As a decidedly non-academic, it still seems wild to me that this isn't the typical academic viewpoint. And tiny, remote, comfortable Australia is worse than many, which makes your writing even more valuable. Thank you for your efforts. 💪
Great post, although I am a bit surprised you only now realised this... the bias in most Australian news leaps off the page, or screen, and bites you in the face!
Did you never watch Q&A on a topic you had any idea about, and then talk about it with your academic colleagues?
Some of my favourite academics are people with whom I disagree fundamentally. It really keeps life interesting, and yes, makes me think about what I really believe, and why I do so.
YES, WELL. The very opposite of a conversation, in my view. If you want cookie-cutter pieces where you know exactly what the piece will say before you read it… that’s where to go.
Katy, maybe the piece you had published in Quillette could be updated and resubmitted to progressive outlets in the light of the Antoinette Lattouf controversy.
Paul - it’s a hugely relevant issue. Mind you, in every job there are constraints on what you can do and say. Particularly in a government funded business. I’m not sure that example is the best one...
So Paul and Tash - may not surprise you that my views on this are complex. Part of what makes this difficult is that it’s a vicious circle.
I wanted to write something reasoned on the Israel-Palestine issue. Both of you know me well enough to know - I am not a fan of Bibi and I don’t want innocent Palestinian people to die - it’s the very last thing I want. However, I am also not a fan of historically and legally inaccurate accounts of this dispute which force it into a simple binary of “Good-Bad”, “Oppressed-Oppressor”. Anyone who knows anything about the history knows it’s much more complex. A “Coloniser-Colonised” rubric is particularly inapposite, if one takes a long view of the history.
The article my friends and I wanted to publish was on the history of the Israel Palestine dispute - 5 things that people should think about before they start sounding off on this. But somewhere like the ABC would not publish us, precisely because it’s staffed by people like Lattouf who are convinced this is a simple binary. The fact that the media gatekeepers don’t allow more nuanced views then makes people who disagree scared and angry, and they lash out.
In my view, it was wrong to call for Lattouf to be sacked. Several people on the right of politics said to me that they will not sign the October Declaration because there have been too many cancellations with a view to suppress dissenting views. While it might seem like an immediate victory for Jewish, in the long run, it just makes people resentful and erodes support.
On the other hand, however, Lattouf, I am quite sure, would suppress my freedom of speech and say that the views I express are wrong and immoral. It’s like these are two self-reinforcing poles - the more the representative of a government media takes a polarized view, the more that people who have a different view will lash out against it.
Lattouf is entitled to her view. I am also entitled to my view, and, what is more, if I express my view intelligently and sensibly, my view should also be considered by a government-run media outlet. However, as things currently stand, I doubt any such article would be considered.
Also politely - you are not a journalist so have different restrictions on your private actions. This is not about freedom of speech - and even then she is constrained by anti discrimination and other constraints to ensure she the speech does not incite violence.
I also have academic freedom - although whether I have academic freedom to discuss Popperian falsifiability in light of Ridd v ACU is an interesting question. There was a suggestion by the High Court that one had to stick to one’s area of expertise, as it were. I HAVE SO MANY LANES! HOW CAN I STICK TO MY LANE? Can I not at least have an opinion about Popper? LOL. Next time I’m in Canberra I’ll ask them.
It won’t surprise you Katy that I agree with so much of what you say.
When you write - it’s an opinion piece. Clear and simple. There is no need for balance. You are presenting a view.
When journalists employed by a media company are reporting the news - they carry a journalistic obligation not to be partisan. To consider both sides. Not to advocate. To be accurate and careful with the facts. Not to be misleading. That is why so many people had an issue with what Antoinette posted on social media - it clearly established she had an agenda and intended to pursue it in her day job. That is inconsistent (in the view of many journalists) with her obligations professionally. She is also employed by the government. Like many government employees - her obligations should arguably be higher than if she was employed by a private company. That’s certainly the case for many of my friends in government owned enterprises. But suggest that’s not necessarily the case at the ABC sadly - an unfortunate double standard.
As a private citizen, she is free to tweet whatever she wants. But when her bias impacts her job… she has to choose which one she wants to do.
many professions have restrictions on their personal life, decisions and actions due to their job. That is the case for lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, and so many more. With many jobs - You simply cannot have your cake and eat it. Her situation is surprisingly common. She is not a victim - she merely breached requirements of her employment.
