THE response to Rick Pilkington’s article (Your Say) is a damning indictment on this site’s contributor base and seems to rather confirm Greg Barns’ view (Stodgy, myopic, complacent) of the site as moribund (this post might start something to prove otherwise, but … I doubt it).
There is much in Pilkington’s comments that provides fuel for debate (even if it is just the disabusing of the usual nonsense spouted by this contributor) and yet all we get by way of comments after several days is five posts of fluff including one of the vacuous me-too type posts that are a total blot on tasmaniantimes. Me-tooing (posting a message that praises a post but adds no new content to debate) is widely frowned upon on the net and typically considered an indicator of cluelessness or even lack of netiquette.
On to the many problems with Rick’s latest spray. Pilkington is clearly clutching for straws when he asks why Barns did not instead write about (insert list of topics here), because Barns has a very strong record of using his media profile to comment on those kinds of topics on a frequent basis whereas Pilkington’s writing on this site is dominated by the forestry issue, calling into question how much Pilkington himself really cares about these other issues. Is it so unreasonable for Barns to devote just one column out of his large collection to discussing the condition of one of the main media outlets in the state he lives in?
Real conviction
Rick blames the Democrats’ demise partly on a lack of “real conviction and passion for the plight of Tasmania’s world class wilderness” which he presumably believes is typified by Barns’ contrarianism towards deep greens. Actually Barns, as a moderate on environmental issues, is sadly atypical of the Democrats in this regard and the majority of the party remains fuzzily environmentalist with a very similar voting record to the Australian Greens. That this is not much appreciated has more to do with the Dems’ less sensationalist and stunt-driven (to put a positive spin on it) or more waffly and stodgy (to put a negative one) way of getting things done and has nothing to do with a level of passion or commitment. Incidentally the strong commitments to left environmentalism embodied in the party’s formal principles are one reason I have never joined the Democrats.
I would be surprised if Pilkington can produce any evidence that the Dems’ token attempts at product differentiation on environmental issues made any real difference to their support level. The differences in style between the Greens and the Dems mentioned above were long present before the Democrats’ vote imploded. I suspect Pilkington is simply engaging in the standard vice of most green-leaning contributors to this site, namely wilfully overestimating the influence of the forests issue on voter behaviour. The Democrats’ demise can be traced almost entirely to (i) a succession of leadership scandals and infighting and (ii) the decision by the majority of the party’s Senators to support a version of the GST. Incidentally, while it was probably support for the GST in any form that harmed the Dems electorally by making it difficult to maintain their “keeping the bastards honest” tag, it doesn’t help their legacy that the basic/processed foods distinction compromise thrashed out on the GST was a stupid piece of do-gooding that continues to hurt the working poor.
Slanging matches
Bitter slanging matches haven’t “infected” TT yet, Rick? It’s fitting Rick thanks a deceased minor religious/political activist for this claim, because the claim itself is equally dead and some of the pathetically aggro personal trash Rick has peddled in my direction in the past only goes to show why.
Finally, I’d suggest the reason nobody has raved about Barns’ admission of conflict of interest is precisely that – that he disclosed it openly, honestly and without prodding. A conflict of interest should not prevent a journalist from commenting provided it is disclosed. In this respect, Greg’s admission is surely more deserving of praise than criticism?
The logical consequence of TT’s willingness to publish more or less any legally permitted comment (however ranty, silly, misinformed, uninformative, biased or insane) as an “article” is that TT is simply an opinion site on which someone may now and then post quality commentary or even real “journalism”, but such things are the exception rather than the norm.
I do perceive that TT has only one foot in the water on the issue of neutrality and that this is hurting the site in its ability to attract a broad range of opinions. While the willingness to publish from any perspective and more or less uncensored nature is refreshing and makes the site important as an experiment in public comment, there’s still been a degree of slant in the way material is presented/hyped that makes it appear to be a biased anti-forestry site. Comments from the Editor and from in-house pseudonyms lean strongly towards the stirring-the-government-about-forestry line and add to this perception.
Many of the so-called “articles”, especially from the greener contributors, are simply overlong letters/rants that have no redeeming feature to justify putting a headline over them. But for the site’s commitment to openness there would be no excuse for publishing a lot of the tripe written here at all. Article status should be reserved for pieces that are particularly informative, thoughtful, well written, intelligent, or otherwise better than the usual green/left slop. It is disappointing to see material of too poor quality to even make the Mercury letters page flagged as in any way worth reading.
Perhaps a logical long-term development of the site is a smaller article section for quality pieces that is linked to an open-slather but moderated forum section.
Dr Kevin Bonham finds his PhD in land snail biogeography makes an excellent doorstopper, but also holds degrees in political philosophy and environmental studies. He works mainly as a freelance consultant in invertebrate ecology, management and identification for a range of employers. His other interests include, but are not limited to: chess playing/coaching/organising, the goth scene and its music, the Hobart underground live music scene, internet forums, political satire, electoral scrutineering/systems, native orchids, seashell collecting, and watching motorsport.
Earlier,
Times Future
