I. The Democratization of Opinion
Andrew Leigh, an ANU economist who writes for On Line Opinion (“OLO”), argued recently that the opinion pages of Australia’s broadsheets assume an importance in national debate that is unmatched by their foreign counterparts. The reason, he suggested, is because Australia lacks a second tier of quality opinion journals: we have no NYRB, no Prospect, no Nation, and so on. (Andrew is mostly correct, although the Wall Street Journal and New York Times opinion pages are examples of op-ed pages that have a real and powerful impact on policy in America.)
Australia doesn’t have the dense population necessary to make Quadrant, Arena or Dissent more than pale imitations of their Anglo-American counterparts. And the result of this situation is that competition for column inches on the broadsheet op-ed pages is very tough.
In turn, this effect spills over into the online sector. A number of internet media sites have, in a very quick period, assumed an importance in national debate that is arguably unmatched in larger countries. I suspect that OLO has, over a short period, eclipsed its excellent UK counterpart (openDemocracy) in terms of its impact on the mainstream.
However, several statements made about OLO during the course of the TT debate are unfair. Insofar as OLO has the backing of two universities, several senior politicians, two full-time editors and access to contributions – gratis – from a wide range of writers, to say that OLO is of higher quality is trite. However, those on this site who have criticised OLO (I mean its articles, not its forum) for being conservative give away their own warped understanding of Australian politics. OLO certainly has its Tories but overall, it’s a very balanced publication: everyone from Harradine on abortion through to members of the NSW Naturist Party. It’s easy, for some living in soft-left pockets of a rather quirky state, to develop a skewed view of the run of opinion that represents the mainstream in the cities of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria.
Blurred line
This brings us to that blurred line between op-ed writing and participatory democracy. OLO decided to stake its claim on the op-ed side of the fence, while using another part of the site, the National Forum, to provide opportunities for participation. And that requires exercising rigorous editorial control over OLO itself.
Contributors to TT should engage in a discussion with Lindsay Tuffin about their self-understandings of the site: are they writing op-eds (in which case, they might consider themselves bound by basic norms of journalistic ethics), or is it an online debating chamber?
Tasmania is a small place in which the existence of a critical mass of contributors to any remotely intellectual endeavour is always precarious. Part of the value of Lindsay’s stewardship of TT has been his encouragement of debate where there is little but that is a value in tension with the exercise of stricter quality control.
My own view is that a reorganization of the index page could assist readers quickly to select articles that interest them and to pass over those that don’t. A simple title and by-line, OLO-style, is all that’s necessary. In which case, if one doesn’t want to read phill Parsons, ‘Lennon, Pesticides and Ethiopian Poverty: the missing links revealed’, then it’s easier to ignore. I would like to see more of (in no particular order): Richard Herr, Saul Eslake, Natasha Cica, Rodney Croome (on his good days), Greg Barns, and James Boyce. Without naming names, I would like to see fewer of the more craven contributions. And, as Associate Prof Herr did recently, I’d like to see more contributions from academia. The University of Tasmania is a rich resource that public debate in the state should draw upon more frequently.
II. Laws electoral and Contributors anonymous
The Federal Government has proposed amendments to clarify the application of electoral comment provisions to online publications. Although, in many cases, it will be difficult to enforce, I agree with that proposal. There are few things more irritating than anonymous contributions or those written under pseudonyms without good cause.
The occasional, fierce attacks in the comments section of my own blog, under the cover of anonymity, are cowardly and sufficiently irritating to lead me to consider removing the ability to post anonymous comments.
People who make contributions to political debate should do so openly and declare personal interests in political parties and shareholdings. Some TT contributors would do well to heed that principle.
III. “E-permanence”
OLO has been classified by the National Library of Australia as an online publication of national significance and is permanently archived in PANDORA. That is recognition of the journal’s role in the debate.
In relation to TT, we cannot expect Lindsay’s time and generosity to be limitless and consideration should be given to approaching the Tasmanian archives or library to assist in maintaining TT articles for posterity.
For those interested, NLA Director of Digital Archives, Margaret Phillips, discusses issues of e-permanence and democracy here: http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2004/phillips1.html
IV. The Tasmanian Discourse: in defence of contrarians
Finally, the Mercury-TasmanianTimes episode has reopened some old sores on the face of Tasmanian political and intellectual discourse.
Before some of the regulars predictably accuse me of being a stooge, I should observe that Greg Barns and I, though agreeing on many issues, also disagree upon many, including: various aspects of foreign policy, mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and some aspects of constitutional reform.
However, many of the reactions to Greg’s piece in the Mercury have misread his contribution to Tasmanian public life in an unfortunate way. Like me, I suspect Greg has a strong belief in the value of a clash of ideas as being the procedure best suited to achieving outcomes in the policy, parliamentary or judicial processes. That belief in the importance of adversarial procedures is at the heart of our parliamentary and judicial systems of government.
In this vein, Greg, like me, often attacks sacred cows to stir up debate. And like all small places, Tasmania suffers from a particular abundance of sacred cows. A perfect example is the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra. Barns and I are among the few of sufficiently “contrarian” disposition to attack this sacred cow in public. And rightly so; some of the claims made about the TSO’s quality are made from positions of ignorance and are rather absurd. Anyone who seriously believes that the TSO is Australia’s best small orchestra, let alone “the world’s best small orchestra”, as its publicity claims, is invited to join me Angel Place for a performance of the Australian Chamber Orchestra.
This idea of contrarian critics is explicated in Christopher Hitchens’ Letters to a Young Contrarian. Many who perform contrarian roles in public debate combine eclectic sources and range from literature, film and art, through to politics or law, as does Greg Barns. If Hitchens is a left-leaning example, a right wing analogue is Mark Steyn, although I don’t venture to suggest that Steyn is as literary in his focus as Hitchens is in his more serious literary criticism.
It takes a certain courage and ability to weather personal attacks from all sides, in order to perform such a role in public debate. In contemporary Australia, that is made all the more difficult for small-l liberals like Barns or me, who have to endure the vitriol of the fringe Left one week and of the Family First Right the next.
To remain cognizant of those ideas, in particular, the notion of ‘contrarian’ critics may lead Greg Barns’ critics to a more enlightened and nuanced reading of his contributions to public debate.
Earlier:
Your Say
Stodgy, myopic, complacent
