"Remind him that progressive viewpoints are systematically excluded in so much of the monopoly mass media – and especially the Murdoch Press which dominates the highly-influential tabloid market."

Well, you do have Fairfax and The Guardian. But more importantly, "progressives" have almost the entire education system - paid for by the tax payer.

So the other side got a say for once on the ABC and this guy is complaining. The reason why truly radical viewpoints and solutions proposed by the likes of Naomi Klein don't get much air time is simply because they are so radical, and impossible to implement. Mainstream outlets might give her some air time as a 'name' and for entertainment value - "look what this loony says" - and then move on.

The priorities of the 'Progressive' Leftists, it is as though those 'Struggle Streets' don't exist.

The Socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party have considerable gall to bemoan claimed 'self-censorship of the left' when they conducted a relentless campaign against Mark Latham, succeeding in having his column removed from the AFR.

While he was always irascible and blunt (as if that should bother the leftists!), Latham's arrows found their mark square in the bulls eye on the departures from traditional Labor values and concerns wrought by the trendy 'Progressives'. Latham held a mirror up to the cynical self-serving lies and hypocrisy of the educated middle class feminists, the fat tail that swings Labor. He had to go!

Just one of Latham's 'sins' for which he had to be kneecapped (a popular word with the Left),

<Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.

“If you are interested in equality and social justice in Australia then what was the really big event in the month of May,” he said. “We had the Struggle Street documentary which revealed that in the nation’s public housing estate, most notably in Mt Druit people live in conditions that you wouldn’t wish upon your dogs. Absolute chaos, despair and hopelessness in their lives.

“And surely, you would have expected a serious national response from the party of social justice?

“We didn’t hear anything.

“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”>

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-labor-over-gay-marriage/story-fnizhakg-1227371979220

The self-censoring of the opportunist pseudo-left - now, there's an oxymoron.

I anticipate a story in the N.T. News about box-jellyfish stinging a US marine off Mindil Beach, thereby proving that box-jellyfish are anti-American, and triggering a stampede by the pseudo-Left for the beaches of Darwin, to cuddle up to their new besties.

And forgetting the obvious that 'the enemy of my enemy may well be my worse enemy'. 'And that there may be worse still'.

No, they won't get that. Sorry for wasting your time :(

Joe

Anyone who thinks the ABC is "slanting to the right" is mentally defective.

On 7:30 Report, especially with Chris Uhlmann ; Leigh Sales gave the Libs a relatively easy ride ; At the Drum there is a constant flow of representatives from the CIS and so on. Not that there isn't splace for CIS spokespeople in a pluralist public sphere. But it seems disproportionate. And as I said - there are relatively radical participants at QandA who seem to have a tendency to 'tone it down' perhaps because the ABC is under pressure here. Also the opinions the Libs usually object to so loudly are 'mainstream left-of-centre' views as opposed to 'straight left' views which rarely get a hearing. And yes Tony Jones looked very uncomfortable when Naomi Klein was speaking....

And BTW 'ON The Beach' actually have some sympathy for Latham in the sense that his enemies are waging a campaign of personal destruction against him - and I hate those kind of politics....

Hi Tristan,

" .... waging a campaign of personal destruction .... " - do you mean like the infantile attacks on 'Howard the Coward' and Abbott the Rabbitt' ? That sort of thing ?

It's refreshing to hear that you " ..... hate those kind of politics...."

Now THERE's an oxymoron somewhere.

So what are you doing on the opportunist pseudo-Left ?

What are the issues that the coalition should be attacked for ? What are their principles which should be critiqued ? I don't give much of a toss about who said what, but I do care WHAT they said and how it squares with what I think are right and good policies.

SITA politics can be satisfying for the half-witted, but surely you and I are above that ?

Cheers,

Joe

u only have to look at the attack on the corruption buster to see how idiotic Tritans claims are. Here we have Shorten up to his ears in union corrruption, decent workers being ripped off by the ones representing them and people put out of work for not joining in the bribery scheme and the abc/regressives attacking/demonising the one exposing it. The regressives have always cared more about sides than issues. Gillard was still considered a saint by the abc/regressives even when she opposed gay 'marriage'. It is unbelievable how blind you are Tristan.

