There is this funny rule that says if you leave any task undone for over a week its urgency usually disappears so I’m wondering if the same rule applies over at News Limited and Blogocracy where almost two weeks have passed since a post was pulled. At the time Tim Dunlop posted this.
Apologies for the recent absence and lack of response, not to mention lack of posts. Yep, the editor here pulled a post yesterday, which I ain’t happy about, though of course, in the greater scheme of things editors pulling copy is hardly unusual. Nonetheless, it is something we are discussing.
A week is a long time in politics, the big media cycle is probably only twenty-four hours, but the blogosphere always remembers, so I’m just wondering, does anyone know what happened?
I’m wondering as well, Phil.
Margaret Simons in Crikey:
That was on 17 July - a week ago today.
Given the promises that Tim stated had been made to him when he signed up with News about freedom from interference and his control over content on the blog, there are questions that I think require an answer.
Surely writers get their work pulled all the time. No big deal about that, unless it suggests undue interference. Would you rather go back to blogging without getting paid for it?
Short form ; Dunlop caved and is toeing the News Limited line . He knows where his bread is buttered.
That’s not the point, Darlene. Tim, when he joined News, faced issues about whether he could continue to be an independent blogger writing for a major news outlet for money, and assured readers that he’d negotiated in such a way as would enable him to do so. The fact that there was a story pulled goes to the heart of this - and in particular because it was a story critical of the commentary and coverage in another News publication. Nothing at all unusual about that in the independent blogosphere, but it does suggest that there is a limit to how far you can go as a blogger when writing for News, and that the extent of that limit has now been determined. But we, as readers, don’t know, as we’ve not been told. Again that’s standard for the MSM but the absence of explanation calls into question the limits of expression that News bloggers have, and also a difference in the form of accountability to readers from that which we’re used to in the blogosphere.
I have been trying to ask Tim about this for a week, but my comments at both Blogocracy and Road To Surfdom are banned (with no explanation). Tim’s only recent comment was at Blogocracy, where he complained that his talks with the News Ltd “bureaucracy” were taking time. All the more reason to resign, I would have thought.
Personally, I think Tim is prepared to tolerate censorship, because he shares the same blinkered mindset as Rupert Murdoch’s men when it comes to open and honest debate. A few examples here.
Here’s the logic: it’s Tim’s blog, and he can do what he likes. Similarly, it’s Rupert’s media organisation, and he can do what he likes. Journalistic ethics, public interest and open debate be damned.
No doubt Tim will eventually dribble out some story about how he took on the giants of News Ltd and came away with some sort of half-assed compromise. No doubt his regular fans will cheer. Personally, I think the boy is a bit too full of himself.
Meanwhile, The Australian seems to have given up on the experiment with celebrity opinion journalist blogging altogether.
Yes, indeed, Lyn. All the casualties of the GG’s blog wars appear to have been at News.
Naaah, they are still “blogging“. This time some new cannon fodder got sent over the wall only to be shot down by his commenters. I think the others are suffering from online PTSD.
Anyway, I really do want to know if only because Tim kinda led us to think that he’d let us know what’s up. I expected this to be all over by now and everyone gone back to bloggy business, but surely it couldn’t take that long, could it? I mean the longer this goes the odder it looks and it won’t just go away.
The blogosphere has the memory of an elephant, I think I heard you say the other day?
Yes it does, everything is now hierarchical and archived so we never forget.
Shanahan and the usual suspects certainly aren’t “blogging” as much! And the new layout doesn’t highlight the “blogs” in the same way. The opinion section in general is difficult to find, and Shanahan has been shamed into minimising the spin. It’s not a wipeout, but I still do think the casualties of the Government Gazette blog wars have all been at News.
Yeah, it could.
I’ve only met Tim a couple of times but he looks like a grown-up to me, and like someone who would want to keep this arrangement going, as an experiment in blog integration and cooperation with the MSM, rather than do a dummy spit.
But that’s not facilitated by silence in reaction to questions (and Tim shifted the goal posts by telling Crikey that he hoped to post about it soon), even though, as you say, PC, perhaps the News decision making cycle is considerably longer than we’d like.
Hmm, I don’t know if dummy spit is the necessarily opposite reaction here.
