The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why our greatest story is just not being told > Comments

Why our greatest story is just not being told : Comments

By Kevin Donnelly, published 30/1/2006

Kevin Donnelly argues the nation's heritage is being forgotten in history lessons.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Dear all

Why is Donnelly so popular with OLO editors. Just 2 days after he spouted in the Australian.

Perhaps OLO is really just a diguised spin machine for the "right". At least Michael Duffy matter-of factly answered that his Monday afternnon Counterpoint ABC program is about giving air time to the "right". His excuse is that there are plenty of "left" views on the ABC already. Hence balance is not needed in his own slot.

Has Graham Young said anything about his socalled "even handedness"?

As has been revealed previously, Donnelly was a hired gun. Wonder what he is aiming at now. To follow Brunton and Albrechtsen to the ABC Board? Or perhaps the more immediate slot vacated by Baulding?

cheers

Chek

cheers

chek
Posted by Chek, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 11:28:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Chek, This article was first published in The Australian on January 28. I'm caught between wondering if there is favouritism or that opinion pieces are simply being syphoned off (because of copyright deals) with the Murdoch press.

One hand I could agree with your assertion of bias, but on another I would also argue that it gives us an opportunity to engage (debunk?) the ideas of neocon dinosaurs like Donnelly. A quantitative/ qualitative assessment of the articles published here would provide a clearer picture of ‘balance’ in OLO editorial choice.

I agree with your appraisal of Duffy and ABC. I sometimes wonder if his guests (many them are often just ideas people) get embarrassed with his eagerness to label them ‘conservative’ (right wing?) when he introduces them. To me his program (Counterpoint) is often the best free to air political satire that ABC broadcasts. Defensive nihilism always is. Remember that skit by the pythons “is your name Bruce?’
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 12:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wre:

Since you appear to enjoy credentialising, I also studied History from High School until completing an Honours Degree and a Masters Degree, both in History. I then went on to teach it in secondary schools for ten years and am now completing my PhD.

As you share my background in History, you can probably tell me what's wrong with making generalisations about a society based on one experience with a twelve year you know and some other "from what I've seen and heard" evidence.

Furthermore, the "everyone must be university educated" line which we are currently seeing played out in Australia is not the work of leftist academics, but rather the fallout from the appalling commodification of education which we have seen happen at the hands of the neo-conservative government of the past 10 years. The 'enterprise university' is flourishing in Australia thanks to Honest John and yes, it does have a negative flow-on effect.

Finally, your suggestion that it's time to educate according to litteracy (sic.) levels seems to negate your earlier argument that indicated that literacy has been hampered by new approaches to teaching reading (based, of course, on your 12 year old friend). Or was your point there that a 12 year old from an "advantaged background" couldn't possibly struggle with literacy?
Posted by Nicole, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 12:12:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Rainier

I like your thoughts.

but is someone monitoring the bias or otherwise of OLO. Graham Y in his defence of his article on Green Peace seems to me to be incapable of reasoned debate, and would not know what balance means.

If OLO is really eve-handed and simply putting up articles to encourage debate, why do we not see Gregory M's article two days after Dinnelly's? A far superior article, in terms of balance, constructiveness, and new thought perhaps.

And why not Phillip Adam from time to time?

I remain skeptical, until evidence to the contrary or incompetence is revealed.

cheers

Chek
Posted by Chek, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 12:37:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chek, you've pinned the tail on the donkey. I am biased and On Line Opinion is a plot to perpetuate my view of the world. It is in fact an Enlightenment project. I'll quote you a par from the Gregory Melluish piece from the Australian that you profess to admire:

"The Enlightenment expressed what is best in Western civilisation by its tolerance, its moderation and its desire to use reason as well as to be sceptical when approaching any set of conclusions. These are the values that are now sorely needed at a time when the world is threatened by the narrow-minded and fierce dogmatism out of which terrorism has emerged."

That is exactly what this site is about - argument, inquiry, civility. Providing a forum for Australians (and the occasional international visitor) to discuss and exchange ideas. A Socratic forum, if you like, where hopefully we all get an opportunity to examine what it really is that we believe. So that's my bias and my "conspiracy".

Why do we frequently publish Kevin Donnelly? Because he frequently sends us material that is worth publishing. Why does he tend to have the field to himself? Because the other side of the argument, despite being approached, tend not to provide us with copy. Perhaps, as they are in charge of the system, they figure it's easier to ignore people like Donnelly and possibly starve him of oxygen.

It's interesting, but most of the complaints we get about balance tend to come from the left, but everytime we then go and do a quick ideological stock-take, we find that, if anything, the journal leans to the left. That troubles me a little, because we set out to produce a journal that is balanced, and I don't think we've got there. We probably never will, but the struggle to achieve that is certainly worthwhile.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 2:06:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I applaud Kevin Donnelly for his article and Graham Young for his recent post.

At school I hated History. It was taught by pupils taking it in turns to read from a text book. There was no amplification of the facts, why things happened, etc. Later in life I worked with a History writer who spelt out the relevant events that happened, when they happened, what official documents say in relation to events, etc. Students were then able to understand the significance of events and relate them to what took place after the event. I now enjoy History.

Unfortunately in the Outcomes Based educational world many commentators view History as a tool to challenge and reconstruct interpretations of events from a cynical, politically correct perspective. Almost as if any events had anything to do with "white men" they must have been shameful. And if people from conservative backgrounds are about they are the worst people of all.

It is a shame Graham, that so many contributors use the forum to denigrate persons who have anything to do with or support the Howard Government. Our democracy dictates that federal governments are elected and a Labor or non-Labor government will be in power. Whether one agrees with policies put in place by governments the people involved are inevitably decent people putting in place what they took to the people and believe are in the nation's best interest. There will be Labor governments in the future. I personally will not agree with many of the policies they implement. I will, however, know that the people in power will, with few exceptions, be decent people. And I will trust the electors to make judgements at election time in the light of their experiences.

I welcome the day when History and other subjects are no longer subject to the influence of Outcomes Based Education and the negative impacts of the "Postmodern". And it will be nice when young people can write well, spell, remember dates, facts and the lessons of History and know their number combinations. Let's hope the day is not too far away.
Posted by Sniggid, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 4:52:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy