Imposed Censorship!

Allan Essery contends that commenting on opinion pieces in leftist media is waste of time. Dissenting comments don't make the grade. More fool them as they preach only to their ilk - no new customers. Maybe that's why such publications suffer plummeting sales.

If you contribute comments to opinion pieces and editorials in the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age, it doesn’t take long to work out that their ‘Moderators’ work outside their own rules to assign comments that they deem inappropriate to the rubbish bin.  God forbid you should criticize one of their leftist journalists, regardless of what tripe they dish up in the belief that they are being fair, honest and balanced.

They also disregard their own rules when it suits them to publish comment that is so obviously a breach of those rules, but so obviously supportive of their leftist agenda.  This in my opinion constitutes a form or unreasonable and inconsistent censorship and removes your freedom of speech.

There is a little club of regulars, and very much left-leaning contributors, who can be found in the comments sections every day, all day.  They take over the comments sections and prattle on to each other with, in the main, pure drivel that has little to do with the subject at hand.  They are rude, offensive and intolerant of anyone from outside their little clique who dares to have something to say.  These people, who are all pro-Labor, are given the freedom to say what they like, but try and serve it back to them and you will be rejected.

A couple of months ago, Ross Gittins, the Sydney Morning Heralds Economics Editor wrote of self-funded retirees, “These Well-Off Retirees’ Claims Are A Bit Rich.”

In typical leftist fashion he inferred, in an incredible rant, that self-funded retirees were hypocrites that were bludging off the taxpayers because they were given concessions to encourage them to put away for their future retirement and took advantage of other concessions that were available to all other retirees.

He completely disregarded the fact that these people were ensuring that they wouldn’t be a burden on the taxpayer in retirement.  Even though this man admits to having a more than generous superannuation nest egg, he claims, for some obscure reason, that he found it repulsive to call himself a self-funded retiree.(?)

He also ignored the fact that old age welfare pensioners were such because, for one reason or another, they had not put enough away for their retirement and therefore were totally reliant on the taxpayers for the remainder of their lives.   For Gittens to ignore these facts solely to lend credibility to his own agenda is a bit rich in itself.

It was fine for Gittins to call self-funded retirees hypocrites and infer they were bludgers, but when I commented that he himself was being hypocritical by taking advantage of the same concessions that other self-funded retirees were taking and therefore his scribblings had little credibility, out came the big red texta and my comment was rejected.

Try commenting on or objecting to the objectionable opinion pieces of Mike Carlton who, like Gittins, is prone to using a whole opinion piece to insult those in his sights, and your comment will never appear in print.  Carlton’s piece in today’s Sydney Morning Herald is a classic example of a pointless, offensive and nasty rant that would brook no opposing view.

The rejection of contributions that are slanderous, untrue and/or contain foul language is reasonable, but the rejection of a comment because the Moderators’, or their bosses, don’t agree with your opinion is nothing less than unwarranted censorship.

We worry about the government wanting to impose restrictions on our freedom of speech, but while the leftist print media bleat about proposed government curtailment of their freedom of the press, it is they, in fact, that actively practice censorship to prevent you from expressing opinions that don’t suit their agenda.

Alan is an ex-RAAF officer retired from active duty. He was a flight instructor and charter pilot. He also writes on matters political and is a staunch battler for ex-service superannuants. He is also rumoured to be a savvy fossicker for the yellow stuff.

Comments

[Dallas Beaufort]

1.

The so called New Matilda does not get it either as their left wing song lines fail any reality test.

[Owen]

2.

Alan,
Firstly, as a regular reader and contributor to many blogs and opinion pieces across many different platforms, i see many different views and political positions represented every day, including the SMH and the age.Anybody who spends a little bit of time on these sites would recognise this. Lets use the the debate on Jones in the Age as an example..

"I wonder how Jones would feel if people spoke as disparagingly about him as he talks about the PM? Why is he off limits?" Commenter Aydin Location Brunswick
Date and time October 01, 2012, 9:12AM

"A Cabinet ministers wife last week tweeted not to worry to much about Jones as he would be DEAD soon as he had reached the average age men die in Australia.Albanese hypocrisy on this was on full show again in the Presser this am.I note Albanese and Roxon ran away and were no where to be seen on Friday when they broke their own guidelines on paying out complaints against the government in paying out Ashby to go away. Once again our taxpayers money was used by the ALP for purely political purposes."
Commenter Andie Location Date and time October 01, 2012, 12:34PM

"Just listen to his show. Hate Radio = Sad & pitiful listeners. They call themselves the POWER Station. shows you how up themselves they are.
Commenter Bazza Location Date and time October 01, 2012, 12:44PM @Andie,

