and I don’t think it applies in this case.
In fact the lobbying of advertisers not to support show A or B is a good example of capitalism at work, especially if you stop thinking of FTA television as some kind of basic human need like decent drinking water. Apart from the ABC it’s a commercial product and its owners have to make commercial decisions.
The reason why O: BC is targeting advertisers like this is because the method works. Similar pressure saw Glenn Beck taken off the air in the US. These are the same tactics employed by ‘moral crusaders’ such as the aforementioned Aus Christian Lobby and countless morality groups in the US. Advertisers baulk because there is no benefit in them supporting a show when they can get the same viewer penetration elsewhere.
For each and every one of you in support of this action, keep in mind this: Soon enough there will be a lobby group attacking something that you support by engaging in this exact same advertiser-targeted practice. A pro-abortion message, same sex relationships/activity, bad language, heavy sexual themes, or heaven forbid some nudity. There’s every good chance that any of this could come under fire and see the TV show/magazine/website/whatever have to pull the content. When that happens, none of you are entitled to get angry or shout them down. You’ve utilised the exact same practice.
There are right ways to protest Andrew Bolt having a telly show and there are wrong ways. The way that O: BC has chosen is horribly grubby.
I’m unhappy when I see anyone engage in this sort of behaviour as it makes it difficult for anyone to express an opinion that isn’t somewhere in the middle. You don’t need to agree with every opinion in the world. I don’t really give a damn about Bolt and his views. I have a good laugh at him and move on.
Welcome to an exceedingly homogeneous culture. You’ve had a hand in creating it.
Also, consider this. Removing a platform for Bolt doesn’t remove the problem. He’s simply giving the hard right a mouthpiece. The mouthpiece may disappear, but the thoughts and sentiment continue to exist.
Educating, communicating, and engaging the public on your alternative views has the ability to actually influence thought. Take the higher ground and work on actually engaging in a conversation.
Well honestly non-targeted advertising should be on the way out by now anyway. Advertisers should be paying more attention to who watches what. TV execs have been way behind the 8-ball in this regard. TeleChoice booked advertising during VideoHits for god’s sake, whose target demographics I’d wager are the complete opposite of those who watch the Bolt Report. No wonder they dropped their ‘bonus slots’ advertising after they heard about O:BC.
ps. I had no part in O:BC, I’m not really defending it. I don’t read Bolt nor do I join reactionary Facebook groups. But it wasn’t censorship, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Bolt is still free to say whatever he likes to whoever will listen but he isn’t guaranteed advertising revenue for doing so any more than I am.
And if religious lobby groups try a similar tactic and successfully remove my favourite show from telly then that’s a shame, I’ll get it off the internet and watch it with no ads at all. In the same way that if Channel 10 drops the Bolt Report, anyone who wants to listen to Bolt’s ranting can continue to read the Herald Sun.
Dan, your argument for free speech is a bit muted when you keep berating posters who express a different view. You’ve really got the upper hand and author priveleges the rest of us don’t have.
Can I point out without expressing an opinion on Bolt or the anti-bolt campaign (although I did love Californication and the sweariest show on tele – Deadwood) that the boycott has been a great tool of progressive politics and was practised by no less an individual than Ghandi.
That’s the tricky bit about free speech, ratbags get to say whatever they like.
In your rush to declare yourself a supporter of freedom of speech, you’ve managed to make not one but two false equivalencies.
1. Comparing Californication to The Bolt Report. One uses sex to sell a story whilst the other is an active participant in the game of democracy. Bolt, because of his readership clout and media profile can help set agendas and also form spin and talking points for the Liberal Party. Such is his level of partisanship that you might as well call it “Liberal Party Report” every sunday morning.
He has skin in the game and you can’t turn around and say that it’s wrong for people to oppose this through legal means. This is healthy and you would be arguing against democracy if you think this shouldn’t happen.
I would expect nothing short of this from the other side if a Labour partisan from the media had their own TV Show.
2. Comparing church groups to a loose collection of people united by one issue. Religion has a hierarchy (at least the church group that you use for your example) and this has been used for a very long time to bring people together and campaign. At any given time, most parties in parliament will have members that belong to that religion. The church hold influence and they use influence.
How influential can people aligned with the “Left” possibly be?
I think it’s great that this campaign is underway and I hope to see more of it.
Dan is imploring Progressives to take the high moral road here. But when has the right ever done this in relation to free speech?
Consider some examples where they curb dissenting opinion.
Shock jocks talk over, ridicule and cut off left-leaning callers. This happens on radio stations including the one on which Bolt operates in Melbourne.
Right-wing blog hosts regularly censor out dissenting comments, as well as pile on the vilification, scorn and put downs.
Right-wing commentators urge their audience to complain to the ABC for having alleged “lefties” on the air.
