Mark Latham’s mates and defenders have deserted him after his sacking from Sky News, with only Andrew Bolt and Michael Smith somewhat defending him in editorials so far. Bolt dedicated precisely 56 words to how “sorry” he was that Latham was sacked and his feeling that “we will all be poorer without his insights into the culture wars”. Meanwhile, Smith’s punchy, unadorned prose (“Like I said, I don’t like him. But I like Sky News even less than I like Latham. The decision to sack Latham is wrong.”) expressed concern about the “ratcheting down of our freedom of speech”. Is it that ratcheting down of free speech that’s caused Latham’s right-wing allies to be silent? Or do they think he crossed the line as well?
Latham’s mates all but abandon him
Marky no mates?
article-article-bodyAbout the Author
Publication
Crikey is Australia's leading independent source of news, investigations, analysis and opinion.
Mark Latham seems to have a lot of support in the general public though. Other commentators and journalists have to tow the PC line to protect their jobs. People seem to like Mark Latham because he calls it as he sees it. Snowflakes don’t like that.
He is a bat shit crazy plank. “He call’s it as he see’s it” BS. He see’s it how he thinks complete planks, want to see it. He has bullied school boys and girls. Is that how you see it? Oh and by the way he was sacked by his employer, Sky news FFS, no snowflakes by any stretch of the imagination, wouldn’t you agree?
Nah, he didn’t ‘bully’ anyone. “Call it as he sees it BS” is way better than “PC BS”. Haven’t you noticed Sky News are now bowing down to the snowflakes? Losing viewers in droves.
FFS, he bulled a school kid and it got national prominence. He’s a former political leader. Like him or not, he has a voice in the media many do not have. Using that voice to bully a school kid is appalling behaviour. It’s not free speech. It’s not defendable. It’s not right. How anyone can try and defend this kind of behaviour quite frankly, makes me sick.
How is this about “free speech”? Latham is – well, was – employed by a private company that can dictate behavioural expectations of its employees (who are free to work elsewhere if they don’t like them.) Latham has violated those (again and again) so he’s shown the door. Nothing to see here.
Perhaps the general silence on Latho’s “freedoms” – other than from the volatile loony Smith – is because the only freedom issue here is that of a private employer to regulate the behaviour of its employees on the job.
Can’t stand Latham, back in 2004 that bastard made me give my preference to Bronny, I almost gagged
I wonder how sincere Mark Latham is in his ‘championship’ of free speech, especially for the powerless and marginalised? How would he respond if a child abuse survivor condemned him for publicly speculating, as a wealthy, privileged older man, on who a particular schoolboy might want to sleep with? He himself certainly seems to see nothing at all wrong with a privileged rich old man indulging himself in such prurient behaviour. I wonder how he would respect the right of somebody to disagree with him there.