"Apparently the comment referred to Jones' age,,,,70,,,and the fact that the average life expectancy for Australian males is...79...... hardly a wish for his early demise,... more of a, 'light at the end of the tunnel.'.... but don't let the truth get in the way" Andie.
Commenter DaisyMay Location B'Bane Date and time
October 01, 2012, 2:36PM

As you can see, quite a few different opinions. Hardly a lefty love in or a echo chamber. It is difficult to know why your responses were deleted without knowing what exactly was said, i know mods have little tolerance for abuse or foul language.I have also had posts deleted for no reason whatsoever so this might have happened in your case. I don't believe its the result of a giant lefty conspiracy however. Be patient and i'm sure you will be able to put your view across.
Owen

[bobby]

3.

Wow...

Thought it was freedom of speech

[Rick]

4.

How is it any different to the 'regulars' who are commenting here?

[Sceptical Sam]

5.

Alan refers to Mike Carlton; but try giving Barrie Cassidy or Leigh Sales a bit of "constructive feedback" on the ABC's The Drum and see how you go.

And we own that organization!

[Geoff Crocker]

6.

Rick. In case you didn't notice, comments made on Menzies House are posted immediately. They are not held for scrutiny by any editor. Also, no comment is altered or deleted unless it violates policy which I suggest you might read. And, among the "regulars" on this site you will find many who exhibit solid, left-wing ideology at will. We cherish debate, not censure. Menzies House is a broad church with a pew for all. I hope you are comfortable on yours Rick.
Geoff Crocker. Ed.

[amcoz]

7.

Crock, you beat me 'two' it.

[Allan Essery]

8.

Owen, do you really believe that I am naive enough to write an opinion piece on the basis of one or two bad experiences? I am not some hysterical 25 year old right-wing fool that sees conspiracy around every corner.

I have in excess of 60 examples of rejections by the SMH and The Age that didn't contain falsities, or bad language, or slander, or deriding comment, or strayed off topic, but did contain a robust and substantiated difference of opinion written in the same tone as that used by the journalist involved. I have also submitted a number of contributions to The Australian over the same period, all written in the same style without one of them ever being rejected. How do you think that works?

I once challenged a Moderator and suggested that I may take the matter to a higher authority on the grounds that I was being discriminated against because I had an opposing view to the journalist. Within 10 minutes there was a back down and the comment in question was posted. What does that tell you?

You admit that you have had comments rejected by the SMH and/or The Age for no reason and that is the crux of my opinion piece. You have in fact proved my point.

You put up several examples that you believe support your comments, but they again prove my point because they are in agreement with the theme of the published article, just as I pointed out.

[Tee]

9.

thus essery ipso facto the Australian is a right wing mouthpiece?

[DoNotDelete]

10.

Enter the long jump in the next sporting event available to you. You'll cream it.

[Tee]

11.

no long bows here DnD follow the logic and its implications, not hard to do.

[Andrew]

12.

If you don't like the comment moderation at Fairfax websites, don't go there.

"the Internet is not public property. It’s a collection of various sites, most of which are privately owned. You do not have free speech rights on private property. It’s amazing how many ‘libertarians’ don’t get that."
Source; Those leftists at Catallaxy Files, http://catallaxyfiles.com/trolls/

[Allan]

13.

I don't care how you look at it Andrew, but if you are deprived a say on a public opinion site because you oppose the piffle contributed by some journalists then you are denied freedom of speech.
By virtue of the fact that you are invited by Fairfax and/or their journalists or agents to comment then reasonable freedom of speech if implied.

[kraka]

14.

same

[kraka]

15.

you have a link to that page Owen so we can check the claim that it isn't a lefty echo chamber? Like it's fair enough if you have posted two differing opinions out of dozens, it's complete drivel if you have found the ONLY 2 and tried to say that is prrof the Age is fair and balanced.

[Andrew]

16.

By your logic, Allan, talkback radio stations should not have the right to discern which callers they broadcast and letters editors should not have the right to choose which letters not-to-publish in the newspaper.

You conflate the concept of freedom of speech with a fundamental misunderstanding of property. You have your freedom of speech, and a right to exercise that freedom in many ways — but you have little right to impose your speech onto the property of anyone else, Fairfax or otherwise. Fairfax are not obliged to publish your opinion, and the assertion that they are is frankly, illiberal.

Now, are they censorious? Absolutely. Are they the poorer for not properly facilitating debate between opposing viewpoints? Absolutely. But they're not trampling on your freedom of speech by exercising their right as a publisher to not publish opinions they don't like.