I think this is a conflict anyone who works in media faces on a regular basis, and I don’t think it’s ever an easy one. High falutin’ principles can certainly provide momentary satisfaction, but a) they don’t put bread on the table, and b) Taking your bat and ball and going home sometimes means that no one gets to play.
I think this conflict is highlighted by the very incremental nature of editorial/ethical questions.
They never shut everything down and lock you up. It’s inevitably small things, all the time, and I think sadly the systems involved with professional writing are largely structured to encourage and perpetuate these.
My personal experience is that everyone has their capacity for these cuts, sometimes larger, sometimes smaller - and there’s a few who have an unlimited capacity to take it. Sooner or later though, most everyone draws a line.
If Tim decides this isn’t the time for him, I certainly wouldn’t want to castigate him as a person, or imply that there is no time where he will draw the line. These are hard questions for writers of all colours and varieties, with few easy answers. I have no doubt Tim would have been giving himself a harder time than anyone else has about this, it’s the nature of it.
Well, it might be; that’s what I meant. If he is trying to reach an agreement with News Ltd in order to maintain what most people think has been a good arrangement thus far, then that may well entail agreeing to be quiet about it until it’s been resolved.
I’ve been in one or two situations like this where I’ve promised the people involved that I won’t discuss something in public, either until a certain time, or at all. If you break that promise, not only do the negotiations fall over but you are stuck with having broken a promise, and all that that implies both for your public reputation and your private self-esteem.
There are of course plenty of people whose self-esteem would be more likely to be enhanced than damaged by their own bad behaviour, but I’m guessing Tim isn’t one of them.
Surfdom was my blog of choice for quite some time pre-LP. It attracted a few too many nut-jobs in the long run, but Tim has generally been a thoughtful, and considered writer, I reckon him something of a trail-blazer in mixing the personal and the political.
He owes Crikey nothing, in fact, he owes no-one anything in terms of explanations. He’s paid more dues than most, and if he’s signed a non-disclosure with News Ltd, then what are you gonna do? Make a stand, and lose an interesting & rewarding livelihood over a little admin issue?
Read his posts this week - doesn’t strike me as anyone toeing a corporate line.
PC, I take your point, and I’m not making any personal criticism of Tim - and I’m sure he is aware of the issues at stake and seeking to resolve them, but the point I am trying to make is that the degree of accountability involved in blogging is quite different to that involved in paid professional writing. Tim would be well aware of that - it’s something that he himself has written about quite astutely.
It’s also the case that he told Crikey a week ago he would be having something to say, and that’s hard to square with your interpretation.
So, contra via collins, I’m not suggesting he “owes Crikey” anything, or anyone else for that matter, but clearly this has nothing to do with a “non disclosure agreement” as he himself suggested he would be informing his readers of what was going on. Now, of course, that doesn’t mean a “tell all” - and it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that it does. What it does mean is that there’s more than an “admin” issue at stake:
Well, there’s nothing that’s critical of News publications, or that discusses media coverage and its effects on politics. That’s both contrary to Tim’s previous practice, and also leaves a significant gap in political commentary - as there is no doubt that the media are players, and the entire point of the independent blogosphere is to provide not just analysis that doesn’t get MSM play but also to shine a spotlight on the media itself and its political role. For all I know this could just be coincidence, but in the absence of any statement from Tim himself as to what parameters may now constrain his choice of angle and subject matter, one is certainly entitled to wonder. Anti-Howard commentary per se is not the same sort of thing that blogs do just by itself.
I understand that people are to some degree constrained in discussing this by interaction with Tim in the past, and respect for him, and I myself have respect for him and have found him ethical and admirable in private dealings, but that doesn’t absolve us from the obligation to discuss what is far from being a minor issue critically.
I said this.
Which is what I thought would happen, they chat for an hour, agree that the editor is an idiot without any blogging knowledge but with supreme powers that can’t be overturned then write that, I think we’d all understand and make our judgments accordingly.
But going on this long without a promised explanation suggests that it has not been resolved or that Tim is not allowed to talk about it. If he isn’t allowed to talk about it then say so and we can then judge the outcome by his outgoing writing.