Appreciate people feel the Jewish ‘lobby’ overreached in complaining about her overt bias against Jews and Israel. I would prefer to say they insisted that publically funded journalists follow their professional ethics. I also note that we don’t know who else complained. Stating that she was sacked due to the Jewish lobby is just the standard libel of Jews having excessive power… we simply don’t have any evidence that this was the case. It is also possible that ABC management took a principled view about a breach of employment conditions . We will see when the FWC hearing explores this.
Yes. I suspect that what might seem to an outsider like a coordinated attempt is simply a bunch of scared individuals who are terrified that it appears that even the state media is against them.
Like you - I think the best thing would have been to make this a matter of professional ethics, and insist on even and unbiased reporting. I also think it was a huge mistake to target a particular individual, for many, many reasons. I have been consistently against targeting individuals - in another group of which I’m a member, we’ve decided that we must deal with ideas and arguments rationally, not call out individuals.
One problem is that we don’t seem to believe in objectivity or behaving in an unbiased way (witness Penny Wong’s decision to concentrate on one set of victims in this conflict, but to ignore the others - in my view, you look at both sets of victims, or you do nothing). I’ve been told by other academics that to be even-handed is inherently political and biased, and that my suggestion that we should try to look at both sides of the story makes me an oppressor of the marginalised. I disagree.
Another issue here is a blurring between the personal and the professional created by social media, which we still don’t know how to navigate. Can someone suggest I should be sacked for saying on social media that my former Union’s very anti-Israel response was not appropriate? I have been told to my face that I am a supporter of genocide for the stance I took on that issue, so I wouldn’t actually be that surprised. Is that a personal view or a view which impacts on my professional role? (I can see arguments both ways)
I also note that many of my colleagues retweeted that Human Rights Watch tweet too, as well as much more full-on material. I am sure they would argue that this is a perfectly justifiable and professional act, communicating concerns by a professional human rights bodies etc. To me it shows that professional human rights bodies are not objective either, but that’s another issue which makes this even muddier.
I’m not saying someone should never be sacked for the public expression of inappropriate views (in the Quillette piece - I give the example of the police ethics officer who secretly racially abused people) but I do think it’s something that has to be undertaken calmly and after due process. You stand the person down and investigate. Then you make a decision in a cool-headed way.
It will be interesting to see what the FWC makes of all this. I hope that the right lessons are learned, namely that state funded media outlets should attempt to get beyond the silos I am speaking about in this piece. However, I am unfortunately not that hopeful.
P.S. this is the best discussion I have had a in a while on these issues, thanks both of you. It’s making me really think through what I think and why.
I agree there should be due process. Again- the nature of a complaint is that it is a complaint against someone specific. Whether or not the abc followed due process - no idea. And I agree that cancelling people is wrong. Having said that - what I heard her say was to deny things that had actually happened (ie what was said on the steps of the opera house by the mob before the war had even started, after the massacre but before the Israeli response). So I would construe this as her being held to account for her statements and that a consequence being delivered. But again no idea what the process was - again it will come out at FWC. She is far from cancelled. She is loud and proud and lots of people are listening.
That’s the thing - targeting someone turns them into a martyr among those who tend to agree. And then people say, “Well there must be something to what she says, they wouldn’t try to get rid of her otherwise!” I know when people tried to get me sacked, it didn’t change my view, and it actually turned several friends against the lobbyists who made complaints about me (no, it wasn’t on Middle Eastern issues, it was on my opinions about Popperian falsifiability in science, ffs, of all the bloody things).
Anyway, getting someone dismissed for their views runs the risk of being counterproductive. This is one of many, many reasons I’d say be very careful with calling out an individual. I’ve only ever done it once, via official channels, using official processes. I suspect other people were a lot quicker off the mark than me to complain, but I had to think about it, think through all the ramifications, and get a full picture, and make sure I did so as calmly as possible.
Absolutely, I WOULD. I happen to think that going after people personally like this is VERY dangerous, regardless of who they criticise, or whether I agree or disagree with them. Hence why, in the Quillette piece, I suggested that it was wrong to go after Israel Folau, no matter that I might disagree with his views on a personal level. I was worried it made a martyr of him. This is not a lever we should use lightly or often.
