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 > QandA's virtues and vices, and the self-censoring of the left > Comments

QandA's virtues and vices, and the self-censoring of the left : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 7/9/2015

The tighter we limit free speech the more likely it is that our enemies will apply those standards to us as well one day.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 2:26:37 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
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.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 3:16:33 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
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
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 3:42:11 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
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.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 5:47:27 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
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.
Posted by Fynder, Wednesday, 9 September 2015 9:30:20 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
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.
Posted by Aristocrat, Thursday, 10 September 2015 8:21:20 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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