A truly bizarre editorial decision from Ben Naparstek, who occupies the chair at The Monthly, has resulted in the publication of a review of Jacqueline Kent’s biography of Julia Gillard by Christine Wallace, who is writing a rival biography of the Deputy Prime Minister for Allen & Unwin.
Wallace, in her review, describes the Kent book, The Making of Julia Gillard, as a “political quickie”. I’ve read it, and that’s fair comment, though Kent does cast a fair bit of light on aspects of Gillard’s rise through Labor ranks which are not well known, such as the effects of her long term rivalry with Lindsay Tanner and Kim Carr.
In his defence, Naparstek points to a similar review by Michelle Grattan.
However, Michelle Grattan has not written a book which is in direct commercial competition with one she is reviewing.
Naparstek also claims Wallace is best qualified to review Kent’s book – by virtue of being the author of a rival biography of Gillard. Bizarre.
There’s a fair bit of obfuscation in Naparstek’s defence of his editorial decision. Continue reading ‘Ben Naparstek, The Monthly and the Julia Gillard “biography wars”’
Republished from Crikey with permission.
Since it was announced in April, barely a peep has been heard from the Grattan Institute, Kevin Rudd’s $50 million super think tank named after a street abutting Melbourne University. Headed by ex-McKinsyite John Daley, it’s supposed to mimic the Washington-based Brookings Institution, the think-tank of choice for Clinton-era centrists. But if the list of backers is any guide, the local version’s shaping up as the intellectual playground for a new-Ruddism, backed by a truckload of taxpayer cash.
The Institute says it will be “apolitical”, dealing with “fact-based” conundrums, as if facts are ideologically neutral and government the preserve of disinterested policy wonks. But it really represents the dawning of a new era as the right-wing think tanks of decades past are subsumed by the ALP-connected. Add Grattan to outfits like OzProspect and PerCapita — whose bright sparks attempt to solve society’s problems through their own enlightened managerialism — and you’ve got an intellectual revolution afoot.
Continue reading ‘Guest post by Andrew Crook: The Grattan Institute – Centre for Ruddist Thinking’
Reporting of the initial proposals from the National Curriculum Board for directions for history teaching in schools is concentrating on the suggestion that Australian history be embedded within global contexts. Given that there has already been a predictable furore of confected indignation over the appointment of Professor Stuart Macintyre to chair the history panel, there’s no surprises in reading that Gerard Henderson fears such a focus will interfere with learning facts and Kevin Donnelly warns of a return to a “black armband” view of history. And Tony Abbott has written his own mini-curriculum:
History classes should start with the history of the Jews, then move on to the Greeks and Romans, then the history of Britain, Mr Abbott said.
None of this seems to me to be particularly informed comment, or worthy of the importance the history warriors themselves supposedly place on the issue. It’s clearly absurd to teach Australian history as if it doesn’t have a global context.
Stuart Macintyre’s views are outlined in this interview.
What surprises me, though, is that no one has picked up on the fact that Macintyre’s justification draws heavily on Anna Clark’s work in her book History’s Children: History Wars in the Classroom. Clark interviewed a large number of both Australian and Canadian school students on what they liked and disliked and would like to see in the teaching of national history. A world history context was a theme brought up by the students again and again. Some of Clark’s research is highlighted in this article in Overland.
Post of the day from Lyn Calcutt at Public Opinion.
These guys have too much time on their hands? Or the most pressing public issues of the day are related to positions adopted in the late 1960s on Suharto’s crimes in Indonesia?
I hope that Anthony Foster and his family, who intend to confront Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal George Pell in Sydney this week over the Catholic Church’s treatment of their late daughter, Emma Foster, who took her own life in January and her sister Katie, both of whom were raped as primary school children by Father Kevin O’Donnell, aren’t dismissed as “Catholic bashing” and raining on the World Youth Day parade or subjected to victim blaming as Anthony Jones was. Foster told the tragic tale of his daughters’ abuse and how it marked their lives horrendously for the worse, and probably brought Emma’s life to a close, on Lateline tonight.
Continue reading ‘Emma Foster: In memoriam’
Recent comments
Benedictus, Voxpop, billie, ewe2, billie, Fascinated [...]
Nick, GregM, adrian, GregM, Ambigulous, Paul Burns [...]
Caroline Church, Paul Burns, Elise, fxh, fxh, Elise [...]
Ootz, Brian, terangeree, Ootz, Elise, Zorronsky [...]
Voxpop, Spana, Voxpop, conrad, Spana, Nick [...]
jane, robbo, Jack Strocchi, Elise, CMMC, Guy [...]
billie, billie, joe2, Ginja, Ginja, Paul Burns [...]
anthony nolan, GregM, RLRR, anthony nolan, Katz, La Ruée au Larousse du Roux Russe [...]
Ginja, Ginja, Mercurius, Tosca, Elise, Chumpai [...]
Jacques Chester, Fran Barlow, Jacques Chester, Jacques Chester, Fran Barlow, Ijaz [...]
Fran Barlow, Fran Barlow, dylwah, Ian Curr, Ian Curr, Fran Barlow [...]
myriad74, joe2, myriad74, myriad74, joe2, joe2 [...]