WWSBD, having seen the same things you claim to have seen, my impression was that the whole Noonan presentation was staged so that it could be discussed in a forum like this one. I also got the impression there Noonan’s presentation had been scripted beforehand. I'd like to believe that it was Noonan himself, but I'm a little older than most first years and having done some TV subjects at QUT, if I was to hazard a guess, I'd say that his supervisor Alan McKee had a part in preparing the Noonan presentation you write about. And since I'm a naturally suspicious person, WWSBD, from what I can remember of those TV units, you write very much in the style Alan McKee! Interesting coincidence, perhaps?

Of course, what we don't have is an impartial observation of what happened during Noonan's PhD Confirmation hearing.

But we've gone beyond this, to the manipulation of the Truth, and, frankly, I'd say that Noonan himself, his supervisors Alan McKee (and Jeffry Portman, as I've read elsewhere), his detractors (MacLennan and Hookham), are all guilty of such manipulation. Perhaps this is something that's endemic to the Creative Industries Faculty at QUT.

Which does not negate the comments and observations made about the manipulation by MacLennan/Hookham of the actual visual material. It’s just a shame that many academics, researchers, postgraduate students and those in management positions in CI Faculty seem to pursue their own interests and careers without regard for the impact this has on the wellbeing of others. If these CI people at QUT are representative of the ‘new humanities’ (as Vice-Chancellor Peter Coaldrake said about the CI Faculty in media releases after announcing the abolition of the Humanities School at Carseldine) then it’s a new humanities faculty without it being very humane.

There are so many arguments presented in this text, and while Noonan asserts that John and Gary are attacking him - they are not.

Gary MacLennan is one of few lecturers at QUT (particularly in Creative Industries) who will look at both sides of any argument and who, unlike EVERY lecturer at QUT, does not automatically promote the most profitable.

To suggest that MacLennan would manipulate evidence or distort the truth in order to serve his own agenda for an article... (now really, what would his agenda be? Seriously.) Obviously these critics have no firsthand experience of the man, read his work or even bothered to think about what this article is really telling us.

Is MacLennan attacking Noonan's PhD particularly, or are the authors attempting to bring to light a wider issue? An issue spreading like a disease throughout universities in Australia, but most notably in QUT's Creative Industries.

Innovative. Groundbreaking. The first of its kind in Australia. Creative Industries - An absolute joke. And the only ones laughing are QUT, as they toddle off to the bank, loaded with research grants, students' money and government funding.

With more applicants than ever, QUT's 'groundbreaking' degree in Creative Industries is preparing more and more students for future careers at Coles, IGA and Woolworths. The only 'Real World' these graduates will ever know is one of night shifts on minimum wage.

Any Joe can study Big Brother. It’s on every night. This is university. This is what is coming from universities. I am the first to argue the merit in studying popular culture. I strongly believe in the power of popular culture to shape us as cultural, spiritual, physical and communal beings.

However, what is coming out of QUT these days is absolute bollocks. Absolutely worthless. The authors of this article know this. Every CI graduate knows this.
(continued next post)

(continued from above)
Why on earth the deluded lecturers who one day preach the importance of cultural/racial/sexual stereotypes on television in creating an inclusive society, and the next verbally attack our country for believing these stereotypes, haven't realised that they are dragging this ridiculous degree out time and time again for criticism is beyond me.

Noonan's piece may or may not have its merits. I don't know, I haven't seen it. But I know for a fact that QUT is a sea of mediocrity, caricature, shameless self promotion, profiteering, favoritism and blatant incompetence.

In this sea there are a few voices - a few staff and students who stand up for whatever they might believe in. Who encourage legitimate debate not relating to finance, who challenge the enervated students to rise and fight for rights, social justice, truth, and all the other stuff you'd see an inspirational lecturer who changes peoples' lives do in the Hollywood movies they all study in CI and then write whole Masters and PhDs in.

Gary Maclennan is one such lecturer. The hypocrisy of the absolute joke of a faculty of CI to condemn this man... I can not express in words. Noonan is a fool who is only outshone at spinning any amount of ‘justification’ of a creative work by those ridiculous caricatures running the faculty and the university. Don’t think of this article as an attack on Noonan, or Big Brother, or even popular culture. It’s an attack on the fluff of a world that exists intra-murally.

Wise up kids.

A wonderful, balanced, non-bitter post from RealWorld. Clearly a frustrated, struggling artist. Or maybe a tired academic.

To call me a fool suggests that you know me; to admonish my work suggests that you have seen it. If it is neither, it's hardly worth responding to your twisted little rant.

I thought this site was for scholarly discussion.

Post-Modernists take themselves and their inane theories so seriously, they cannot realise that they are having the mick pulled out of them. They have nothing to offer to civilisation. Thankfully, in 50 years, no-one will remember them, because none of them will have any children.

In response to “RealWorld”.

Thank you, good sir for your enlightened view! "Any Joe can study about Big Brother" and I suppose any Joe can learn about Quantum Physics… The real debate here is about what conclusions each is capable of drawing?! What I am sure of though, is that any Joe can write a rant without providing any sort of arguments to support him other than his own biased observations.

I do not wish to align myself in any direction of Gary’s wider view as I am still contemplating it. However, one of the main debates that have sprung in light of this article is Gary’s use of Michael’s PhD thesis as a base camp for his words. Something which is totally unacceptable in my eyes as it is manipulative, unfair and unethical to critique so a colleague’s work to a public which did not have the chance to encounter the piece on its own before having his opinion swayed one way or another.

You have claimed Michael Noonan as a fool. It is not my purpose to defend his honour, and yet I wish to ask you if you have seen any of his works so far or the one discussed in the article? Have you ever, in your life met the man and perhaps had a conversation with him? I speculate that you in fact did not.

Indeed, I could speculate further and depict you to be a mediocre, bitter human being who’s never in his life had any piece of work recognized for the ingenious that isn’t really there. The difference between you and I is that I do not stoop myself to that level of speculations and would not claim that about you without first encountering you and study your work. Even then, if I was convinced beyond any doubt that my claims are true, I would probably find some way to at least leave a note before my biased words that they are, indeed, biased and are based on twisted personal observations.

Also unlike you, I can condense my empty words to one post…