Bolt himself has written probably dozens of comments complaining about a so-called leftist “bias” of the ABC. Even while he was appearing regularly on the channel himself for a decade he was saying they were out to get right-wingers!!
The hundreds and hundreds of comments from right-leaning members of the public on blogs, calls to talkback, and Letters to the Editor complaining about the alleged bias of the ABC. For years they’ve been doing this, and some of them are still doing it to this day, believe it or not!
The Howard government did not tolerate independence from the ABC. They went to the length of stacking its Board of Directors with right-wing culture warriors, who in turn set about hiring and promoting others of their ilk through the ranks of the organisation – such that the ABC is now an aspiring FOXNews minus the ads.
The right in this country (and others) have a long and solid history of intolerance of dissent. Therefore I feel it’s a bit rich Dan asking Progressives – who, remember, have practically NIL voice in the media – to play nice with an an antagonist like Bolt.
Who are really the “horribly grubby” ones here, Dan?
If a left-leaning current affairs show by some miracle suddenly were to start being broadcast on TV the RWFs would be straight off the blocks organising an advertiser boycott. The campaign would be underway before the first ad break finished! Only the deluded would believe otherwise.
Let’s have a little more perspective and insight please.
Dan wrote:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/whitenoise/2011/05/09/the-bolt-report/
So it’s just fine for Bolt / his program to have an “agenda” and to be “effective”, yet when a small left presence on a single webpage aspire to an effective agenda it’s “horribly grubby”?
PS: What sort of “agenda” should Bolt be running anyway? One in which “lefties” are routinely vilified? Organising mass-movement “people’s rallies” against progressive legislation?
Edit: last line:
OrganisingPublicising mass-movement “people’s rallies” against progressive legislation?Hi Dan
Firstly let me say thanks for taking the time to engage in dialogue with your commenters. It takes some guts to put your beliefs on the line in this kind of forum and not all authors will respond to questions / criticism / challenges.
I don’t agree with your viewpoint but I think you have raised valuable points and we are all richer of mind for having considered the possibility – the day you stop actually thinking about the merits of arguments presented to you before rejecting them, is the day you become a bigot and an ignoramus, so again, thanks for bringing the subject up.
Now back to the action….
You say,
Come on Dan, I once had to go through the horrible experience of accompanying a young lady to an abortion clinic, only to be confronted by a group of anti – abortion activists holding pictures of dead foetuses and grabbing at us, trying to prevent us from entering and yelling “murderer!”
Now that’s an extreme example, but it just goes to show that people with strongly held convictions hold no compunction about using every means at their disposal to coerce others into behaving in a manner of which they approve.
What chance does a show about the negative health effects of alcohol have of being shown, on a commercial network accepting advertising money from a beer company?
What chance does “Gasland” have of ever being shown on commercial TV, when BP and Shell are busy ramming their message down our throat every ad break?
This stuff has been going on for years, and provided it doesn’t actually enter the realm of censorship, hey, what are ya gonna do.
At the end of the day we are talking about privately owned and operated commercial TV channels which nobody is forced to watch, with advertisers who can choose to advertise or not advertise as they see fit, and a relatively free society in which anyone is allowed to lobby the TV station, the advertisers, or the audience themselves for that matter, in an attempt to get them to voluntarily change their behaviour. That’s it.
Jesse had it right – if we’re concerned about possible removal from commercial TV of a show about same sex marriage, due to fundamentalist Christian opposition, well sheeesh, Watch it online. If it’s not available online, unless it’s unavailable due to sinister manipulation of internet providers through threats or similar, then it’s unavailable because nobody’s interested.
The role of commercial TV is not to present a balanced mix of political commentary, or to support free speech – it’s to make a profit. If people seek to use commercial TV to sell a message or brainwash the masses, and if others seek to manipulate the content of commercial TV by mass non violent direct action which impacts on the profitability of the TV station, well, welcome to the cut and thrust of the capitalist system.
Bolt is not being censored.
Nobody is arguing for a law that says Andrew Bolt is not allowed to have a say in public. That would be genuine censorship, and I would strongly oppose it.
But if the right to free speech means anything, it includes the right to argue that people should consider choosing not to economically support X activity or person or company or product or idea, etc, because it causes more harm than good, an argument that occurs every day in this world, always has, and is totally legit.
Bolt is a moron. Channel 10 (Gina Rinehart) is a moron for agreeing with him and giving him free air-time. Santamaria was probably the last person to have the largesse of a media owner, Frank Packer, who kept Santamaria’s miserable little program on for many years at his own expense. Don’t think Gina Rinehart won’t do the same. The silly woman is worried she’ll have to pay tax.
The best way to get Bolt off the air is to ignore him. Let him have his small-minded, stupid, bigoted, worthless opinions. Let’s not engage.
You wrote “There are right ways to protest Andrew Bolt having a telly show and there are wrong ways”
So what do you consider to be the right ways?
