I've noticed Fairfax's steady decline into the gutter under the mismanagement of Peter Costello, but this latest episode leaves a particularly bad taste in the mouth. They threatened actress Rebel Wilson, who had previously not chosen to confirm her sexuality publicly, with outing her in the newspaper as being in a same-sex relationship. Human excrement Andrew Convery not only admits this without any hint of shame, but has the gall to write a column whinging about Wilson's decision to subsequently come out on social media, pre-empting the SMHs exclusive scoop.
Human excrement goes on to write that "Considering how bitterly Wilson had complained about poor journalism standards when she successfully sued Woman’s Day for defamation, her choice to ignore our discreet, genuine and honest queries was, in our view, underwhelming", as though the SMH were the ones who had been wronged. It's sanctimonious, self-indulgent tripe. Why would she want everyone to learn of her sexuality from a newspaper gossip column, rather than announcing it on her own terms? She ignored their queries because they were blackmailing her!
You may ask, why does this matter in 2022? We're all cool with gays and bis now, so what's the big deal? And who cares what happens to celebrities? Well, I'll give you three reasons why it matters:
1. As much as Western society may have progressed towards the acceptance of gay, lesbian and bisexual people, homophobia still happens. In his article, human excrement wrote "It is unlikely she would have experienced the sort of discrimination let alone homophobia – subconscious or overt – that sadly still affects so many gay, lesbian and non-hetero people". But how the hell would he know what she has experienced, or what her family situation is?
Because it's still quite a sensitive topic for many people and their understandable fears of mistreatment from society, outing others is ugly, whether they be a celebrity or an average Joe/Jane. It should always be left up to the individual to do on their own terms, not some media sh!tbag posting celebrity clickbait.
2. The continuing issues gays, lesbians and bisexuals face often come from people who claim to have no problem with them existing, but do not want themselves or their families to see or hear of same-sex relationships in public. I'm sure you've heard the twits who say "I don't mind gay people, I just don't like how they rub it in our faces!" or some other amusingly-phrased claptrap. I call this soft homophobia.
Those people are still pretty numerous, which is why the story of a celebrity being revealed to be same-sex attracted is still considered "news" and apparently worthy of being printed in a national newspaper (no matter how much of a pathetic tabloid it has degenerated into). It's controversial with those types and sparks them into discussion and engagement on social media.
Well, Wilson was keeping it quiet until the media barged in. Yes, she'd previously been in a heterosexual relationship in the public eye, but nobody cares about that. In this one, she was just keeping to herself until the SMH forced her to come out. Despite human excrement claiming her previous relationship being public somehow means that every subsequent one has some sort of duty to be public too, she chose differently because she knows the response will be very different.
But how is any prominent figure supposed to treat their same-sex attraction as not being a big deal, when the media sets out to make it a story to set off the soft homophobes? The SMH are keeping this nonsense going by treating it as a big deal.
3. It shows further proof of the sad decay of journalism in Australia. It's clear in both football and political media that journalists see themselves as upholding a noble tradition of holding public figures to account, when in reality most of them are corrupt, bullying knobs who peddle bullish!t to either serve the propaganda agenda of their masters, or to be controversial for the sake of generating clicks. That part is nothing new. But it's come to a new level when a paper is openly patting itself on the back for such sh!tbag behaviour and blaming the people they're bullying for the results of said bullying.
Now of course, the SMH is going to face absolutely no consequences from this. Their subscribers will still loyally stick around, rewarding them for their uselessness, and everyone will have forgotten this in a week. But I hope one day society wakes up to the ugliness of contemporary journalism and thinks of journalists with the sort of disdain they usually give to lawyers. I can't see any serious movement emerging to force the media into more ethical reporting, but maybe public disgust with the profession will pop some of their bubbles.
Rebel starts spreading the news of relationship
This Private Sydney column about Rebel Wilson has been taken down.
www.smh.com.au
Human excrement goes on to write that "Considering how bitterly Wilson had complained about poor journalism standards when she successfully sued Woman’s Day for defamation, her choice to ignore our discreet, genuine and honest queries was, in our view, underwhelming", as though the SMH were the ones who had been wronged. It's sanctimonious, self-indulgent tripe. Why would she want everyone to learn of her sexuality from a newspaper gossip column, rather than announcing it on her own terms? She ignored their queries because they were blackmailing her!
You may ask, why does this matter in 2022? We're all cool with gays and bis now, so what's the big deal? And who cares what happens to celebrities? Well, I'll give you three reasons why it matters:
1. As much as Western society may have progressed towards the acceptance of gay, lesbian and bisexual people, homophobia still happens. In his article, human excrement wrote "It is unlikely she would have experienced the sort of discrimination let alone homophobia – subconscious or overt – that sadly still affects so many gay, lesbian and non-hetero people". But how the hell would he know what she has experienced, or what her family situation is?
Because it's still quite a sensitive topic for many people and their understandable fears of mistreatment from society, outing others is ugly, whether they be a celebrity or an average Joe/Jane. It should always be left up to the individual to do on their own terms, not some media sh!tbag posting celebrity clickbait.
2. The continuing issues gays, lesbians and bisexuals face often come from people who claim to have no problem with them existing, but do not want themselves or their families to see or hear of same-sex relationships in public. I'm sure you've heard the twits who say "I don't mind gay people, I just don't like how they rub it in our faces!" or some other amusingly-phrased claptrap. I call this soft homophobia.
Those people are still pretty numerous, which is why the story of a celebrity being revealed to be same-sex attracted is still considered "news" and apparently worthy of being printed in a national newspaper (no matter how much of a pathetic tabloid it has degenerated into). It's controversial with those types and sparks them into discussion and engagement on social media.
Well, Wilson was keeping it quiet until the media barged in. Yes, she'd previously been in a heterosexual relationship in the public eye, but nobody cares about that. In this one, she was just keeping to herself until the SMH forced her to come out. Despite human excrement claiming her previous relationship being public somehow means that every subsequent one has some sort of duty to be public too, she chose differently because she knows the response will be very different.
But how is any prominent figure supposed to treat their same-sex attraction as not being a big deal, when the media sets out to make it a story to set off the soft homophobes? The SMH are keeping this nonsense going by treating it as a big deal.
3. It shows further proof of the sad decay of journalism in Australia. It's clear in both football and political media that journalists see themselves as upholding a noble tradition of holding public figures to account, when in reality most of them are corrupt, bullying knobs who peddle bullish!t to either serve the propaganda agenda of their masters, or to be controversial for the sake of generating clicks. That part is nothing new. But it's come to a new level when a paper is openly patting itself on the back for such sh!tbag behaviour and blaming the people they're bullying for the results of said bullying.
Now of course, the SMH is going to face absolutely no consequences from this. Their subscribers will still loyally stick around, rewarding them for their uselessness, and everyone will have forgotten this in a week. But I hope one day society wakes up to the ugliness of contemporary journalism and thinks of journalists with the sort of disdain they usually give to lawyers. I can't see any serious movement emerging to force the media into more ethical reporting, but maybe public disgust with the profession will pop some of their bubbles.
Last edited: