John Leonard said:
"I see that Miranda Devine has another screed on the Bush Fires and
"greenies" in the online SMH.
Whatever your views of Ms Devine and her views it is important to
realise that newspaper columnists are now paid partly according to the
number of clicks on their columns online. So it's not worth clicking
on the column of someone you know you are going to disagree with
merely to exercise scorn and contempt.
On the other hand, click away on the columns of those writers you like!
--
John Leonard"
and
L&L Knight said:
"I suspect that columnists such as the one you name function as societal
bile ducts. Their role is to dissolve support for admirable things such as
birds and bushland."
and
Alistair McKeough said:
"I actively avoid Divine's columns at all simply because I know they'll be
dripping with vitriol, entirely lacking in any journalistic merit and will
just upset me.
The only thing that would get me even remotely interested in Devine is if I
was alerted to a threat that she might be threatening to cross breed with
Andrew Bolt, in which case drastic action would be required.
Alistair"
I say:
Wow!
So much for:
- freedom of expression;
- freedom of speech:
- freedom of the press;
- listening to "the other point of view";
- listening to a diversity of opinion.
So much:
- vitriol in some members of this group;
- bias of thought;
- bigotry;
- intolerance of others opinions;
- narrow-mindedness.
I read Miranda Devine's original article (I was curious to see what was
upsetting so many people in this group) and found it quite interesting and
intriguing. Subsequent events and comments aired on radio and TV have
indicated to me that many citizens of Australia have views similar to the
ones stated by Devine in that article. Therefore it seems to me that she was
justified in writing that article. I am sure she did not originate the topic
but was simply reacting, as a journalist, to comments she had heard
(possible not first-hand and therefore possibly not accurate) from some, at
least, of those people directly affected by the fires.
It is quite understandable that people affected by the fires will be looking
for someone or something to blame and the environment-protection groups are
the obvious choice. That is not to say that those groups are really to blame
but they are, at the moment, the easiest and the most obvious ones to which
to attach the blame.
It will do no good what so ever to vigorously implore members of this group
to ignore what people such as Miranda Devine are saying on this topic.
People like her have a much wider audience than BirdingAus.
It would be far better to encourage people to read those articles and to
listen to the people saying the things Devine writes about and then
examining why those views are prevalent.
Listen to what is being said and produce valid arguments as to the "correct"
point of view and then publically state them.
Write to the papers and put forward your arguments to counter Devine's
comments; tell the world what the "answer" is but don't encourage other
people to maintain their ignorance.
What happened on "Black Saturday" this year has been monumental and will
continue to affect the fabric of the Australian society for a long time to
come. What we want now is reasonable thought on the topic; we need to listen
to all sorts of opinions on remedies for the factors which contributed to
the disaster; we need to know how different people think about what has
happened and we need to be open-minded. We don't need to close our minds,
our eyes and our ears to what people are saying and thinking.
If any of the BirdingAus members mentioned above have different points of
view to Miranda Devine and the hundreds of people directly affected by the
fires I would be glad to hear or read them so I can judge if they are any
more sensible on this topic than that "accursed" journalist.
Incidentally, I am not related to Miranda Devine (or Andrew Bolt) and I
don't normally read the SMH.
But I am glad to see that Devine has stirred up some emotions in this group
but I wait now to see if sensible, reasoned argument will emanate from those
so stirred.
Note: Feel free to respond to what I have written above, but please note
that I will not answer anything that I consider abusive, childish,
ill-considered, frivolous, mean-spirited, etc.
I am likely to respond to what I consider to be reasonable and sensible
comments, provided it doesn't offend my own bigoted, biased, narrow-minded
way of thinking.
Cheers
Bob Inglis
Sandstone Point
Qld
It has been claimed that Confucius said "Learning without thought is labour
lost; thought without learning is perilous." Think about it.
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