And you can insult me all you want wiht your ‘you’ve all had a hand in it’ line but I’m not going to feel guilty about letting TV stations duke it out with their advertisers and lobbyists over what goes to air. TV is a medium and it has competitors that are easily accessible (especially these days). I worry far more about things like the government actively participating in internet censorship (via their secret blacklists and other proposed schemes) and what’s happening to curriculums in our public schools where small-number special interest groups are having a worrying impact on content – in both those cases genuine censorship is occuring and it is these instances where I choose to spend my limited time on activism that matters far more than what goes to air on a single television station on Sunday mornings.
The thing is, it doesn’t really matter if the show makes a big loss on advertising; its being put on by a right wing proprietor (Gina Rinehart) because it suits her views. Its like the ‘Australian’ newspaper, makes a huge loss, but is kept going because it cranks out the right wing crap its proprietor wants to hear.
This is the big thing about the right wing rubbish in the media, its not really what the public want – its what the proprietors want to hear. Poor little newscrap journalists should really try to understand that.
I don’t care either way about Bolt, but I get really cheesed off at bloggers who take up half the comments column in their pieces to respond to the comments
People need to grow up about this sort of thing. Its petty and small minded to seek to shut this guy down just for being right wing.
Most of the argument against Dan’s position seems to boil down to:
a) It isn’t censorship ’cause it’s not the government doing it, it’s the little people.
Well there might be a better word for fighting against an advocate of a position by attempting to silence them, but it’s still not engaging with the position and explaining why it’s wrong (so very, very wrong in the case of teh Bolta BTW, let me make that clear). Which leads me to…
b) But anyway we should ’cause they do it too.
No. No we shouldn’t. We should “Start an education campaign against what he’s saying. Have a positive voice.” (repeated for BSquared who obviously missed it the first time).
All Operation: Bolt-Cutter has succeeded at so far is make a few people feel better for having the chance to cheer for the good guys, and give the Bol(t) Repor(t) way more free publicity than it deserves.
Good points well made Dan…
“The reason why O: BC is targeting advertisers like this is because the method works. Similar pressure saw Glenn Beck taken off the air in the US.”
He has not been taken off the air.
His program was reduced as the man clearly has a serious psychiatric problem.
“At the end of the day we are talking about privately owned and operated commercial TV channels which nobody is forced to watch, with advertisers who can choose to advertise or not advertise as they see fit, and a relatively free society in which anyone is allowed to lobby the TV station, the advertisers, or the audience themselves for that matter, in an attempt to get them to voluntarily change their behaviour. That’s it.”
It’s not “it” at all.
The TV owners have been given an _exclusive_ right (by the government) to broadcast TV. No one else is allowed to do so.
Under the Broadcasting Act they are REQUIRED to have equal comment and to not offend or belittle members of the community.
The Bolt Report is in clear and flagrant violation of the Act.
I think you are completely wrong here Dan. Why shouldn’t you refuse to deal with a business that supports someone you disapprove of? And if you make that decision why shouldn’t you let the business know?
As far as I’m concerned any business can keep on advertising with Bolt for as long as the show runs. But they won’t be getting any custom from me. And I’m more than happy to tell them. And I suspect they would probably like to know.
There is a difference between a consumer making that decision and an orchestrated campaign to financially cripple someone whose ideas you disagree with.
Take a listen to the Pure Poison Podcast #24. Pan in to about the 25m:20s point to hear the latest nominations for the Cut and Paste Trophy. These are comments generated in response to Andrew Bolt columns.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/05/14/pure-poison-podcast-24-saturday-is-midweek/
Yes Cuppa, and the people making those comments will still hold those views even if O:BC is successful at getting the blot off TV. Not to mention the new viewers attracted by the publicity generated by O:BC…
ANU climate scientists get death threats
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8257374/climate-scientists-receive-death-threats
Climate scientists receive death threats
http://news.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-scientists-receive-death-threats-20110604-1flwf.html
But let’s sit around fretting for political activists who foment hatred against climate scientists …
The Dolt Distort is nothing more than a Liberal party infomercial.
Sure, it makes the right wingers of Australia happy. Validating their mantra that any electoral result that doesn’t go their way is the result of serious mental illness on the part of the population. However, to spew hatred at all things not Liberal and turn a blind eye to the obvious deficiencies of Abbott’s policy patch-ups displays an arrogance that is breathtaking.
For the record I have in the past voted Liberal, but never Labour. Unfortunately for both major parties, I have a brain and very good bullshit detector. The Bolt’s of the world are not worthy of my serious attention as their views are not considered opinion. Merely rallying cries for the delusionally faithfull that blindly support their party on everything they offer. Even when it contradicts previously held policies.
So, a suitable summary of the bolt report would be “$heep $hit”.