Scandal Tom Wills - not a good guy?

[Johnny Bananas]

No that's not what he's doing at all. That's not how Fairfax rolls.

Oh, sweetie...

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Make no mistake, the timing of the ABC article betrays its aim to damage the uniquely Australian sport, and by extension, Australia's culture. The destroyers are at it again.

You do realise the ABC is a major sports broadcaster in Australia?

I've worked on and off at the ABC as an outside contractor, mostly radio but sometimes TV, for 30 some years. Mate you have no idea. Everyone I've worked with there is just a professional, trying to do a professional job.

Talk about reds under the bed. You can't bring yourself to admit that enquiry after enquiry, most of them commissioned by the ABC's sworn enemies in the Coalition, have shown no evidence of significant bias at the ABC.

You've got one of the great resources of this nation at your fingertips, one of the the most loved and trusted institutions in Australia, and all you can do is attribute malicious intent to it.

Seriously jaundiced outlook on life.

 

[Ron The Bear]

If that's what he did, of course. It sounds like the history is disputed and I think it's best we let the historians figure it out first. So long as they can stick to the facts instead of claiming an entire side of politics is leading some crusade to expunge people from recorded history.

This is what you're hung up on. "Left" is a spectrum (as is "right"). He's clearly referring to that element of the left that seeks to deconstruct Australian culture. The statue wreckers.

Seriously jaundiced outlook on life.

It's not like the ABC is at the forefront of my thoughts. Only when they go out of their way to offend.

This is the sort of thing I don't want my taxes being spent on.

'Let's burn stuff': Q&A panellists debate violence and shattering the status quo

Special episode coinciding with Broadside feminist ideas festival ponders killing rapists and ‘positive masculinity’

www.theguardian.com

Perhaps you can't see the wood for the trees?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

From today's Flanagan article.

There are several ironies about the move from the Left to now “cancel” Wills.

"Cancel" is such a BS catch-all term. You can safely dismiss the bonafides of anyone throwing it around like it means anything.

No-one that I can recall in the two ABC articles about the Wills discovery was talking about "cancelling" Wills.

The article I posted about William Crowther's statue was particularly about imaginative ways to engage with the troublesome statue, knowing what we know now.

But yeah, all that nuance and subtely just dismissed as "cancelling".

 

[Ron The Bear]

"Cancel" is such a BS catch-all term. You can safely dismiss the bonafides of anyone throwing it around like it means anything.

No-one that I can recall in the two ABC articles about the Wills discovery was talking about "cancelling" Wills.

The article I posted about William Crowther's statue was particularly about imaginative ways to engage with the troublesome statue, knowing what we know now.

But yeah, all that nuance and subtely just dismissed as "cancelling".

Which is why Flanagan encloses it in quotes. He is reluctant to adopt the language of that brigade.

Now who's lacking nuance?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This is the sort of thing I don't want my taxes being spent on.

'Let's burn stuff': Q&A panellists debate violence and shattering the status quo

Special episode coinciding with Broadside feminist ideas festival ponders killing rapists and ‘positive masculinity’

www.theguardian.com

Perhaps you can't see the wood for the trees?

So you're not into freedom of speech? OK.

As to "your taxes", it costs you a few cents a day. I know times are tough for a lot of us, but I'm sorry to hear that you're so hard up that even that is causing you grief. There are a number of income assistance packages offered by both state and federal governments that you might want to look into.

 

[Ron The Bear]

So you're not into freedom of speech? OK.

As to "your taxes", it costs you a few cents a day. I know times are tough for a lot of us, but I'm sorry to hear that you're so hard up that even that is causing you grief. There are a number of income assistance packages offered by both state and federal governments that you might want to look into.

There's nothing in it for me and all it does is seek to alienate and disenchant. It's flagrantly anti-social. I'd prefer the money was spent more usefully.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Which is why Flanagan encloses it in quotes. He is reluctant to adopt the language of that brigade.

But no-one is talking about cancelling Wills, so it's a meaningless objection to raise.

People are talking about having a nuanced discussion about how we might view his place in history, given that these recent revelations might cause us to reassess it. Note my caution.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This is what you're hung up on. "Left" is a spectrum (as is "right"). He's clearly referring to that element of the left that seeks to deconstruct Australian culture. The statue wreckers.

Who are these people, exactly? Got any names?

Also, why is your concept of Australian culture built on whether statues of historical figures are placed in public or not?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

There's nothing in it for me and all it does is seek to alienate and disenchant. I'd prefer the money was spent more usefully.

Well maybe you need to tune in more often, sounds to me like you don't really know what it is you're criticising. There's far more to the ABC than what The Australian's unhinged vendetta against it would have you believe.

 

[Ron The Bear]

But no-one is talking about cancelling Wills, so it's a meaningless objection to raise.

People are talking about having a nuanced discussion about how we might view his place in history, given that these recent revelations might cause us to reassess it. Note my caution.

Digest the phrases "furious debate" and "binary universe" in the article.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Which is why Flanagan encloses it in quotes. He is reluctant to adopt the language of that brigade.

Now who's lacking nuance?

And yet, he's suggesting it's happening, with no evidence of such moves being made. But nobody is suggesting Wills be removed from history books, and if anyone is suggesting Wills' name be removed from ovals and any statues of him taken down, that has nothing to do with the second part of Flanagan's paragraph, which concerns the purported link between Marngrook and Australian Rules. Flanagan may be a good historian, but he's talking out of his arse in that paragraph.