So yes, I would react EXACTLY the same way if Lattouf had said hateful things about Palestinians, gay people, Christians, any other group. It is something people have to be very careful about and that’s why I wrote the original Quillette piece. It doesn’t matter if I agree with or disagree with the person, or whether I find them offensive or not. I recognise that I may be unusual on this point. But I am entirely consistent, hence the use of examples across the political spectrum in my original piece.
Yes, just so. The whole point is - what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It’s why we don’t want to do this: the weapon that you use can be used by another against you, if the winds change.
Great article, and thankyou for your courage. I have a love hate relationship with the ABC for the same reasons. I almost felt sorry for them the other day when I over heard a speaker at a 'Mountains to the sea' rally chastising the ABC for NOT being pro-palistinian enough!!
I actually don’t mind silo’d views, the explanation for which is, contra-McLuhan, the MESSENGER is the message. Whether it’s the LA Times or Hillsdale’s Imprimus, those cognizant of the messenger will choose to read and those not, won’t.
What this needs to be seen as is just as it has been throughout mankind’s existence: interests groups once solid beginning the formation of disparate cultures. And I’m ok with that. Stasis of a culture is indistinguishable from its death.
We in the West are the result of similar splits over the millennia. Rome didn’t want to live like Greeks. Venetians took their path. The West formed over millennia with many twists and turns, from Classical times to Charlemagne, through Enlightenment, Reformation, geocentrism, heliocentrism, the French rev, the Glorious Rev and postwar period.
Contra Baby Boomers, the weather has always changed, war is the normal state of man, iceball earth has existed far more often than temperate earth, and sex wasn’t their invention.
The splits in our culture today are too great to remedy or for the disparate sides to accept. “Abortion” to the first birthday. Destroying the sports, lives, safety and dreams of females in our country through an establishment rejecting their existence. Freedom vs tyranny. Fertility vs no future. Prosperity vs the cultural, economic, educational, and moral poverty of socialism.
Educated adults, parents, those believing in and working for the American Dream for themselves and their posterity have no interest in living alongside Progressives interested only in the fantasies of communism, gender fluidity, the climate hoax, and and in no future due to no children.
What must be understood is that it’s time to recognize this split cannot be healed, and most thinking people don’t want it to be. Infanticide and sexual trafficking of girls and boys as young a 5, destroying an economy over cow farts, starting wars to expand an empire none of us want. None of these can be papered over by holding hands and singing kumbaya, nor accepted in the couple next door.
Only secession can save, for those of us who want it saved for our children and theirs, the prosperity, liberty and freedom that, when we were kids, was a given; we didn’t know it was only table stakes to a game we have no interest in playing, that, by allowing the other side a seat at the table meant we might lose it all... and that polite acceptance of their pathologies, allowing them to see our acceptance as weakness, meant that we would.
So. Silo the news. Silo the culture. Silo the country. Time to split it up. We lack the cultural cohesion from which any country could be formed, the lack of cohesion that has split cultures and countries for millennia.
In the US, I suspect the culture is pretty badly divided. The recent congress hearings with regard to academia showed a huge divide. This is less so in Australia, is my instinct. We shall see…
Well yes. In some ways, the Voice was reassuring. Despite all the media, government, big business, celebrities, sporting codes etc telling us there was only one answer, normal people decided for themselves. And you know what - that’s what democracy is about! However, the doubts of people never made it into media outlets like the ABC, SMH, the Conversation etc. I was put off publishing something in The Australian in April 2023 because I was warned it would have a bad impact on colleagues because of other controversies then raging. I still feel regretful that I got guilted into not publishing. I wasn’t worried so much about myself - I’ve weathered the storm before - but about the ramifications on colleagues.
Great article Katy (this post), resonates
Thank you.
As a decidedly non-academic, it still seems wild to me that this isn't the typical academic viewpoint. And tiny, remote, comfortable Australia is worse than many, which makes your writing even more valuable. Thank you for your efforts. 💪
Thank you for continuing to speak out and challenge our thinking
Thank you!
Love your work. Good thinking food.
Thank you.
Great post, although I am a bit surprised you only now realised this... the bias in most Australian news leaps off the page, or screen, and bites you in the face!