A few people raised the issue of editorial control when Mr Dunlop first got the Blogocracy gig. It was inevitable that there would be some kind of showdown at some point.
Tim’s record on blogging is outstanding, and I have no doubt he is well aware of the problems involved and the implications for his blog work, so I reserve my judgement for now. As others have pointed out, these kinds of conflicts often don’t get resolved quickly. If there is no clear statement from Tim by around mid-August, then I think it is becomes legitimate to ask some pointed questions.
Heh. We said the same about Rudd’s polls by mid July.
It’s self-evident that anyone who writes commentary for money is influenced - even if only at a subconscious level - by considerations like the perceived wishes of readers and the client/employer (I have no idea whether Tim’s an employee or independent contractor). The success of commercial online posts would be measured by hits and it would be extraordinary if writers didn’t tailor their writing over time in accordance with perceived reader preferences. The whole purpose of commercial media is to attract readers to advertising and it would be naive to think that News Ltd runs blogs for any other purpose.
Spiking or editing posts is just a more blatant form of influence. In an organisation like News Ltd there are going to be people in a position to demand that a blogger’s posts be changed or pulled, just like they can get a TV show canned or a news story killed. Lots of people in any organisation have varying sources of power and they take advantage of it from time to time, regardless of what someone else might have promised or agreed to.
It’s been very obvious from the day Tim started Blogocracy that at least one other News Ltd writer, with connections within the company that are a lot deeper than Tim’s, was taking a very close interest in his blog. It’s also likely that various editors and other senior executives get extremely pissed off from time to time at the idea that News Ltd is paying somebody money to criticise them under their own bloody logo.
It doesn’t really matter what set of words Tim negotiates, when push comes to shove if someone in the organisation with more power than him wants a post pulled, that’s what will happen. That’s the reality that anyone accepts when they work for an organisation, at least if they understand organisational behaviour. Each individual has to make their own decisions about the extent to which they’ll tolerate overt interference, but they’re kidding themselves if they think they can ever be truly independent writers.
As long as they’re not engaged in knowingly deceptive conduct, I don’t see why it’s anybody’s business but their own.
Wow, this thread sue brings out some interesting attitudes towards journalism, doesn’t it? This sounds like something Hitler’s secretary might once have said:
And I’m sure Ken Lovell didn’t mean this to sound quite so horrible as it does:
If that is the crux of this debate - ethics versus profitability - then we are on fertile ground indeed, given how many articles have been devoted to the “death of newspapers’ over the past few years.
Long ago, before Judith Miller was born, before Keith Murdoch instructed his trustees that Rupert should begin his career at The News “if they consider him worthy of support”, there was something called a journalism “code of ethics”. Journos and newspaper proprietors used to take these ethics very seriously indeed. There ae still a handful of crazy people - myself included - who believe that newspapers can survive the current crisis if only they go back to those long-abandoned ethics (who’s gonna read your news when half it is lies?).
Maybe the reason for Tim’s delay is that Big Rupert is desperately trying to sow up a deal on Wall Street, and the key to the deal is his own well-deserved reputation as an immoral, war-mongering peddler of falsehoods. Wouldn’t be a great time to have an explosion of anti-Murdoch blogger anger, would it?
Meanwhile, as Tim waits on the “beaurocracy”, News Ltd papers continue to help fabricate the news rather than just reporting it. This is from a comment of mine which was spiked by Tim (or somebody) at Blogocracy:
And just a bit more in response to Ken L:
If Tim said something malicious, slanderous or just completely wrong, that would be acceptable. But he was just stating the plain truth (and give credit where it’s due: he does that very well, most of the time). If worthy posts on important issues are going to get pulled just because of personality spats within the News Ltd offices, then readers should loudly decry that as unacceptable. Teh Oz is supposed to be a newspaper, not a social club.
And that’s the whole point of blogs - you can say whatever you like. And that’s why people like me urged Tim not to join News Ltd.
Well, as the Haneef case proves (as if FOX News didn’t make it clear), News Ltd publications do “engage in knowingly deceptive conduct” all the time. A million Iraqis are now dead, largely because if it. And there is never any accountability because it is all done with a nod and a wink from Rupert. It is the organisation’s behaviour that is the real issue here, Ken, not Tim’s conduct, which only becomes an issue if - as seems increasingly likely - he has crossed to the dark side and embraced such censorship.
