Comments on: Just wondering

By: Barp

Barp — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:35:50 +0000

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.

By: adrian

adrian — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:03:56 +0000

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.

By: Barp

Barp — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:45:31 +0000

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?”

By: Graham Bell

Graham Bell — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:28:31 +0000

The Devil Drink:

You people make me sick.

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.

By: pablo

pablo — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:00:42 +0000

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.

By: Peter Kemp

Peter Kemp — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:26:48 +0000

then surreptiously pissing in the punchbowl.

More of that Nabs, but I must assume you do that simultaneously while explaining your “Big Bang Theory” to the punchbowl owner’s girlfriends?

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:42:13 +0000

Cheers, joe!

By: joe2

joe2 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:28:47 +0000

Thanks, Mark, I like your new hat.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:00:58 +0000

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.

By: joe2

joe2 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:27:12 +0000

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.