It’s been a while since I’ve read more pompous and self righteous prose than that recently addressed via email by Mark Bahnisch(Lavartus Prodeo) and Ken Parish (Club Troppo) to the embattled Graham Young at On Line Opinion.
by Mademoiselle Lavender lou via flickr
The former can be seen here, the latter at Club Troppo.
I note that one of their major grievances appears to be that this affair has become public. Both blogs have cut Young loose since Christopher Pearson revealed the incipient scandal in the Australian last weekend.
So why do Lavartus Prodeo and Club Troppo object to what is most decidedly a matter of public interest, being put before the public?
Using phrases that are painfully typical of all attempts at middle class repression, they conclude that none of it is in the public interest, even though it raises questions of freedom of speech, religious freedom of speech, moderating across the board, the right to publish opposing opinions, corporate censorship, and much more.
Why on earth would these two blogs seek to keep these matters out of the public domain, and to silence public discussion?
Indeed, so strongly do they or their supporters feel that they have even attacked a comment I left at the Drum, and the Drum itself for publishing my comment.
What? Nobody is allowed to disagree, even on the ABC site, with these self proclaimed authority figures?
Thanks for telling the public it’s none of our concern, chaps. The public really loves people like you telling us what is and isn’t in our interests.
As my headline implies, it is precisely when eruptions such as these occur that an opportunity for public discussion about important matters presents itself.
There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in, chaps. That’s how the light gets in.
How sad that Bahnisch and Parish have attempted to smother public debate, and instead avail themselves of the opportunity to strut the high moral ground.
And how moral is it to dump a colleague at the first sign of trouble? Young has never had complaints such as these made against him before in years of publishing a vast array of opinion.
Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your perfect offering, there is a crack, a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in…L Cohen via Emerson
BTW
Re the anti discrimination option:
Mikey Bear, who is Greg Storer’s partner, left the following reply on the blog when I asked the anti discrimination question (before I knew the Victorian legislation):
“Why must they go to via an anti-discrimination path? That’s ludicrous. A letter to the advertisers proved far simpler, effective and expedient.”
So I guess that means we had better resign ourselves to global corporations deciding what we’ll read in the blogosphere.
As Andrew Bartlett points out on his blog, two of the most rabid columnists in Australia run blogs with vile commentary in the mainstream media, and no corporations ever pull their advertising because of them.
No Place For Sheep 
ha, ha, ha. You obviously enjoyed your visit to LP yesterday!
LikeLike
No, haven’t been to LP for days since they told me I didn’t belong there and they wished I’d go away.
Rude lot.
Got my information from the email somebody leaked to the Drum.
LikeLike
http://blogs.abc.net.au/drumroll/2011/02/larvatus-prodeo-flees-the-domain.html – Drum link.
LikeLike
Dr Wilson, obviously I disagree almost entirely with your post, but as previously noted, I don’t intend to debate the substantive issues further.
However, it does seem to me significant to say that I had never seen the comment at The Drumroll blog before reading your post (which I saw via a Trackback at Club Troppo). How you could hold me responsible for what someone else writes in response to something I haven’t seen beggars belief, but perhaps goes to the way in which you are so keen to posit groups of “supporters” and “activists” and reduce all nuances of this complex debate to a matter of two sides.
In that vein, I would also point out that the arrangement we had with Graham Young was a commercial not a political or personal arrangement. People leave commercial associations all the time. As we’ve repeatedly stated, we continue to wish Young well, and trust that he will be able to continue to finance OLO, even if we regretfully are no longer in a position to support him.
LikeLike
Dear Dr Bahnisch,
This is what I wrote:
“Indeed, so strongly do they or their supporters feel that they have even attacked a comment I left at the Drum, and the Drum itself for publishing my comment.”
I hardly that is holding you personally responsible for the comment at the Drum.
I think that when you deliberately attempt to keep this affair out of the public domain, where it so rightly belongs, you are without doubt attempting to stifle any discussion of its nuances and complexities.
I am enormously interested in the nuances and complexities, and have been criticized for this on your blog, and other places. “Unrelenting” I think was one of the terms used somewhere.
You did not give “commercial reasons” or anything like that as your explanation for dumping Young. It’s probably a bit late to pull that one out of the hat now.
You complained that he’d gone public, and you said that your moderating principles were at odds and he wouldn’t change his. You said absolutely nothing about “commercial reasons.”
Thank you for your comment, and please feel free to visit anytime.
On this blog we proudly practice Levinas’ theories of radical hospitality, and like OLO, all opinion is welcome.
Jennifer.
LikeLike
Sorry, you don’t say absolutely nothing about commerce. You say:
“…it may have been more prudent to urge Christopher Pearson not to publish his article, and rather, from our point of view, to negotiate with the aggrieved advertisers and agency in a commercial fashion. We feel other modes of conflict resolution might have better secured continued financial health for both OLO and blogs associated with it for advertising purposes.”
in your penultimate para.
LikeLike
It seems a prerequisite in some cases for an academic, to be able to fill paragraphs with words and say nothing, as with some politicians.
blogging looks ugly ,these days..
LikeLike
Maybe Young has never deserved complaints such as these made against him until now.
Michael.
LikeLike
Please do your interlocutors the courtesy of reading what they actually say more carefully. I didn’t say that the relationship was severed for “commercial reasons”, I said it was a “commercial arrangement”. What I intended to contest is your apparent belief that everyone in The Domain was somehow bound to follow Graham Young into battle, and to take his view regardless of our own carefully considered, conscientiously held and much debated opinions.
I also note that there were several comments on the LP thread which expressed a desire for you to feel free to contribute on an ongoing basis.
LikeLike
No, I had no belief that everyone on the Domain was bound to follow Young into battle.
I merely expressed surprise at the manner in which, and the speed with which, Young was despatched by you, and I commented on the timing of the decision, following hard on the heels of the affair going public.
Thank you for forwarding the invitation to participate on LP. It was a one-off experience for me, and I haven’t been back to see the invitations to continue to contribute.
As for your first sentence – I will if you will.
Jennifer.
LikeLike