Speak up for yourself, Tim, or be damned by your silence.
(sorry, last part of that comment should be…)
Well, as the Haneef case proves (as if FOX News didn’t make it clear), News Ltd publications do “engage in knowingly deceptive conduct” all the time. A million Iraqis are now dead, largely because if it. And there is never any accountability because it is all done with a nod and a wink from Rupert. It is the organisation’s behaviour that is the real issue here, Ken, not Tim’s conduct, which only becomes an issue if - as seems increasingly likely - he has crossed to the dark side and embraced such censorship.
Speak up for yourself, Tim, or be damned by your silence.
Get out of here, Ghandi. When you have taken the incredibly challenging step of surviving off your writing on a sole basis, replete with meeting the regular pressures of life; bills, medical expenses, christmas (ye gods), come and talk to me. I have no doubt that you have never done this, otherwise you would perhaps be a little more sympathetic regarding just how hard it is, and how arbitrary lines of ethics can feel in some journalistic situations.
Comparing the uncomfortable realities of life as a writer with Hitler is insulting, and frankly more inline with attitudes at the paper you profess to hate.
I stand by my comment. It’s all good and dandy to spend your day in an office or pumping petrol, or whatever - and deride writers who haven’t met your exacting standards of ethical behaviour. But when you’ve got a nice cushy day job that doesn’t require regular self-interrogation, and pitched editorial battles that can, quite easily, get you fired - your principles don’t amount to much, imho.
By writing at News, Tim is exposing is work to a huge number of people who would never have seen it otherwise. If he stormed out, his many quality posts at Blogocracy would not be made, and - even if they showed up on Surfdom - not be read.
If this is the price Tim is prepared to pay, I don’t begrudge him of it. It’s a choice I myself have faced more than once, and the decisions I’ve made have gone both ways.
In the end, I couldn’t hack it, and I now have a cushy office job. However I’m not going to abuse the luxury of the principles I’ve regained or clung on to: I remember their mixed results when put into practice all too clearly.
I suggest a jog in someone else’s moccasins is scheduled for you.
Dude,
All media engage in knowingly deceptive conduct every day.
A strong grasshopper will negotiate its way, a weak one will be as chaff to Rupert Murdoch….
Be strong.
Gandhi, I’ll politely ask that you don’t comment on this thread any longer, I’ll leave ‘em up but remember this is not about you. Ok.
And what PatrickG said. Like Tim I’m gonna try to survive off my writing and I don’t know what compromises I’ll have to make along the way that’s why I’m interested in what the eventual outcome will be.
Remember the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Lawrence is standing at the well with his guide , and the guide is shot, and Lawrence looks and looks. I think Tim is the one Lawrence is trying to see.
Onya, Phil. I have been living (mostly) off my writing for ten years now, and even as a literary journalist there are times when you have to make some diplomatic compromises; I’ve found one negotatiates one’s strong-grasshopper moments on a case-by-case basis. Good luck.
I was quite surprised that this story never hit the mainstream press. Silly me. Good on you, Phil , for reminding us.
It is a pretty significant curb on free speech before an election. It is important to remember that ordinary people had made comments on that post, as well as Tim, before it was pulled.
Pretty close to ‘book burning’, in new media and nothing to do with writers getting their work “pulled all the time” , Darlene.
Ruppy leads , Aunty mimics and Fairfax is prepared for the carving. I suspect that we might have a more outgoing opposition leader, if we had somewhere near a free press.
Wow. It is so not close to book burning.
Some perspective, people.
I did say, ” in new media”, Anna.
You should not distort what I said.
I don’t think I did. It isn’t book burning in any sense. It’s an interesting issue that deserves to be discussed, but the hyperbole isn’t helpful.
“Politely ask”? Jeebus. If you are going to ban me, just ban me. If so, please do me the favour of explaining exactly WHY. You are asking Tim to speak up on censorship, while quietly trying to censor my own comments. Really??!
