<< COLUMN PREDICTS FUTURE ~ MAIN ~ SYDNEY BEACH RIOT LATEST >>
THE POST ANDREW WEST REJECTS
SMH online political writer Andrew West—still at work; shouldn’t he be striking with his comrades?—explains why he removed a post in which he was critical of some elements of Islam: “The problem was that a lot of folks—not all—on both sides just didn’t, or wouldn’t, get it.” Oh no—the readers decline to agree! West also writes:
It’s important to point out this was entirely a unilateral decision. There was no pressure, suggestions, hints, “counselling”, warnings, or friendly advice whatsoever from colleagues or editors at the Herald or Fairfax. The decision was mine alone. I consulted no one.
Well, yay. I don’t think West gets blogging; he seems overwhelmed by reaction to his post (400 comments) and by the nature of that reaction, from readers all over the political spectrum. He also describes his attention-drawing post as a “blog”. Andrew, mate, a blog is the place where you write; the individual items are “posts”. You know, like “newspaper” and “story”.
UPDATE. Now West’s post on the removed post has itself been removed.
UPDATE II. West emails: “It was MY decision alone. See today’s Oz op-ed pages. Fairfax most assuredly did NOT censor it.” No; West did.
UPDATE III. The original Islam item has been reposted.
I thought that “unilateral decisions” were supposed to be a bad thing.
Posted by Steven Den Beste on 2005 12 14 at 12:31 PM • permalinkNot only doesn’t West get blogging, he doesn’t get controversy, else he wouldn’t be describing the fact that some people “...just didn’t, or wouldn’t, get it…” as a “problem”. This is little more than an apology for posting it in the first place, without saying if he was right or wrong. And a silly move on his part, given the resilience and longetivity of data within cyberspace.
In fact, I would go one step further, and postulate that West doesn’t understand debate in an open forum (e.g., in a blog), let alone opinions (informed or insane, both of which were present in his removed post).
This, in turn, leads me to speculate that Andrew West isn’t very comfortable with a basic tenet of the democratic process: Free speech. Either that, or “controversy” is good only when it doesn’t engulf his own newspaper (aka “pay check”).
In all fairness, he may not like getting his hands dirty by dealing with the idiots that can drop in on any blog discussion. But I have to believe that someone who writes a column must know that there are people who won’t agree with opinions expressed in said column.
Insulated from the population he claims to serve? Ignorant of (or indifferent to) the democratic process? Purely self-serving? It’s hard to say which. But none of this speaks well of West, who ought to know better. Else why else have a free and open press?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 14 at 12:53 PM • permalinkWhat a coward this West is!!! Not only did he remove the “Is Islam the Problem” post, he replaced it with a post about how the white aspect of the situation is made up of “trailer trash.” And, when I tried to comment on his latest post, that has nothing to do with the big subject of the day, I got a message that my post was subject to his approval!
What a crybaby coward. Get out of our Blogosphere, reporter. You can’t handle it.
here’s my attempted post at his place:
Trying to change the subject, Andrew? First you remove your “is Islam the problem” post, then replace it with the deep analysis of your “trailer trash” post. Excellent work.
That is just about the level of outright cowardice about Muslim issues that one would expect from a member of the MSM, and yet one more example of why more and more people are turning away from it.
What an easily frightened little boy your are.
Posted by NewSisyphus on 2005 12 14 at 12:58 PM • permalink#3 I thought that “unilateral decisions” were supposed to be a bad thing. —Steven Den Beste
No no no. Unilateral decisions are only bad if they’re made by the United Hyperpower of America. They’re good if they’re made by anyone else, provided it’s makes a decision with which the left agrees. Or is indifferent towards.
Such as France’s decision to send troops into the Ivory Coast. (aah, black Africans, who cares) Or Britain’s decision to do the same in Sierra Leone. (more black Africans, no interest)
Who would care if the left protested either decision? Probably wouldn’t make the evening news and the left couldn’t preen before the world, showing off its moral superiority.
But given the situation where the USA makes a decision to do something to resolve a major problem largely on its own, well that’s a war crime.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 12 14 at 01:20 PM • permalinkUPDATE II. West emails: “It was MY decision alone. See today’s Oz op-ed pages. Fairfax most assuredly did NOT censor it.” No; West did.