 

[yodellinhank]

I think Flanagan is doing the opposite to what you say he has done.

Also, you may be the first person ever to call Martin Flanagan a prick

Let me be the second.

 

[Ron The Bear]

And yet, he's suggesting it's happening, with no evidence of such moves being made. But nobody is suggesting Wills be removed from history, and if anyone is suggesting Wills' name be removed from ovals and any statues of him taken down, that has nothing to do with the second part of Flanagan's paragraph, which concerns the purported link between Marngrook and Australian Rules. Flanagan may be a good historian, but he's talking out of his arse in that paragraph.

Heh, people have suggested it in this thread. Take Flanagan's advice, "type the words 'we killed all in sight' into Twitter and see how many tweets appear using those words to condemn Wills". It has made overseas news.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Heh, people have suggested it in this thread. Take Flanagan's advice, "type the words 'we killed all in sight' into Twitter and see how many tweets appear using those words to condemn Wills." It has made overseas news.

Oh I'm sorry, are people not allowed to condemn others now?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Digest the phrases "furious debate" and "binary universe" in the article.

Sorry, which article?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Oh I'm sorry, are people not allowed to condemn others now?

When someone writes an anonymous letter claiming a historical figure was a raging pedo, it should be accepted at face value and off-the-cuff demonisation is warranted...

Sorry, which article?

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/to...re-in-australian-history-20210924-p58uih.html

 

[Johnny Bananas]

When someone writes an anonymous letter claiming a historical figure was a raging pedo, it should be accepted at face value...

I'm not suggesting they're right to do so, that's a matter for historians to figure out if it's the real truth. But they should be allowed to do so, and it's a big stretch to say that condemnation is equal to cancelling someone by any common definition of the term.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I'm not suggesting they're right to do so, that's a matter for historians to figure out if it's the real truth. But they should be allowed to do so, and it's a big stretch to say that condemnation is equal to cancelling someone by any common definition of the term.

The ABC knows its market, knows there will be people who accept the headline unquestioningly. It's the way of the modern world, time-poor and quick to form an opinion based on not much. If you read Jackson's article without knowing who Robbie Muir was, you couldn't help but be sympathetic. But others will ingest it into a bigger picture.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The ABC knows its market, knows there will be people who accept the headline unquestioningly. It's the way of the modern world. Time-poor and quick to form an opinion based on not much.

I could say the same of every single media outlet. You're only singling out the ABC because of your own political biases, which blinds you to Fairfax (under Costello's chairmanship, at least) being an even worse offender.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Digest the phrases "furious debate" and "binary universe" in the article.

Thanks. Good article.

I'd say is there a "furious debate"?

Not that I've seen.

Is it a "binary universe"?

Not that I've seen.

And as already stated, who is saying we should "cancel" Wills?

Only Flanagan is saying people are saying we should "cancel" Will. And he does not define "cancel".

A very good nuanced article unfortunately brought down several notches by some sweeping, unexamined generalisations.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Thanks. Good article.

I'd say is there a "furious debate"?

Not that I've seen.

Is it a "binary universe"?

Not that I've seen.

And as already stated, who is saying we should "cancel" Wills?

Only Flanagan is saying people are saying we should "cancel" Will. And he does not define "cancel".

A very good nuanced article unfortunately brought down several notches by some sweeping, unexamined generalisations.

As a published Wills author he's no doubt privy to more than you or I. And that's his take on it.

I said earlier that I doubt Wills' statue would be taken down, the evidence is not strong enough. But that doesn't mean people aren't agitating for it.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I could say the same of every single media outlet. You're only singling out the ABC because of your own political biases, which blinds you to Fairfax (under Costello's chairmanship, at least) being an even worse offender.

We all have our leanings and idea of how things "should" be. Some of the ABC's content is deleterious to what I believe in, so why should I contribute financially towards it? Some of those people spruik ideas that I would call "fringe" if I was being kind. Free speech and all that, but it's not appropriate that those messages are taxpayer-funded.

I can choose to purchase Fairfax or not, and occasionally peruse it on the web. It's not all crackpots.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

As a published Wills author he's no doubt privy to more than you or I. And that's his take on it.

I said earlier that I doubt Wills' statue would be taken down, the evidence is not strong enough. But that doesn't mean people aren't agitating for it.

As is their right. (Not that I'm advocating it.)

No idea why people are getting so hot under the collar about a mere suggestion that a statue be removed.

(I, for example, would be perfectly comfortable with a decision to remove the statue of William Crowther, because I have this peculiar belief that nothing good that a man does as premier of Tasmania can compensate for the obloquy he deserves for sawing off a corpse's face. But I am a bit old-fashioned about corpse desecration. I don't think a statue of Tom Wills should be pulled down on the strength of a scurrilous, inaccuracy-riddled article in an American newspaper, but I have no problem with other people thinking it should.)

 

[Johnny Bananas]

We all have our leanings and idea of how things "should" be. Some of the ABC's content is deleterious to what I believe in, so why should I contribute financially towards it? I can choose not to purchase Fairfax, but occasionally peruse it on the web.

Because they are the only media organisation who aren't compromised by corporate sponsors and so are free to report stories that may be critical of corporate interests. They have a charter they have to abide by and consequences for their management if they don't abide by it, unlike every other media organisation. No matter how much you dislike their reporting, you can't deny that they are subject to higher standards and scrutiny than any private media outlet.

In addition, they also provide the only major outlet for the performing arts on Australian television, and provide essential news services to people in rural areas.