I never said this was about me, I just provided a few example based on my own experiences with Tim. I thought I made some good points about Rupert’s Dow Jones bid and the Haneef case.
If people think the only way to make a living as a writer is to abandon their principles, then I suggest you all find other jobs. If this is how LP operates, then don’t worry - I wont bother coming back.
I’m curious that some people appear to get paid to do things where they indulge their whims and hobbies and never have to do things they don’t want to do or “compromise”. Amazing.
You’re certainly doing a good job of making it about you, gandhi. No-one has argued that one must store their principles at the door to be a writer. They’re suggesting that sometimes you have to weigh up your options. Would you give up your salary for this? I wouldn’t. Especially when Tim can still do a lot to provide a progressive, intelligent voice to a wide readership.
What would he gain by giving that up? This isn’t a question about continued abandoning of one’s principles. You’re suggesting he resign for something that has already happened, when you don’t know what the results of their conversations are and whether it will ever happen again.
You’re a pinhead, Gandhi. Boo fucking hoo, you poor little censored muffin.
Last I clicked through, you had your own perfectly banal generically-themed blogspot blog: congratulations, fella. Have a cigar, and spend the rest of your self-adulatory life feeling superior, and secure in the knowledge that nobody thinks your writing is worth paying you a wage.
True FXH, I want one of those jobs. It’s possible too that Tim Dunlop might emerge with one of those…or not.
When Andrew Bolt went on vacation about five weeks ago, I visited Blogocracy and wrote a couple of (mildly) provocative comments to see what sort of reaction I would get from the mad Howard-hating lefty who ran the place. Tim’s reaction surprised me. He replied to my criticisms not at all angrily as I had expected. In all my visits since I have found him to be a reasonably balanced (for a lefty) host who tolerates a band of diverse commenters.
It seems that some here are unhappy because Tim has refrained from criticising News Ltd since the well-canvassed run-in with his editors. These people would have Tim stand on principle (journalistic ethics and all that) and resign, rather than limit his posts to everything else in the world except bagging the very organisation that puts bread on his table. That way it would be back to nobody making a living hosting a blog (instead of just Tim Dunlop).
Gandhi, every human, everyday, compromises. We can’t just do or say whatever is in our mind.
Writers are the same. If they want to get paid they more or less have to toe the editorial line. And some editors are pompous bastards! How do I know? I wrote for a living for more than a decade, survived in an industry where there are far more writers than opportunities to be published.
Running a blog gives you a great deal of freedom but you still have to consider your readership, give them what they want some of the time even if sometimes you’re not excited by the quality of the stuff you write or publish or the comments that come in.
As I said, every human, everyday, compromises!
Mark said:
Hmm, but the only “casualties” that matter to News are financial. And that gets to be an interesting thought-experiment.
I’ve been impressed this year with what a great audience-building strategy the Oz’s online blogs must’ve been - think about it, hundreds of commenters on every article, all going back to read and write more, multiple times per day. It made the site really “sticky” with multiple repeat-visits and lots of online eyeballs to sell to advertisers. The late inclusion of targeted Yahoo ads is testament to the income-producing power.
Yet, inexplicably, they’ve thrown it away for a new “improved” look in which it’s impossible to find anything and isn’t worth much of a vist.
Now that they’ve all p**** off all their online readers, I’m predicting a big drop in traffic, and so ad-revenue.
Talk about cutting their nose to spite their face…(alternatively, the online ad revenues never amounted to much, so they haven’t lost much, but I doubt it.)
But Tim joined News Ltd with his eyes open. He knew there was a good chance that he might end up in a situation like this, he openly speculated about it. I very strongly doubt he has his rent riding on whatever Rupert pays him. Indeed, I gather he is rather comfortably well off, thank you very much.
So maybe all this talk about protecting a writer’s livelihood and paying the bills has a lot more to do with whatever certain people are projecting into this thread. Not about ME? Damn right it isn’t.
As I alluded to before, I think it’s a grave mistake to personalise this debate. There is no doubt that compromises are part of any job, and that you can compromise ethically. I don’t think that’s the issue, and I have every confidence Tim is behaving ethically. The issue is whether or not a blog style type of commentary is practicable at a major media outlet, and how accountability and the limits to expression operate differently in the MSM and the blogosphere. At least, that’s what interests me in all this.