Mr. West—that came through loud and clear. Self-censorship for the reasons you stated is still chickenshit.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 14 at 02:13 PM • permalinkYou’d think the self-described Contrarian would be able to better handle web commenters being, uhh… contrary.
Posted by Matt Moore on 2005 12 14 at 03:24 PM • permalinkMaybe the guy arrested for carrying a tree branch had cut it off of an Ent? No wonder he was jailed.
Posted by Pat Patterson on 2005 12 14 at 04:09 PM • permalink#10
The Pentagon has taken its time discovering the bleeding obvious hasn’t it? Any half-way decent Arabist could have told them years ago that jihad - holy war, taking over countries and territories ruled by non-Muslims - is a basic tenet of Islam which goes right back to Muhammad. From the time the Prophet was given the Qur’an, by the Angel Gabriel, in 610 until his death in 632, jihad gave the Muslims control of the Arabian Peninsula. In the next hundred years jihad had taken Islam all over the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Spain.
Islam has never abandoned jihad, it’s just been on the backburner for a while. A simple historical fact which Western politicians seem incapable of understanding, least of all our useless Australian variety which has blithely provided militant Islam a nice secure foothold in this country.#5 JeffS, you are right on the money.
With very few exceptions journalists don’t have a very thick skin - they tend to hide behind the skirts of their media outlet.
The idea of direct and often real time contact with their readership scares the life out of them (Tim, of course, is an obvious exception).
—Nora
Slight OT - has anyone seen the new Web Diary? They have one ad (paid for by Margo and Hamish’s mum…)
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 12 14 at 04:53 PM • permalink#15 - Agreed, the Pentagon was maddeningly slow in coming around to this realization. In a country initially founded on religious freedom, the idea of a religion being an actual security threat runs contrary to core believes. Even though the data’s been there for hundreds of years, it’s been hard to accept that a religion itself can be a plan for war and domination. Definitely a paradigm shift, and one that the PC crowd will fight against tooth & nail.
It’s a pity West’s post was removed. His distinction between culture and race is a timely one to make. While assuming that a person of a certain race can’t fit in to another society is generalisation and discriminatory, it is different to highlight that certain cultures may be incompatible with another and people who adhere to these cultures may simply not be able to get along with another. It seems an obvious point but the distinction does seem to get lost when people start shouting “racist”.
That’s because “racist” is an all-purpose epithet, sort of like “fascism” nowadays, and with equally well defined meaning, that is not at all.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 12 14 at 05:39 PM • permalinkThe cry of “racist!” is used to frighten people, and make them feel like naughty children.
Screw that; I’m aware of my prejudices. I can tell the difference between a hawk and a handsaw, and make my own decisions, based on my values. I don’t need some leftard admonishing me about what he/she thinks I meant, or how I might offend them for my beliefs. Perhaps I might use offensive words (e.g., profanity), but I use the words for what they mean. I’m likely to offend some people in my office when I refer to the “giving tree” in the lobby as the “f*****g Christmas Tree”, and I really don’t care.
OK, I won’t use “f*****g”. But it’s still a Christmas Tree.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 14 at 05:50 PM • permalinkLatest news—West has posted a link to the archived version of the original post.
In an earlier post, he says “This prompted the biggest response we have ever had on the blog. We received almost 400 comments. By day’s end, we had posted around 180 and I was still going late Tuesday night.”
To me this indicates that a large part of the problem is the Fairfax doctrine of individually approving every comment before it is posted (faithfully imitated by the Margonauts).
This is a legacy-media power trip that wastes the time of journalists and cripples discussion. Some media just can’t let go of the urge to control everything, and so they can’t take advantage of all the Internet has to offer.
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 12 14 at 05:55 PM • permalinkThe idea of direct and often real time contact with their readership scares the life out of them (Tim, of course, is an obvious exception).
Well, true, Nora, but Tim has all those long lunches with expensive wine. Maybe it’s not thick skin, but dulled by the administration of alcohol as an anesthesia?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 14 at 05:55 PM • permalinkNora—I’ve seen the new Webdiary.
They’ve actually managed to find a portrait of Margo in which her eyes are out of line—just like Alfred E Newman’s!
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 12 14 at 06:06 PM • permalinkPerhaps Andrew West withdrew his post about Islam and replaced it with a post about “trailer trash” because he knows the “trailer trash” is unlikely to come after his head. Not that there are any problems with some forms of Islam, mind you (like slaughtering people in the street who dare to criticize Muslims).