Tristan is of the Socialist Left of the Victorian branch of the ALP. Back in the sixties the Victorian Socialist Left were so malodorous they kept Labor in opposition federally for years.

He's a "qualified teacher", a self-described "freelance journalist" and "social commentator", apparently without qualifications.

All of that sums up his scope and range. You know in advance what his opinion will be on any subject.

For him to suggest, for example, that an occasional moderate or conservative appearing on QandA, The Drum, 7.30, etc., is any sort of swerve to the right or "self-censorship" by his ABC is simply ridiculous. But that's the Socialist Left for you.

"Tony Jones looked very uncomfortable when Naomi Klein was speaking".

I really felt for Tony Jones while she was carrying on with her BS. I am not really a fan of Jones, he generally has too much to say, but on this occasion he just seemed helpless and I empathized with him.

Runner, I am in complete agreement with you, something that doesn't happen often.

David

As to Abbott's opinions that should be criticised: Punitive welfare; letting the auto industry die with 50,000 jobs; ambiguous about whether we will fully implement NDIS; wants for cut income taxes for people on high incomes and cut corporate tax - But wants to increase the GST and leave superannuation concessions that will soon cost us about $50 billion a year... He Does this at the same time as making the plea: "there's not enough money for infrastructure etc". And he tries to divide and conquer by demonising vulnerable Australians such as the disabled.

Finally we can do a lot more with regard refugees. Germany is accepting over 100,000 from Syria. They have a bit less than four times our population I think. I think we can manage 35,000 a year if we link humanitarian programs to skills and reprioritise from the skilled migration intake.

As for my qualifications they include BA(Hons),Grad Dip Ed, and a PhD. I don't mean to be trumpeting this from the rooftops. But calwest questioned whether I have any qualifications. I think also importantly I've been in inside participant it the ALP for about 20 years.

Who you interpret as 'moderate' is open to question. For what used to be 'Left' there is now a shift to the Centre. That damages pluralism; and damage to pluralism is damage to democracy.

As for corruption - some union leaderships don't put their members first. But Abbott's attacks on the labour movement are not about altruism and justice. Its about embarrassing Shorten in the run up to the next election. The labour movement should get its own house in order. But its interesting that other issues like white collar crime don't get nearly the same emphasis as attacks on trade unions.

No-one seems to be noticing I'm arguing for free speech - and for a pluralism, participatory and inclusive public sphere.

Not at all surprising that Tristan is a creature of the Left. The Left always denies ABC bias, but it is the extreme Left that is so full of hatred that they can actually blurt out that the ABC has a Right bias. Now, that takes a lot a imagination and brain-washing.

The extreme Left is not worth talking to. Take the Greens leader with Andrew Bolt on Sunday. The first Green ever on the programme, and probably the last, hopefully. The fanatical little man made no compomise, and was preprogrammed merely to spout extremist, Australia-harming propaganda. Bolt's regular Laborites and moderate left guests usually present themselves as fairly intelligent human beings prepared to give a point and often make comments that even I agree with. But Greens leader, Senator No Human Characteristics just blabs anti-Australian propaganda, like all his disciples. This deluded contributor should swap his allegiance to the Green extreme.

Calls for censorship nowadays are far more likely to come from the left than the right – and not just calls to silence unacceptable voices, but also threats, bullying, intimidation and shouting down alternative voices.

To be fair to Tristan though, he recognises that free speech for the left means free speech for the right, too.

I see the usual happening with responses to this article, inadvertently illustrating Tristan's very point. Comments on Q&A by a guest are said to be extreme, and that, we are told, is why we don't often hear them. Actually, they are simply regarded as extreme - these terms are relative. And it has happened over the past few decades that the shift has been ever rightwards, and, indeed, we have arrived at the point where the left prevaricates and self-censors. It is a struggle to get the conversation away from the Right's agenda, frankly. In fact, what it has mean overall is that the creeping rightward trend is becoming alarming, not just in LNP attempts to shutdown Q&A and sell off parts of the ABC to Murdoch (how long do you think the regional news will last coming from the public broadcaster?), but also in attempts to redefine swathes of our culture from the top down. The Arts are not surviving the LNP, and neither will the communities that express themselves through the Arts. What we are not permitted to say - through any of our means of communication - is having a disastrous effect on everything we understand. In fact, our understand of anything is shrinking to meaninglessness.

