Garry Stannus: Leave us kids alone. I feel pretty negative about the idea.
Chris Harries: Yes, every blog site should have a visible code-of-ethics for contributors.
Garry Stannus
What’s “The Crikey code: Ditto Tasmanian Times?” all about? Sometimes I just can’t join the dots. I miss pieces of the jig-saw puzzle. Was TT in some sort of legal peril earlier in the year? Or is this about those few on TT who seem to regularly annoy the hell out of everyone else?
Who wants a code of conduct! Just another brick in the wall. Censorship? Leave us kids alone. I feel pretty negative about the idea. I don’t read Crikey, don’t read Andrew Bolt. I do read TT, the Examiner, and listen to ABC local and national radio. TT is really good because it let’s you write the paper yourself. Empowering etc.
Couldn’t make out what was going on with Bolt and Crikey. Did he threaten to sue? For me, TT is not about being uplifted, it’s because there is nowhere else for me to go. I accept David saying he wants healthy debate and thoughtful ideas. Fair enough. But that’s not what I personally need from TT. I need creativity, (Karl’s cartoons) I need access to points-of-view from ‘my side of the tracks’ (I get it), I need communion with others in the Tasmanian community, whose manner, intelligences or personalities I have come to respect/like. I need being able to contribute, yet this hamstrung state specialises in socio-politico absurdities.
I am talking of the preparedness of the majority of our population to choose Tweedledum then Tweedledee, either of who will cheerfully continue the relentless assault on this island. We carry on a life in spite of them, with our urban events, book launches, recitals, public lectures, rallies and the like. But always it seems in the face of overwhelming strength, of a malign government/opposition, a traduced public service and selfish, ignorant and uncaring general public.
So here I am. Washed up on the shore of Tasmanian Times. Is Citizen X is about to move a motion amongst the refugee collective that we will adopt the rules of the rulers, and we will agree to abandon our dreams of free speech, of input etc? A special thanks to those correspondents to TT who have made such a consideration possible.
A little while ago, I got to the point of exasperation with the serial offenders on this journal. I took the view that it was our responsibility to deal with the problems ourselves. After all, why wait for a government or an editor to impose more control? I wrote an article, exposing one of the serial offenders for what they had been doing, with some measure of skill, difference and readability. In fact, it was an article/comment intended to deal ‘from the floor’ with some of what I take to be the issues below the surface of the oblique “The Crikey code: Ditto Tasmanian Times?” Lindsay decided not to publish my piece, writing:
“Hi garry … many thanks for this … in relation to … [Mr X] … I’ve still got that on pause … because the site has generally degenerated into lots of slagging off. And I fear this will rev it up again….I try to be as hands off as possible, but this had to happen. All good things, Linz!x”
I accept Lindsay’s goodness, and the value of TT. Still, I haven’t yet got past this episode. You see, I thought I’d been writing within the borders of “A forum of discussion and dissent — a cheeky, irreverent challenge to the mass media’s obsession with popularity, superficiality and celebrity. Balance is appeasement.
Fairness is truth.”
Now, miserably, I’ve got baggage.
Chris Harries
Yes, every blog site should have a visible code-of-ethics for contributors. People need to be reminded not to get into backbiting and senseless put-downs – such things degrade the discussion and turn people off.
It all comes down to nuance of language. Most folk are not versed in defamation law and don’t know when they may be crossing a line. There is also a question of basic respect for the rights of other contributors’ right to have a say, even where we may despise their values.
If somebody calls me a twit, I can handle that but it does nothing for reasoned debate to use such language.
However, good blog etiquette should definitely not mean killing off passion or stridency. People who feel violated, or who feel their values are violated, will want to speak out very loudly and boldly, and so they should. There are far too many people who complacently follow the ‘consume – be silent – die’ edict and their collective silence is what allows terrible things to happen in the world. It is a valuable role of Tas Times to enable passionate views to get a good airing.
As for warding off unwarranted criticism of government, blog sites do not have legal immunity (unlike parliament) and contributors do have to be careful. But close scrutiny, and thereby criticism, of elected representatives allows much wider discretion in law than that of private citizens. That is a necessary facet of democratic accuntability.
Again it all comes down to nuance of language. Like many others I believe the Tasmanian Government to be deeply corrupt. They have corrupted many things, including good laws, inclusive process and traditional Labor values. I also believe their deliberations are influenced by corporate donations and business ties. So there!
I hasten to add that none of this behaviour is necessarily illegal, just par for the course in politics. That said, if I use the word ‘corruption’ in relation to a person I do have to be careful not to infer any illegality has taken place, and so demean the person, unless I am very sure of my facts and am prepared to face the consequences.
Every blog site tends to develop its own readership and culture. And level of maturity. I notice that within the most mature sites contributors tend to sign off using their own names, not hide behind pseudonyms. It is much easier to drift across the line if you think that readers don’t know who you are.
Lastly, we should be mindful that blog sites are heavily male dominated, I think more so than live conversation is. Just go through the lists of participants of almost any site. This bias tends to invoke a masculine kind of exchange, and this, in turn, probably entrenches a certain kind of readership.
Good sites should cultivate a space where everyone should feel comfortable participating in lively, impassioned discussions.