Did you never watch Q&A on a topic you had any idea about, and then talk about it with your academic colleagues?
Oysh, well therein lies the issue, no doubt. I NEVER WATCH QANDA. I hate it. There’s just no point watching it and getting really annoyed.
I knew there were silos, increasing in strength over time, but I hoped they just wouldn’t get worse and worse. They have.
To be clear I haven't watched it in over a decade except by accident but you do well. Except it is not really different just more flagrant.
Good thoughts, Katy. I prefer to read stuff I don’t agree with. Makes me sort through what I really believe.
When I read stuff I know I’ll agree with my neck gets sore from nodding. Painful as well as boring.
Some of my favourite academics are people with whom I disagree fundamentally. It really keeps life interesting, and yes, makes me think about what I really believe, and why I do so.
You mean the Australian version of The Monologue
YES, WELL. The very opposite of a conversation, in my view. If you want cookie-cutter pieces where you know exactly what the piece will say before you read it… that’s where to go.
Katy, maybe the piece you had published in Quillette could be updated and resubmitted to progressive outlets in the light of the Antoinette Lattouf controversy.
Paul - it’s a hugely relevant issue. Mind you, in every job there are constraints on what you can do and say. Particularly in a government funded business. I’m not sure that example is the best one...
So Paul and Tash - may not surprise you that my views on this are complex. Part of what makes this difficult is that it’s a vicious circle.
I wanted to write something reasoned on the Israel-Palestine issue. Both of you know me well enough to know - I am not a fan of Bibi and I don’t want innocent Palestinian people to die - it’s the very last thing I want. However, I am also not a fan of historically and legally inaccurate accounts of this dispute which force it into a simple binary of “Good-Bad”, “Oppressed-Oppressor”. Anyone who knows anything about the history knows it’s much more complex. A “Coloniser-Colonised” rubric is particularly inapposite, if one takes a long view of the history.
The article my friends and I wanted to publish was on the history of the Israel Palestine dispute - 5 things that people should think about before they start sounding off on this. But somewhere like the ABC would not publish us, precisely because it’s staffed by people like Lattouf who are convinced this is a simple binary. The fact that the media gatekeepers don’t allow more nuanced views then makes people who disagree scared and angry, and they lash out.
In my view, it was wrong to call for Lattouf to be sacked. Several people on the right of politics said to me that they will not sign the October Declaration because there have been too many cancellations with a view to suppress dissenting views. While it might seem like an immediate victory for Jewish, in the long run, it just makes people resentful and erodes support.
On the other hand, however, Lattouf, I am quite sure, would suppress my freedom of speech and say that the views I express are wrong and immoral. It’s like these are two self-reinforcing poles - the more the representative of a government media takes a polarized view, the more that people who have a different view will lash out against it.
Lattouf is entitled to her view. I am also entitled to my view, and, what is more, if I express my view intelligently and sensibly, my view should also be considered by a government-run media outlet. However, as things currently stand, I doubt any such article would be considered.
Also politely - you are not a journalist so have different restrictions on your private actions. This is not about freedom of speech - and even then she is constrained by anti discrimination and other constraints to ensure she the speech does not incite violence.
I also have academic freedom - although whether I have academic freedom to discuss Popperian falsifiability in light of Ridd v ACU is an interesting question. There was a suggestion by the High Court that one had to stick to one’s area of expertise, as it were. I HAVE SO MANY LANES! HOW CAN I STICK TO MY LANE? Can I not at least have an opinion about Popper? LOL. Next time I’m in Canberra I’ll ask them.
It won’t surprise you Katy that I agree with so much of what you say.
When you write - it’s an opinion piece. Clear and simple. There is no need for balance. You are presenting a view.
When journalists employed by a media company are reporting the news - they carry a journalistic obligation not to be partisan. To consider both sides. Not to advocate. To be accurate and careful with the facts. Not to be misleading. That is why so many people had an issue with what Antoinette posted on social media - it clearly established she had an agenda and intended to pursue it in her day job. That is inconsistent (in the view of many journalists) with her obligations professionally. She is also employed by the government. Like many government employees - her obligations should arguably be higher than if she was employed by a private company. That’s certainly the case for many of my friends in government owned enterprises. But suggest that’s not necessarily the case at the ABC sadly - an unfortunate double standard.