Almost the entire higher education system leans left. Can anyone name a conservative or libertarian thinker that is studied at university, particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences? The only time they're mentioned is for critique or ridicule.

jcro makes a point I was thinking of making. 'Extremes' are relative. Many perpsectives of the Greens were held by Labor, and maybe even some Liberal Wets only a few decades ago. And for critical voices to be dismissed (and potentially repressed at one point) as un-Australian' suggests some kind of lurch towards the far right. It's revealing that I am being dismissed as 'UnAustralian' for supporting real pluralism - but the voices who view themselves as 'moderate' want to silence dissent on the basis of nationalism. But as I've suggested, I country's egalitarian and liberal traditions are the things with regard this nation that ARE worth defending!

Meanwhile 'moderate left' is defined as anything vaguely and slightly 'left of centre'. 'Centre Left' in the sense of being 'half way towards the Left pole' has little place in public discourse. This means there is little in the way of pluralism. And a democracy without real choice is not a strong democracy.

re: Aristocrat's suggestion that academia leans to the Left. Well check out any Economics course then ask yourself that same question. At a guess I'd say liberal and social democratic views prevail through much of the liberal arts. But unfortunately the liberal arts are stigmatised - probably on account of being critical - and the ECONOMIC orthodoxy has much more influence on public policy.

I would rather have inclusive coverage in both the media and public sphere AND in academia.

The author is correct. All mainstream mass media have veered sharply towards conservative, pro laissez faire capitalism, get rid of anything that gets in the way of greater corporate profits. Tony Jones is bad news. When Naomi Klein said her completely rational bit, he interrupted to play the devil's advocate, which is not his job. He does it every time someone says something he imagines his government bosses wont like. And the extra time he kept giving to that right-wing idiot politician was shaming. To veer off topic, how about the financial reports that take the stock market seriously, when it isn't a market but a corrupt casino with weighted dice in which corporate buybacks create the impression of profitability while actual production is falling? Real wages have been stagnating for 10 years while inflation and wealth distribution has become alarming skewed. If the fact that 99% of the planet's wealth is owned by 1% of the population doesn't scare people, then they deserve to be sucked into the vortex of poverty and wage slavery that's happening along with increasing surveillance and police brutality - not to mention rising seas and irreversible climate change.

ybgirp,

Is this the 'Progressive' Tony Jones and ABC you prefer?

"Peter Hitchens v the ferals on Q&A: a masterclass in disdain
November 8, 2013"

http://tinyurl.com/nqs3fd5

Hi Tristan

“Extremes” are relative, but they can also be objectively assessed. It seems reasonable to define “extreme” in relation to what most people think. If only 5% of people think we should abandon fossil fuel and use only renewables, that view is “extreme”. If only 5% of think we should ignore greenhouse gas emissions and burn much more coal, that view is extreme. Assuming a bell curve or normal distribution of opinion on most political issues, we could easily set some cut-off point and say those to the far left and far right represent the “extreme”.

Of course this means what counts as “extreme” will change over time and between cultures. Being “extreme” doesn’t necessarily mean a view is right or wrong, rational or irrational. In the 19th century, it was “extreme” to support women’s suffrage. Nowadays, it’s extreme not to. And being “extreme” is not a reason to silence or marginalise a perspective.

I think we need unorthodox voices to challenge accepted wisdom and present alternative viewpoints. Like you, I would rather have inclusive coverage in both the media and public sphere and in academia. And I relish sites like OLO, that not only air unorthodox views but also invite ordinary folk to discuss them.

However, I wonder how much of this must guide the particular agenda of Q&A. Q&A should certainly have a diversity of opinions from across the political (and other) spectrums. But it seems there are certain aspects of the Q&A formula that necessarily, and rightly, entail a degree of self-censorship. Panellists are almost always public figures, recognised experts or spokespeople for influential organisations. They are not random, and do not represent every point in the ideological spectrum. People with views that are both extreme and likely to seriously offend lots of people are seldom invited. I think Q&A overstepped the mark of what people expect of the program when it invited Zaky Mallah to participate, for the same reason it has never had a holocaust denier or someone like Jack Van Tongeren.