Remember, before you judge someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
Then if they don’t like your judgement, hey! you’re a mile away and you’ve got their footwear too.
Yeah and so? Now he’s in this situation and he’s dealing with it. Some may like the eventual outcome, some may not. Life will go on.
As to whether he’s compromising his principles, only he can answer that. If he’s failed to meet certain others expectations, the fault could also well lie with the expecters.
I sold out long ago and I can say with confidence that being outside the tent pissing in is not a patch on being in the inner enclosure marquee, helping yourself to the free champers and then surreptiously pissing in the punchbowl.
NOBODY is censoring you, Ghandi. That claim is utter crap, and you know it. No one is obliged to publish your pointless, ideologically pure, personal attacks on others.
To attempt to compare the treatment you are (justifiably) getting on various blogs, with anything Hitler did is just an offensive sewer-level tactic.
You have an entire blog all of your own to regale those interested with your lurid juvenile fantasies about how the world should be.
I’ll even re-post the link to your blog so others can (of their own free will) check it out: http://howardout.blogspot.com/
But the hard truth here, dude, is that after nearly 2 years of operation you still rarely get more than 2-3 comments on any one post, and often none at all, which kind of indicates that the no one is really interested in your ‘work’. Fair comment?
So stop your adolescent whining about being ‘censored’. You have PLENTY of opportunity to have your say. Don’t blame others if it isn’t worth listening to. In other words, grow up, or p*ss off.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to negotiate our way with the world as it really is and can be, and that involves making endless and often tough, unpleasant compromises in order to get our work done, a roof over our heads, and food on the table.
Like Whitlam said: “Only the impotent are pure.”
Can I second what Phil said and remind people to click through to the comments policy? Comments that turn debates around into ones about a particular commenter rather than about the topic of the thread are verboten. Back on topic, people, please.
Did anyone notice a bigger casualty of the blog war, The Australian’s own editorial line? Look at how, having pointed to a Howard recovery in the infamous editorial, it is now saying the government’s return is looking “less likely every week“.
Phil:
].
Off-topic but …. while my computer was dead, I had to use a public access one with Net Nanny. Amazing the political and social comment sites that were open or forbidden. For example, Club Troppo was fine but Larvatus Prodeo and Catallaxy were excluded [obviously they’re rauncy, bpmb-throwing porno sites with druug references and ungodly words
Try it some time for fun; it’s a real hoot.
Nabakov says:
Recycled piss is a pretty apt description of what Nabakov has to offer the world.
“Remember, before you judge someone, walk a mile in their shoes.”
Shit. Well, I guess that means I’m just not gonna be judgin’ away at anyone, any time soon, who doesn’t habitually wear only black oxfords or well-made boots. All you thong-wearing-types, knock yourselves out! Ye’ll be gettin’ no judgin’ from me.
Huh. An entire galaxy of judgmental discourse has thus been dissolved. Already I can hear the sighs of relief.
But of course. It’s called fun.
Another day another more bizarre fetish. You people make me sick.
Most of the above commentary directed at ghandi’s perceived failings and ‘we all have to compromise’ and ‘walk a mile in their shoes’ cliches, entirely misses the point.
For many people one of the intrinsic attractions of blogs was their separation from the MSM, and all that it entails, good and bad. It doesn’t mean that people don’t make compromises on blogs, or impose censorship, but that generally the agenda’s different, less restrictive, more individual and less driven by commercial imperatives.
When inevitiably the MSM wanted to get in on the act, it’s understandable that some reacted with suspicion, if not downright hostility. The danger of course, is that the qualities that make (some) blogs so special will be lost if/when the MSM version takes over.
I have the utmost respect for Tim, but it’s not really about him, just as what happened to Margo Kingston wasn’t about her, so much as the intersection between the old media and the new, and the nature of what will emerge from this intersection.
What adrian said!
As I was also arguing, we should be analysing this without personalising Tim’s situation - because it really does pose some important issues regarding new media and old media.
“When inevitiably the MSM wanted to get in on the act, it’s understandable that some reacted with suspicion, if not downright hostility. The danger of course, is that the qualities that make (some) blogs so special will be lost if/when the MSM version takes over.”
