Colebatch has it bad for Flint
For example:
Flint also looks at the succession of media “feeding frenzies” in the Hollingworth, Kirby and Wayne Carey and Cardinal Pell affairs. Flint says he found an impression created among some people that Hollingworth (who at worst had been naive and inept in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse by Anglican priests, and in handling the media subsequently), was himself guilty of some sort of sexual crimes.
(My emphasis)
Now remember, Flint’s beef is with “the media elite” which he pretty much defines as the Fairfax broadsheets and the ABC. Does he seriously suggest it was these media outlets alone which initiated and took part in this “feeding frenzy”? What were the Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, The Advertiser and The Courier Mail covering during all this -- the human rights situation in China? The Hollingworth saga was a classic “scandal” – and “the people’s media” loved every moment of it.
It continues…
Wayne Carey’s escapades were private business.
Yes David, I’m sure that the News Ltd tabloids didn’t want to hear about that – no money to be made with headlines about “Shock affairs” and the like.
Here Flint touches on a matter which could be taken further. He writes: “The allegations against Justice Kirby soon collapsed because the Comcar records (Senator Hefferman (sic) tendered as proof turned out, on the most cursory investigation, to be a fabrication.” But why was this matter of “fabrication” apparently never taken further? There seems to have been a nasty plot against Kirby, Hefferman (sic), or both by persons who remain unknown and un-investigated.
How exactly, could this have been a nasty plot against Bill Heffernan? The fact of the matter is, Heffernan, under parliamentary privilege, accused a high court judge of hiring underage prostitutes (“…regularly trawled for rough trade at the Darlinghurst Wall…” and “…played out his fantasies on a fee-for-service arrangement.”) while using forgeries to back it up. Heffernan’s speech was revealed for what it was – a homophobic diatribe – followed with the standard Howard response in the light of embarrassing revelations – “The Senator in question enjoys both my affection and friendship”. Sorry David, but that’s big news.
Then this:
Flint himself was persecuted because he was a monarchist, with roles in other socially conservative groups, such as being president of the Australian National Federation of the English-Speaking Union.
No examples of this persecution are provided. I suspect someone may have countered Flint’s arguments against the republic – which of course amounts to persecution “because he was a monarchist”.
Back to the “elite media”:
A group of commentators do suffer from group-think and a shared set of prejudices and assumptions. But they are subject now to robust confrontation by Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Piers Akerman, Tim Blair and others.
Yes of course. Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Piers Akerman, Tim Blair, Greg Sheridan, Janet Albretchsen, Fran Devine, Miranda Devine, Gerard Henderson and the rest NEVER sing from the same hymn sheet. They most certainly don’t have a shared set of prejudices and assumptions - put these people together and you have a most fascinating and diverse range of opinions on any conceivable subject. I also like the way that it is “now” that the media elite are confronted – as if all of these commentators are new on the scene – and by golly those Howard hating group thinkers had better watch out coz there’s some new kidz on the block!
Further, two Australian Federal elections and, even more obviously, the republican referendum, have shown the commentariat’s power to actually decide outcomes is far less than its members may like to think.
Colebatch brings his article to a close:
…it is a real pleasure to read the thoughts and observations of learned,
civilised and ethical man, set out in a beautiful prose style.
Need some tissues Hal?
posted by Sammy Jankis at
11:32