As a private citizen, she is free to tweet whatever she wants. But when her bias impacts her job… she has to choose which one she wants to do.
many professions have restrictions on their personal life, decisions and actions due to their job. That is the case for lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, and so many more. With many jobs - You simply cannot have your cake and eat it. Her situation is surprisingly common. She is not a victim - she merely breached requirements of her employment.
Appreciate people feel the Jewish ‘lobby’ overreached in complaining about her overt bias against Jews and Israel. I would prefer to say they insisted that publically funded journalists follow their professional ethics. I also note that we don’t know who else complained. Stating that she was sacked due to the Jewish lobby is just the standard libel of Jews having excessive power… we simply don’t have any evidence that this was the case. It is also possible that ABC management took a principled view about a breach of employment conditions . We will see when the FWC hearing explores this.
Yes. I suspect that what might seem to an outsider like a coordinated attempt is simply a bunch of scared individuals who are terrified that it appears that even the state media is against them.
Like you - I think the best thing would have been to make this a matter of professional ethics, and insist on even and unbiased reporting. I also think it was a huge mistake to target a particular individual, for many, many reasons. I have been consistently against targeting individuals - in another group of which I’m a member, we’ve decided that we must deal with ideas and arguments rationally, not call out individuals.
One problem is that we don’t seem to believe in objectivity or behaving in an unbiased way (witness Penny Wong’s decision to concentrate on one set of victims in this conflict, but to ignore the others - in my view, you look at both sets of victims, or you do nothing). I’ve been told by other academics that to be even-handed is inherently political and biased, and that my suggestion that we should try to look at both sides of the story makes me an oppressor of the marginalised. I disagree.
Another issue here is a blurring between the personal and the professional created by social media, which we still don’t know how to navigate. Can someone suggest I should be sacked for saying on social media that my former Union’s very anti-Israel response was not appropriate? I have been told to my face that I am a supporter of genocide for the stance I took on that issue, so I wouldn’t actually be that surprised. Is that a personal view or a view which impacts on my professional role? (I can see arguments both ways)
I also note that many of my colleagues retweeted that Human Rights Watch tweet too, as well as much more full-on material. I am sure they would argue that this is a perfectly justifiable and professional act, communicating concerns by a professional human rights bodies etc. To me it shows that professional human rights bodies are not objective either, but that’s another issue which makes this even muddier.
I’m not saying someone should never be sacked for the public expression of inappropriate views (in the Quillette piece - I give the example of the police ethics officer who secretly racially abused people) but I do think it’s something that has to be undertaken calmly and after due process. You stand the person down and investigate. Then you make a decision in a cool-headed way.
It will be interesting to see what the FWC makes of all this. I hope that the right lessons are learned, namely that state funded media outlets should attempt to get beyond the silos I am speaking about in this piece. However, I am unfortunately not that hopeful.
P.S. this is the best discussion I have had a in a while on these issues, thanks both of you. It’s making me really think through what I think and why.
I agree there should be due process. Again- the nature of a complaint is that it is a complaint against someone specific. Whether or not the abc followed due process - no idea. And I agree that cancelling people is wrong. Having said that - what I heard her say was to deny things that had actually happened (ie what was said on the steps of the opera house by the mob before the war had even started, after the massacre but before the Israeli response). So I would construe this as her being held to account for her statements and that a consequence being delivered. But again no idea what the process was - again it will come out at FWC. She is far from cancelled. She is loud and proud and lots of people are listening.
That’s the thing - targeting someone turns them into a martyr among those who tend to agree. And then people say, “Well there must be something to what she says, they wouldn’t try to get rid of her otherwise!” I know when people tried to get me sacked, it didn’t change my view, and it actually turned several friends against the lobbyists who made complaints about me (no, it wasn’t on Middle Eastern issues, it was on my opinions about Popperian falsifiability in science, ffs, of all the bloody things).
Anyway, getting someone dismissed for their views runs the risk of being counterproductive. This is one of many, many reasons I’d say be very careful with calling out an individual. I’ve only ever done it once, via official channels, using official processes. I suspect other people were a lot quicker off the mark than me to complain, but I had to think about it, think through all the ramifications, and get a full picture, and make sure I did so as calmly as possible.
