We here at RiotACT don’t read Jessica Wright’s stuff in the Canberra Times as regularly as she seems to read ours.
And after I promised Jack Waterford I wouldn’t make her burst into tears in the newsroom any more I thought we’d have written the last about her.
Even her mother hunting down the author of a piece mocking her writing (which we removed at the author’s request such was mumsy’s fury) didn’t tempt us to write more.
So we were a little surprised to learn, a few days after the event, that she’d devoted a column to slagging RiotACT and its readers. You can see the article here [PDF].
Some might think it odd for Jessica to devote a whole column to slagging a website without informing her readers of the website’s address. Others might wonder what on earth a “blogsite” is.
It was in response to last week’s story by Pandy which, with some trepidation, I had left with his headline on (I had been passing over the site and dropped in to clear the queue).
I could have gone either way with it, but the context made it clear that there was a jocular element to the headline which was going for shock value. On balance, coming from an established contributor, I let it pass. I have to say that given the past strong defences of the Gay and Lesbian communities on this site a contra view possibly deserved some air.
To some extent I let the language through not because I agreed with it, but because I didn’t. We’re great believers around here of letting bad ideas destroy themselves.
But let’s look more at the text of Jess’s story which I’d like to examine in detail.
“Poofta marriages back on the table”
I’ll allow a few moments for the incredulity of such a bigoted statement to sink in
Is her problem with one word? Or with the statement??
“Gay marriages back on the table” seems to hardly be incredulously bigoted does it? So really Jessica meant to write “word”, and ended up writing “statement”. Some readers have expressed a hope that a future in journalism might beckon for them too on the basis of these standards, but it’s not what you know, it’s who you know kids.
Bear in mind, this is a site that purports to moderate both readers’ comments and article matter and reaches a considerable audience.
Actually we moderate as a last resort and with some sorrow, but it’s nice to have Jessica confirm the considerable nature of our audience (tip for new players, a phrase like “considerable audience” is journalist for “I’m too lazy to do any research”)
It beggars belief to think that anyone in sound state of mind could possibly entertain the necessity of such words
Jessica’s belief is obviously easily beggared. I certainly wouldn’t argue that the words were necessary, in fact it’s hard to find anywhere where we claim that only the necessary will be found on this website.
But there you have it. Predictably bloggers’ comments veer from the inappropriate to the sleazy in tone, no doubt spurned on by the title entry
For someone incensed at the use of a single word she’s certainly plenty lax in her own language. I’m not sure how one can be “spurned on”, perhaps she meant “spurred”?
Anyway the comments had a varied number of views as you’d expect for an issue where there is far from a consensus in the wider community.
Jess is extremely selective in her quoting as she finds only the ones that suit her argument before accusing we moderators of neglect in failing to expunge all thought she does not find acceptable. Now there are words to describe selective quoting from an unattributed source aren’t there??
Should she ever compile a book of her wit and wisdom we shall, in future, be sure to consult it for a listing of which ideas of the little people must be eliminated.
… it is all too easy to be a bigot and remain safe behind a computer screen. Once it was pointed white canvas masks
I don’t know about you but my Klan outfit is made from linen and not canvas. (Note to witless opinion writers: this is a joke, I have never been a member of the Klan and do not own such a costume). But now we’re on the same moral plateau as a lynch mob? My belief also, is becoming beggared. I’m also disturbed that real life murder is now being made equivalent to a tiff about one word on a website.
Would such dialogue be condoned if, say, racial slurs were used in the headline… ?
Probably not. But it would, once again, depend on a number of factors.
“Yet gay bashing, by the consent of one public forum, is deemed acceptable”
I had no idea RiotACT wielded such awesome power. I assume Jess means metaphorical gay bashing given that real physical gay bashing is still a real menace to society. But why stop with the inflammatory language there?
Oddly enough a number of Gay and Lesbian readers participated in the comments on that story, seemingly unabashed. But Jess left them out as they’d have ruined the direction of her piece.
That same-sex unions remain an ongoing argument is damning enough of our society’s level of tolerance, but to openly encourage and take part in this sort of prejudice is appalling
What, you mean by splashing it over a page of the Sunday Paper while removing all the balance?? Yes, you may have guessed that I am appalled.
Leaving that aside Jessica again seems to think that anyone who disagrees with her should be silenced. A wildly totalitarian view, she should run for parliament on that.
[For the record I think the legal aspects of marriage should be totally removed from the churches, the law should recognise civil unions of any adults for the purposes of spouse’s rights and if people want to have some sort of party they can call it whatever the hell they want to. But just because it’s my opinion doesn’t make everyone who thinks anything different unworthy of being heard.]
Jess then launches a stirring defence of same sex civil unions, issues already well covered on this forum, before once more ascribing RiotACT with astonishing powers.
In this instance, by this website’s example, the issue has been cheapened on the whole, and not a bit of it has to do with homosexuality
This website with its 24,000 visitors a month cheapened the debate about same sex unions on the whole???
We find that to be about as believable as anything else of Jessica Wright’s we’ve ever read.
If Jess had bothered to check she might have discovered that allowing the language used was a line ball decision by one editor.
But hey, much more fun to slag away the whole community with poorly thought out and badly written drivel.
Now, having made it this far dear reader, an exercise for you.
I think we can only take three quotes out of here to go in the taglines at the top of the page, please nominate your best selective quotes and discuss their merits.