When our PM made the decision ten days ago I thought to myself, "How low will the reactionaries go, the deniers and the corporatist lapdogs, and how soon will they start."
I didn't have long to wait.
These assaults on our PM are nothing but sexism and woman-hatred. The outpouring of Tea Party-style hate could easily lead to violence, sooner or later. If our PM introduces the licensing of commentators and a peer-review panel of media professionals (Laura Tingle, Phillip Adams, Virginia Trioli, Mike Carlton, Hartcher, for example) to determine what constitutes "fair free speech" and to stamp out the noxious, inappropriate variety, I would support her 100%.
Alene Composta | Seddon - March 03, 2011, 9:35AM
I was a bit surprised that the moderator cut out my reference to a Saturday afternoon shock jock on 3AW who urged his listeners to imagine our PM "gambolling in her scanties on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin with horny cabinet colleagues" while First Bloke Tim sits at home and puts the roast on steam. The motor mouth's slur was that, because Julia had "lied" to the Australian public -- she didn't, that criticism is purely semantic, as we know -- she would also lie to her partner.
But then I realised that The Age owns 3AW and that while the newspaper's reporters and editors are on the side of the angels mostly (apart from Costello), when it comes to progressive issues the Age is also a corporate entity and must protect its assets.
I am of two minds. I am glad we have the Age in Melbourne, and glad that it is mostly a progressive institution dedicated to stressing the points of view the Murdoch minions demean and suppress.
Should I protest the censorship? Opinions would be welcome.
UPDATE: Shouldn't The Age have inserted a notification that my post had been trimmed? That would seem to be fair and honest.