To sustain a relevant and intelligent debate, there must be quality controls.

Hi Tristan and Rhian,

Rhian, you got in first :) I was wondering about the inconsistency of professing openness and freedom of expression and a civil society, on the one hand, and then talking rather pejoratively about 'extremes' on the other: if you believe in freedom of expression (within, say, currently legal limits, of course), then there, in a sense, are no extremes: all viewpoints have to be seriously considered with similar civility.

Obviously, we can't agree with everything, but the point about a civil society, and freedom of expression, is that we tolerate views that we disagree with: we engage with them civilly. Perhaps this is one of the many differences between our society and, say, that of ISIS: clearly, neither freedom of expression, nor the very concept of a civil society would be tolerated under ISIS, or their supporters here. Or their useful idiots. But, after all, even idiots should be tolerated, up to point.

Thanks,

Joe

OTB... that is a pretty disgusting clip. Reminds me of the bigoted intolerance and lies propounded by the right wing bigots on OLO. But it's good that people like Hitchens have a public space to reveal their true natures. I can't see anything wrong with it. No one is ever convinced by other points of view in these sorts of shows , just as no one on OLO or the Forum ever changes their mind. We make up our minds about issues by reading and listening in the peace of our own homes, to people who know what they're talking about, and after thinking about it. Forums are simply places to offload our convictions on others with no expectation of being listened to, or of have our ideas considered. At least that's my experience, I know what the regulars are going to write, and so far I've never noticed anyone shifting their position on anything. The Religious are still religious, the homophobes are still homophobic, the atheists are still atheists, pro abortionists remain pro, as do right to lifers and supporters of a 'big Australia'. TV discussion programs are pointless, but at times amusing.

Google "growth of executive power in Australia" then think Abbott presides over that executive power.

In his attack on the ABC, QandA being one battle in a war, Abbott shows himself to be a practitioner of a dark psychological strategy.

The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority was meant to show how the nazis controlled the German people, as 1984 and Brave New World were warnings, Abbott has read them as a collective instruction manual.

The left should not underestimate were Abbott is coming from or the evil that props him up, in his war against the ABC.

Tristan Ewins "At a guess I'd say liberal and social democratic views prevail through much of the liberal arts. But unfortunately the liberal arts are stigmatised - probably on account of being critical - and the ECONOMIC orthodoxy has much more influence on public policy."

Economic courses have more influence probably because they deal with realities rather than idealities.

Being critical in the Arts is not the issue; it is the anti-Western/conservative thread that runs throughout nearly all "progressive" critiques. For example, in a liberal arts degree students are exposed to anti-family/marriage theories emanating from socialists and feminists. Never are students exposed to arguments that defend the family unit. There are many other examples. In economics students are not exposed to pro-capitalist arguments. They are, however, exposed to numerous anti-capitalist theories. The list goes on. Balance would be ideal, but that's not going to happen. The only solution is a complete defunding of Humanities and Social Science courses.

Fynder "The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority was meant to show how the nazis controlled the German people, as 1984 and Brave New World were warnings, Abbott has read them as a collective instruction manual. The left should not underestimate were Abbott is coming from or the evil that props him up, in his war against the ABC."

Lol! I also hear he sells poison milk to school children

Funder et al.,

I have boundless admiration for your courage - in the face of an imminent knock on the door, you continue to expose the evils of this fascist regime which terrorises our society, and is right now dragging tens of thousands of innocent people off to ghastly concentration camps out in the remote parts of Australia, out of sight and out of mind: I've heard there's one between Ivanhoe and Wilcannia which specialises in the most terrible tortures. God knows how many others there are, beside that one - and the one out from Thargomindah of course, which is notorious for its brutality.

Rest assured that when they come for you, and you are 'disappeared', we will remember you :)

Joe

Aristocrat,

It is the rigid, systemic political correctness that limits, as it is intended to do.

<More problematic, particularly in the social sciences, is a growing sense that there are some views that just cannot be expressed.