UPDATE III. The original Islam item has been reposted.
ZANG! By the time I comment on this story, it’ll have done another 180! Better not, then…
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2005 12 14 at 06:39 PM • permalink#20 Francis H.
It is indeed a pity West’s post was removed. I have been hoping for years that more people of influence would explain the difference between culture and race. There was a lot in West’s post that moderates would find agreeable. Perhaps that is the reason it was so quickly removed and the footprints to the scene of the crime were brushed away.UPDATE II. West emails: “It was MY decision alone. See today’s Oz op-ed pages. Fairfax most assuredly did NOT censor it.”
*Thump* Andy, baby, you want to take down that post, right? *thud* It was your idea, wasn’t it? *crunch* We were never even here…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 12 14 at 09:53 PM • permalink“It was my decision alone..” -Front page of Australian news Tuesday,the retired Judge who conducted the CARMEN LAWRENCE ROYAL COMMISSION( over the death of Penny Easton) left a statement (posthumous) that the royal commission was politically interfered with, he was threatened and future royal commissions will not be worth the paper they are written on….
Out of curiosity, did the newsies go on strike before or after the riots started?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 12 15 at 12:34 AM • permalink#29 Louis,
Hmm, not a cunning plan to get readers to start reading the SMH again, would it ?
I actually had a telemarketer from the SMH ring me yesterday afternoon asking me to subcribe to the paper.
Said “No”. I guess readership must be really going down the gurgler.
Posted by ozconservative on 2005 12 15 at 01:28 AM • permalinkTalk about a change of heart, there’s a lot of it going around.
Did anyone hear Mike Carleton’s latest attention-seeking rant? We all remember the absolute ARSEHOLE the guy made of himself at the Wankleys recently, protesting about the Government’s legislation and its supposed threat to free speech, well this week Mr. Carleton is demanding that 2GB radio host Alan Jones be prosecuted for inciting violence, referring to the melee last Sunday on Cronulla beach, suggesting that inflammatory comments made by Jones lead to the violence.
Carleton you ARSEHOLE! You fuckin’ HYPOCRITE!So West claims that the Religion of Peace does not permit the desecration of holy places that are non-Mosques (Churches, Synagogues, etc.)Hah! Then who are all those people in Turkey who not only desecrated Synagogues but killed Jews at prayer? Or, who have desecrated Churches and Synagogues all over the world, including the United States, England, On and On, and killed worshipers therein in numerous locations. Must be a new sect. I would have expected an outcry against this menace from the Muslims, much as I’ve heard from all other religious communities. But I suppose the Mussies have a plan, kill them with silence or open approval.
Apparently Teflon Beattie in Queensland is attempting to hinder free speech from newspapers and to tempt the SMH up there..
Dr Death doesn’t go away that easily.
Larrikin - I would imagine that there is only ONE Carmen Lawrence-hired gun premier of W.A. after W.A. inc stink,appointed to wear the fallout and be a good stalking horse..Has she been head of the Labor Party yet-she was chosen as one of three appointees.
Best remembered for the Royal Commission where she “couldn’t remember diddly squat.” Also for rowing out to the American Fleet accompanied by her personal protest strummer and berating the occupants of an Aircraft Carrier by loud hailer,demanding to be allowed to board and search for nuclear weapons.
Oh the humanity….
Needless to say she was courteously repelled,all of it meticulously captured in glorious technicolour by the media.off topic:
Brian Toohey in the Financial Review normally offers good debating material. But in today’s (17/12) he writes:
“According to close friends, he (Bush) believes God wanted him to invade (Iraq).”
To reinforce this point, the sub-editors have included the sub-head: Bush believes God wanted him to invade Iraq.
For the actual source of the “God” stuff, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4320586.stm.
Toohey is talking rot.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Tell gangs you’re an Aussie: Iemma
Take away their cars and phones!
NSW Police Minister Carl Scully said the police presence would be increased this weekend, as SMS messages encouraging more violence circulated last night. Mr Scully also said police would be able to confiscate mobile phones.
“These characters are using their cars and mobile phones to conduct convoys with intent and they are getting a very strong message,” he said.
“They love their cars and their phones and they’re going to have them taken off them.”