The transition from idea to commerce always carries a compromise. And the commercial transition often crushes the idea absolutely - take an independent band moving to a major label as an example. Few make it through intact.
But Tim has a terrfic fallback in that he can mess around in the MSM as long as he likes, but has maintained Road To Surfdom as a fallback. It seems to mew that he’s thought the futures through rather well.
Well in that context, to be honest, I don’t think of blogs on news sites as new media at all. They still take place very much within the architecture of old media.
That said, I kind of question the validity of these tags of ‘new’ and ‘old’ media. If it’s purely technology, then there’s no difference: both mainstream, independent and virtually non-existent media outlets have all used/use these technologies in very similar ways, though some tend to favour one type over another, or adoption is/was faster in one vs the other.
If it’s not technology, then the idea is equally suspect. Small timers have been self and independently publishing their thoughts in a wide variety of waves for centuries, think pamphlets in Victorian times, or short wave radio in the twentieth century, or whatever, really. Certainly the scales are different, but they would be; there’s a lot more literate people now, with access to these methods of distribution. I have no doubt they will continue to grow.
I think sometimes there is a temptation to think ‘new’ vs. ‘old’ = ‘independent’ vs ‘establishment’ and never the twain shall they meet. In reality new and old are constantly mixing, as are independent and establishment. I don’t think there’s anything new about this.
Sometimes I feel like it’s easy to get caught up the hyperbole of people power - the emancipatory qualities of blogging etc. - it’s a seductive meme to be sure, but one I think that has a fairly tenuous link to reality. Most people in the world can’t make a telephone call, after all, let alone internet. The large majority of Australians still get their news from television followed by radio. If this is a revolution, it’s a pretty small one.
So yes, I interpret this situation through the lens of editorial clashes, because that’s what it is; nothing more really and nothing less. Just because Tim’s work doesn’t make it into print is no division: he is a writer for News and they publish (or not) his work.
The idea that calling something a blog confers a special power to it I just don’t buy. Editors regularly promise writers their work won’t be touched, freedom to write what they want, etc. And then something gets pulled. It’s an old conflict, though still an interesting one I think.
This specific example could just as easily be the same ten years ago, with someone who self publishes a newsletter (or a zine, remember them? How nineties!), and is subsequently asked to write for a paper. I don’t think the presence of the internet changes things, and I don’t think it brings any new questions or factors into the equation, really, except a change in some of the scales.
Does that make sense?
I don’t know that I’d count RTS as an independent blogging outlet for Tim in this case. Whatever it is that’s preventing him from talking to either Crikey or his Blogocracy fans is also preventing him from saying anything at RTS.
It seems to me that whatever compromises he’s made in his MSM adventure extend to his “independent” blog as well, in which case it can’t be counted as independent any more. Not for Tim anyway.
Well, Adrien, that depends on what one thinks the point is, or whether one thinks there’s more than one issue at stake here.
Those of us who came realtively late to blogging (late 2005 in my case), or who are not naturally of an oppositional cast of mind, or both, don’t necessarily accept the notion of blogging’s main role as being an adversarial Other to the MSM, as per that brilliant comment up there of patrickg’s and also for other reasons — but much of the discussion assumes that relationship.
(For me, for example, blogging’s main political advantage is the way it facilitates direct communication on public affairs between concerned citizens, without the intervention of business and party-political interests or other forms of editorial manipulation and spin.)
But I do take Mark’s point about the moment in Blog Meets MSM when push comes to shove via honest critique, just as the point also needs to be taken about any company in its right mind paying an employee to trash them under their own banner. So maybe the whole thing really was just doomed to not work. Personal experience of being head-hunted by organisations and then having them insist that tying my tongue and Botoxing my entire face was part of the deal has taught me that cultural organisations do tend to co-opt someone for their perceived independence and then immediately try to take it away from them when things get sticky.
Adrian, sorry to misspell you — I was getting you mixed up with somebody else. Apologies.
In all this talk, it’s worth considering exactly what part of Tim’s post might have prompted the spiking. Was this really just another editor-writer difference of opinion, as many here have suggested, or was it something a bit more sinister?