On the one hand, the pseudo-radical, broadly left-wing consensus that pervades universities means that castigating neoliberalism, the influence of the popular media, and the desire to consume, will automatically garner the support of the peers who will review your work for publication and you for promotion.

On the other hand, not paying lip-service to the importance of feminism, the welfare state, and protecting the environment, is more likely to see your work rejected. New academics are often recruited because their research fits into the existing departmental culture. Students are taught the values of their lecturers.>

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/teaching_students_not_to_think/14479#.VfC_aRGqpBc

I would say that teaching students not to think but to accept the prevailing PC without question goes all of the way through the State education system.

It is also why leftist 'Progressives', the self-described 'Wolves in Sheep's Clothing' aka International Socialists, hate private schools and seek to close them down. It isn't that the private schools teach 'conservatism' or some are 'religious', it is that the totalitarian socialists despise independent, critical thought and students being encouraged to be industrious and work to support themselves and contribute to society.

This great man saw it coming. His lecture Winning the Cultural War delivered in 1999 to a graduating class at Harvard is recognised as an example of great American rhetoric. His solution was civil disobedience.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm

Aristocrat: "Defunding" the Humanities and Social Sciences because they don't say what you want to say is a reactionary and perhaps even totalitarian solution. Though it bothers me also - that in today's humanities and social sciences radical political economy is neglected - and the 'radical' politics you're so opposed to often just comprise identity politics which offer little alternative to capitalism - or even neo-liberalism more narrowly.

But really - given the slant in the monopoly mass media towards the Right-consensus how is it you cannot tolerate opposing opinions and want to shut them down even when you're pretty much getting your way in public policy?

I'd also remind you that Hayek, Mises etc are now considered 'mainstream' in Economics courses whereas going back a few decades they were considered extreme. The Greens are called 'extreme' for supporting policies once proposed by Liberal Party 'Wets'. Honestly - the virtual policy consensus is neo-liberalism! You get your way in terms of austerity, attacks on welfare, attacks on labour, attacks on redistribution and the public sector. But you cannot tolerate criticism!

Finally - Economics course often deal with ASSUMPTIONS rather than realities. :-P But if you want to fight through civil disobedience that's your right I think. So long as you concede that Left forces ALSO have that right to resist through civil disobedience.

Tristan Ewins "'Defunding' the Humanities and Social Sciences' because they don't say what you want to say is a reactionary and perhaps even totalitarian solution."

It is. Having experienced the authoritarian personalities that make up the teaching and administrative staff in the Humanities and Social Sciences Departments, I came to the conclusion there is zero chance of students being exposed to alternative perspectives.

"Though it bothers me also - that in today's humanities and social sciences radical political economy is neglected - and the 'radical' politics you're so opposed to often just comprise identity politics which offer little alternative to capitalism - or even neo-liberalism more narrowly."

Marxist economics is still taught in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Neo-liberalism is only ever mentioned for critique or ridicule.

"But really - given the slant in the monopoly mass media towards the Right-consensus how is it you cannot tolerate opposing opinions and want to shut them down even when you're pretty much getting your way in public policy?"

There is no monopoly. As stated before, the left have The Guardian and Farifax. You can add to that all the social media sites and thousands of blogs that proliferate the internet.

I don't tolerate left-wing domination of the Humanities and Social Sciences because these departments are meant to teach students how to think, not what to think. It's not critical thinking when students repeat Marxist and Foucauldian slogans.

Good post, onthe beach.
It's all true. I only keep myself employed in the academe by keeping my mouth shut.

Aristocrat - In my experience Marxist political economy was being frozen out of academia over 20 years ago. Today I think its almost impossible to get an academic position on the basis of teaching Marxism - except perhaps at the relative margins of a course. Of course we're both just giving our impressions... I would gladly trade balance in academia for balance in the mass media!

BTW Fairfax is part-owned by Gina now. Yes they come out with critical stuff. But they're undependable come an election based on past experience. BTW the broadsheet market has The Australian. There's no real competitor in most states to Murdoch in the tabloid market.

To clarify: I would agree to balance in academia if I got balance in the mass media in return. I thought my last post was open to misinterpretation.