On Rundle and the Greens
Fiona Scarff writes: Re. “Rundle: on the road with Di Natale, and why I will vote for the Greens” (Friday). Crikey is great, a refreshing source of independent analysis. And Guy Rundle’s articles are interesting and thought-provoking. And let me add that I am going to vote for the Greens too, and don’t have much time for Dave Feeney. But the references to ‘tongue’ in yesterday’s article were utterly offensive, and I cannot imagine but that most of the Crikey readership would have found it so. As well as completely unnecessary to the style and substance of the rest of the article. How on earth did that get past the editor? Pull your head in, Rundle.
Crikey’s editor responds: Guy Rundle, high on election fever, went beyond the pale. And in the cold light of day we’re happy to concede we shouldn’t have released those lines to the world. They have been removed. Crikey apologises for any offence caused.
“Crikey apologises for any offence caused.”
Sod it Cassidy, you can do better than that for an apology.
Really? As a long time Crikey reader and even longer time woman I can report that I survived Guy’s article as it was. What angers me much more than the off-colour sentiment in one tiny portion of the original article is Jane Hollingshead presuming to speak for all women and whether we are/are not offended. Sod off Jane, I can think and speak for myself.
Guy’s writing is always terrific but this election has been the only think keeping me from sticking my head in the oven.
How would you feel if Bolter had written the same thing about your candidate?
He has done himself no favours by this lapse.
I have just written directly to the Crikey team:
I see your guidelines state:
“In short, we ask that people “play the ball not the person”. In other words we encourage readers to engage in spirited discussion but not to use that opportunity to show an undue level of discourtesy to another reader. ”
This was not the case on Friday when Guy Rundle commented on David Feeney and his wife at the pre-poll booth. As others may have already noted, this was pretty poor piece of so-called journalism reflecting a rather antagonistic Greens bias.
I have 2 questions please:
(1) Did his article breach the guidelines and why was it not vetted?
(2) As an ALP supporter, could I be justified in withdrawing my subscription on the basis that Crikey is too pro-Greens in its coverage ( it certainly seems like it does not subject them and their policies to much scrutiny).
Crikey pro-Greens ?
Thanks, that’s the best laugh I’ve had since the Bolter losing his ‘nana last night (which to be fair was pretty damn funny).
Yes, Bolter was fun.
But, many of my comrades are sensitive to bias and think Crikey has a blind spot when it comes to the greens.
Guy ‘s article did nothing but reinforce that impression.
I agree with BSquaredInOz ,thank you, I bet it’s the right wing labor people making complaints, Guy writes a lot of stuff you like, then writes something you dont like, and your up him like a rat up a rope, show’s your true colours that’s all.
Why so defensive ?
I am more left than right.
I write to object in the strongest possible etc. Rundle without his lacerating, highly-personalised and deeply un-PC needling of the pompous, the humourless, the hair-trigger’d and especially the vast & growing battalions of First World Auto-Offended Elites is like kissing Rachel McAdams without any ton*ue.
* Censored to avoid causing offens*e.**
** Censorship censored to avoid causing offense via pat*rnalistic presumption***
***Censoring of censorship of censorship…ah, stuff it. Show us your knockers and knob, Crikey!!!!!! Phwoooaaarrrr!!!