I suspect Tim’s criticism of the Oz editorial might have been tolerated were it not for this sentence:
At that level, it gets personal. Hence the backlash.
But of course Dunlop is 100% correct - such thuggish behaviour from a leading newspaper editorial team really is outrageous. IMHO it is a threat to democracy. Unfortunately, it is also par for the course in the ass-kissing rottweiler world of News Ltd.
If Tim can hammer out a deal with the News Ltd elites, get a (renewed?) guarantee of independence, and maybe even a public apology, then good luck to him. If his patience and diplomacy lead to a decreased power base for Sham-I-am and his ilk, even better.
I just don’t think it’s gonna happen like that. Time will tell.
Meanwhile, only slightly off-topic, it’s pretty funny when you are putting $5 billion down on the table for a deal that nobody else will touch, and you STILL cannot clinch it because nobody trusts you.
Murdoch’s lack of integrity, which helped build his empire, has become it’s greatest liability.
Now why does that remind me of John Howard…?
The comments in this post, one concerning the pros and cons of something that Tim D. wrote that was withdrawn by a News Ltd editor for some reason, are interesting given the threat of banning one of the commenters here.
More than a touch of irony methinks!
Ehm, Dan, I don’t recall seeing any threats of banning - the reason for that being no such threat was made.
Em, Mr C, consider the following from Phil: Gandhi, I’ll politely ask that you don’t comment on this thread any longer…
Seems clear to me!
That’s a threat? It seems more like a request to me. I’m aware that Gandhi chose to construe it as a threat, which indicates that working with Gandhi could furnish ample opportunity to hone one’s diplomatic skills.
We have become a nation of dissemblers.
It really would be good if people could focus on this thread on the issues not personalities.
What I find bit sad , in this discussion, is that good ol’ aussie acceptance of having to make compromise in your workplace and never burn your boss , coz you might end up pushing a broom. Howard has won. People seem cowered.
The Australian editor acted like “a thug” when he pulled Tim’s post AND those who had commented. He pretended to run blogs but allowed their columnists to kill comments that they did not like and then even turned on an employee. It is like as a doctor, the management team coming into your office and saying they about to cut back on the amount of medicine you are able to subscribe.
At least, accept a newspaper is not an ordinary workplace. When it behaves like that, as gandhi said, it is a “threat to democracy”. It should be a purveyor of freedom of speech, first and foremost.
Freedom of speech has never been absolute, least of all for journos, joe2, and the “liberal public sphere” is something of a myth, but with those concessions, I think you make a good point.
Thanks, Mark, I like your new hat.
Cheers, joe!
More of that Nabs, but I must assume you do that simultaneously while explaining your “Big Bang Theory” to the punchbowl owner’s girlfriends?
As one who has come a bit late to this imbroglio I might be excused for not being absolutely relevant but I was struck by former Age editor Michael Gawenda’s ‘justification’ for pulling a Leunig cartoon some years ago.
Not only did he do his editorial ‘thing’ taking, in his estimate about 10 seconds to decide that the anti-Israel Government cartoon wouldn’t appear but now telling us, now that he’s back in town, that Leunig was ‘unhinged’.
Remember that this was a cartoon that compared Palestinians in Gaza to jews in a concentration camp. Talk about damning the messenger.
If Tim Dunlop is facing a similar bunch of imperial untouchables at News Ltd then perhaps he should just play a waiting game for the eventual slander and then go for broke.
The Devil Drink:
Hey, fair go! I was only putting forward a possible excuse for Net Nanny on a community access computer excluding reasonably innocuous political and social comment sites such as Larvatus Prodeo or Catallaxy.
So apart from me and Gandhi, anybody else had perfectly harmless questions about Tim’s promised explanation barred at both RTS and Blogocracy?
What’s the big deal? I just want to know - “Will you be giving that explanation or not?”
It’s a bit of a concern if these questions are being barred from RTS as well, since it is supposedly independent of News Ltd.
Gee!
That was a conversation-killer, wasn’t it?
Yes, Adrian it certainly is a worry and LP are in on it as well, to the extent that there are those who know and those who wait and see. And then see nothing.
Keep the pressure on this issue.