The question to ask is if she had said similar things about any other minority - not against the Jews, would we still be worried about martyring her?
Absolutely, I WOULD. I happen to think that going after people personally like this is VERY dangerous, regardless of who they criticise, or whether I agree or disagree with them. Hence why, in the Quillette piece, I suggested that it was wrong to go after Israel Folau, no matter that I might disagree with his views on a personal level. I was worried it made a martyr of him. This is not a lever we should use lightly or often.
So yes, I would react EXACTLY the same way if Lattouf had said hateful things about Palestinians, gay people, Christians, any other group. It is something people have to be very careful about and that’s why I wrote the original Quillette piece. It doesn’t matter if I agree with or disagree with the person, or whether I find them offensive or not. I recognise that I may be unusual on this point. But I am entirely consistent, hence the use of examples across the political spectrum in my original piece.
Yes, just so. The whole point is - what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It’s why we don’t want to do this: the weapon that you use can be used by another against you, if the winds change.
Great article, and thankyou for your courage. I have a love hate relationship with the ABC for the same reasons. I almost felt sorry for them the other day when I over heard a speaker at a 'Mountains to the sea' rally chastising the ABC for NOT being pro-palistinian enough!!
I actually don’t mind silo’d views, the explanation for which is, contra-McLuhan, the MESSENGER is the message. Whether it’s the LA Times or Hillsdale’s Imprimus, those cognizant of the messenger will choose to read and those not, won’t.
What this needs to be seen as is just as it has been throughout mankind’s existence: interests groups once solid beginning the formation of disparate cultures. And I’m ok with that. Stasis of a culture is indistinguishable from its death.
We in the West are the result of similar splits over the millennia. Rome didn’t want to live like Greeks. Venetians took their path. The West formed over millennia with many twists and turns, from Classical times to Charlemagne, through Enlightenment, Reformation, geocentrism, heliocentrism, the French rev, the Glorious Rev and postwar period.
Contra Baby Boomers, the weather has always changed, war is the normal state of man, iceball earth has existed far more often than temperate earth, and sex wasn’t their invention.
The splits in our culture today are too great to remedy or for the disparate sides to accept. “Abortion” to the first birthday. Destroying the sports, lives, safety and dreams of females in our country through an establishment rejecting their existence. Freedom vs tyranny. Fertility vs no future. Prosperity vs the cultural, economic, educational, and moral poverty of socialism.
Educated adults, parents, those believing in and working for the American Dream for themselves and their posterity have no interest in living alongside Progressives interested only in the fantasies of communism, gender fluidity, the climate hoax, and and in no future due to no children.
What must be understood is that it’s time to recognize this split cannot be healed, and most thinking people don’t want it to be. Infanticide and sexual trafficking of girls and boys as young a 5, destroying an economy over cow farts, starting wars to expand an empire none of us want. None of these can be papered over by holding hands and singing kumbaya, nor accepted in the couple next door.
Only secession can save, for those of us who want it saved for our children and theirs, the prosperity, liberty and freedom that, when we were kids, was a given; we didn’t know it was only table stakes to a game we have no interest in playing, that, by allowing the other side a seat at the table meant we might lose it all... and that polite acceptance of their pathologies, allowing them to see our acceptance as weakness, meant that we would.
So. Silo the news. Silo the culture. Silo the country. Time to split it up. We lack the cultural cohesion from which any country could be formed, the lack of cohesion that has split cultures and countries for millennia.
In the US, I suspect the culture is pretty badly divided. The recent congress hearings with regard to academia showed a huge divide. This is less so in Australia, is my instinct. We shall see…
Cf: the voice clusterf^&% of completely detached from reality lefties?
Well yes. In some ways, the Voice was reassuring. Despite all the media, government, big business, celebrities, sporting codes etc telling us there was only one answer, normal people decided for themselves. And you know what - that’s what democracy is about! However, the doubts of people never made it into media outlets like the ABC, SMH, the Conversation etc. I was put off publishing something in The Australian in April 2023 because I was warned it would have a bad impact on colleagues because of other controversies then raging. I still feel regretful that I got guilted into not publishing. I wasn’t worried so much about myself - I’ve weathered the storm before - but about the ramifications on colleagues.