If you get your news from old media (and, really, who does that these days?), you’d be finding it hard to miss the media-provoked push to cancel LGBTIQA+ recognition and inclusion.
Just these past two weeks, we’ve seen Bill Shorten get out his blue pencil to edit hospital forms, Manly getting a kicking for a one-off rainbow jumper and, in Melbourne, the Shrine of Remembrance bullied into canceling rainbow lighting.
What do they all have in common? They all start — and largely end — astroturfed out of News Corp. When they broke out of the Murdoch echo chamber, it was because too much of Australia’s media and political class still takes the US company’s culture war schtick a bit too seriously.
This latest round started two weeks ago, when Sydney’s Daily Telegraph stumbled across a Twitter whinge that hospitals were trialing “birthing parent” to describe the parent who, well, gave birth.
Step One was beating the complaint into a “news” story by adding in a critical quote from the Council for Biological Reality (previously described by News Corp as “anti-trans feminists”). Step Two: report on the outrage generated courtesy of an online readers’ poll (“An astonishing 97% of more than 2000 readers”, apparently) and reader comments (“many saying they wanted ‘radical looney ideas’ kept out of people’s lives”).
As the story bubbled on tabloid morning television, Government Services Minister Bill Shorten stepped in, directing the forms revert to “mother”. Score a win for News Corp.
The following Monday, the campaign broke onto the tabloid back pages when seven Manly rugby league players refused to wear a low-key rainbow jersey in an upcoming match being marketed as the Gotcha4Life Cup, held in support of the men’s mental health charity founded by former Triple M presenter Gus Worland.
“Woke inclusion” head-to-head with “deeply held religion” — in rugby league! For News Corp, this was too good to be true, a yarn just begging for the culture wars beat-up.
Turned out, it was a trap. Through Foxtel, News Corp is the NRL’s cable and streaming broadcaster, reportedly paying over $200 million a year for the rights. Sure, any controversy is good for ratings, but paying those bills calls for an audience well beyond the right-wing culture warriors who read their pay-walled mastheads.
Within 48 hours, News Corp found it struggling with the old question: what if you started a culture war and nobody came?
It started off okay for News. Although NRL boss Peter V’landys brushed the issue off with “we’re inclusive”, he stumbled with enough both-sidesing to give space to News’ jersey critics.
It was left to Manly’s rival on the night, Roosters coach Trent Robinson, to clean up for the code’s leadership in his pre-match interview. “To not be inclusive and not say ‘It’s OK to be who you are’ is unacceptable,” he said in congratulating Manly for the club’s stance.
On Fox Sports’ nightly flagship program NRL 360, players and coaches pushed back at attempts to enlist them. “Really?” asked former English prop James Graham. “That’s the hill you want to die on?”
Balmain star Benny Elias went further, saying that refusing to play in the rainbow jersey was “disgraceful”.
Finally, it fell to former Manly half-back and coach Geoff Toovey to shut the debate down: “I do believe that hopefully there is a higher power up there somewhere and I hope whoever it is that they’re not a bigot.”
By Thursday, the company was in clean-up mode with its more diverse rugby league audience. Fox Sports switched its Twitter feed to promoting pro-pride commentary, while over on its public-facing news product, news.com.au, op-eds supported the Manly position. In Thursday night’s match broadcast the battle front went largely unremarked.
The culture warriors had already moved on, to the proposed rainbow lighting at Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance to mark a display: Defending With Pride: Stories of LGBTQ+ Service.
News Corp’s Herald Sun tabloid led the way, creating a story drawing on outrage from commercial broadcaster Neil Mitchell and “veteran advocates”. Within days, they’d scored. The shrine cancelled the lights after threats and abuse of staff.
It quickly turned into an own-goal, with greater reporting about the display delivering an opportunity to put the issue up in, um, lights — metaphorically, at least. On Instagram the Shrine called them out: “We have seen something of what members of the LGBTIQ+ community experience every day. It is hateful.”
But on Sky after dark, the warriors were plodding on, with commentator Rita Panahi accusing supporters of the lights as “wanting a backlash, so then they could play the victim, and say look at us, we’re being oppressed again”.
Never mind the score — there’s always another outrage to beat up.
Is it time News Corp woke up to woke? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I’ll take this as the death throes of a dying industry. If you can’t make people outraged, when what reason do they have to buy a paper? It’s long past the point that anyone buys a paper to keep informed.
You would if was balanced and mainstream
I had the sense that Shorten’s intervention on the hospital forms was a sensible one.
Sensible? Birth parent describes the situation far far better than “mother”. Here’s a scenario: Lesbian parents have a child by one of the mothers. They’ll both be mothers. Only one of them will be the birth parent.
I don’t think you’ve really thought this through. The only reason Shorten intervened is because politicians are still terrified of Murdoch while the rest of Australia has moved on.
The word mother has different meanings, according to context (adoptive mother, foster mother etc) but the most common use is “one who has given birth”. I think anyone filling in a hospital form would take it this way.
Your nom de plume describes your intelligence exactly!
No, only one is the mother, the other parent is not. Quite simple.
No. Lots of kids around now with two mothers. And two fathers.
not at birth
Yes. At birth.
No, they do not. Simple biology.
Those who read Murdoch’s nonsense will soon die out. Thankfully it’s an issue most young people don’t dwell on, love is love, get over it.
Kudos to the retired football players mentioned in the article, all of whom spoke like gentleman.
Another own goal courtesy of the ever-shrinking hard right echo chamber.
What would happen to Ltd News if, hypothetically speaking, Lachlan Murdoch was ‘taken out of the picture’?
That’s something I’ve suggested about three different times in the last year. Crikey has never let any of them through, and I thought that hinting at the untimely demise of a Murdoch offended its moderation algorithm.
Lachlan could die from covid, or in a plane crash, or in a car accident, or at the hands of a jealous lover. All things that happen regularly. Of course if this was 1970s Germany the Baader Meinhoff Gang would no doubt be keen for a word.
What is the succession plan for life after Lachlan, I wonder?
Hopefully, liquidation………..