We’ve often marvelled at how erroneous pieces of journalism could ever possibly have been published, and yet here we are.
As columnists, journalists and editors, our mistakes can have momentous consequences for individual people. It is never okay to forget that, but especially so when covering issues of allegations of sexual assault, or any issue that concerns vulnerable people.
The piece written by Guy Rundle last Friday, which did not meet Crikey’s journalistic standards, should not have been published. As editors, we take full responsibility for publishing the piece. Our editorial processes failed. We are in the process of addressing that.
Rundle’s writing can challenge people to think differently, surprise and provide in-depth context — all the kind of coverage Crikey aspires to. But this piece didn’t do any of those things. There is a line, and this crossed that. Crikey does not seek to cause harm. This caused harm.
Private Media’s conversations with Rundle are ongoing. Rundle states that he stands by the argument made in the article and the article’s overall approach to the matter.
Opinion pieces can sometimes be dismissed as just that, one person’s opinion. But they don’t exist in a vacuum. Publishing a piece like that has a knock-on effect: on Friday the excellent work of our journalists and contributors was undermined and overshadowed by the understandable reaction to this column.
We are reworking our work flow and will add an extra set of guardrails when it comes to approval processes. We are also in the middle of reforming our commissioning and editing processes. This is in the context of a small newsroom that publishes mainly across the morning and sometimes across the afternoon.
We are also creating a more explicit set of guiding editorial principles for opinion pieces, which we will then share with readers and contributors. We continue to be committed to publishing opinions that might be uncomfortable, challenge norms, enrage, and contradict what we may have already written. But it is possible to balance those things against other crucial considerations too.
As female journalists, we feel acute regret as the publishers of this piece. We’d be lying if we said that catering to a Crikey audience as women is not sometimes difficult. As with any news outlet, to publish any kind of opinion piece doesn’t ever necessarily mean that editors endorse the sentiments, but in this instance, we want to highlight that.
Crikey has made mistakes and questionable publishing choices in the past, and we can’t own all of them nor can we wipe them all from the record. What we can do is pledge to make material changes as a result of this moment, to be transparent about our next steps and own our mistakes entirely. Our publishing company Private Media and our editorial team are committed to ensuring this never happens again.
Most importantly we say sorry again to Brittany Higgins for the hurt the piece caused.
Sophie Black, editor-in-chief, Crikey
Gina Rushton, editor, Crikey
It is one thing to spike a piece before publication if it does not measure up, or to require changes. That is part of an editor’s job and happens routinely with all sorts of media. But to publish and then immediately buckle and remove an article because of some reaction shows a combination of spinelessness and real editorial incompetence.
Of course it is not ‘necessary’ for the editor or the publication to endorse all the sentiments in every article. One of the obvious reasons for publishing opinion with a by-line is to show whose opinion it is. This should not need saying! The only time an opinion piece can be taken as the opinion of the publication is when the piece is published as an editorial. Is this not common knowledge that should be assumed?
Crikey has blundered horribly in the way it handled this, and the above editorial does nothing to alter that conclusion. I am glad to see Rundle at least has the integrity not to resile or recant, but for Crikey I have grave doubts. I’ve been a subscriber since March 2007 and I have never before been so disturbed and disappointed by the way it is run.
If anything, this has been very instructive for a relative newcomer to Crikey as to what kind of intellectual mettle its editors actually possess.
amateur hour totally agree
we are still yet to see. I hope
Agreed. Utter editorial incompetence and craven spinelessness sums up the whole messy affair perfectly.
If Rundle ends up having to walk, then the editorial team behind this should be walked too.
Absolutely agree. The editorial is an astonishing act of groveling. It Rundle goes so does my subscripton.
You don’t care he got his facts wrong?
Which ‘facts‘ would they be?
Aside from outrageously offensive & insensitive in his comments about an alleged sexual assault victim, Guy got his facts wrong. Full stop.
And we keep going round in circles. Your comment is exactly like others. Someone asks in reply what are these facts that Rundle got wrong, and there is no answer, which rather suggests you don’t know. As for ‘outrageously offensive & insensitive’, well, like beauty, I suppose we should agree that is all in the eye of the beholder. Whatever, it does not give grounds for the censorship that took place.
I found the piece challenging, uncomfortable and I didn’t agree with it.
However, I don’t agree that it should be taken down or GR censured so.
I’d like to see what these ‘other crucial considerations’ are before making my own judgement on what your view of opinion writing is, what scope and room to breathe you will give it
GR is definitely one of the most interesting, thought-provoking and often contrarian writers going around. But I think you already know that.
Absolutely agree. Guy is the main man for me on Crikey. I was away out bush last week so missed the kerfuffle. I would like to read the article myself and make my own decisions but I can’t do that know can I??? This cancel business is out of control.
I saved a hard copy – email me at jackrobertson@ozemail.com.au and I will send it to. chrs
Agree. Hope I can go back and read it.
email me at jackrobertson@ozemail.com.au and I’ll send you a copy gilderjohn57…or, if you OK it here in the comments, I’ll email it to that address gmail adress. Shout out if you want me to.
I’d like to have a copy. I missed the edition that day and I only saw edited bits from the piece.
The article was misogynistic nonsense and Rundle and anyone associated with it should be ashamed
which bits, and why.
Yes, I read it but missed those bits.
I saw only the first few lines of GR’s piece. It seemed to be pointing out that the compensation paid to Brittany Higgins was rather quick. This does not seem to me to be a harmful view. And I, too, am a woman. Slightly bamboozled by why editors find “catering to a Crikey audience as women” sometimes difficult. Don’t always agree with GR but he’s 75% of the reason why I subscribe. Struggling to understand why you would remove anything he writes.
I have mixed feelings on this 3rd party inception -after the fact;”We have unpublished a piece” is an impossible feat, unless one could time travel or had the article never been read. The opinion of the journalist/ author has been expressed.. I can’t remember the work in question and feel a bit controlled…. yawn yet more of the same from the same voices where are senior womens’ voices is this a ponzi scheme for female journalists ?
Had you read the entire piece, you would know why it was so objectionable.
I have a hard copy. Email me at jackrobertson@ozemail.com.au if you would like to make up your own mind.
Sophie, Gina: cite cite cite quote quote quote Guy Rundle’s alleged ‘factual errors’ please. Line-by-line his failures of Crikey’s ‘journalistic standards’.
Using Guy Rundle’s material primary source words, please, not yours.
Thank you, Crikey Editors, in advance.
Publish my comment, Sophie. Decide what sort of writers and organ you want to be. Now..is it.
why should they. Enough said.
I think the worst thing he said was being sexually abused Parliament house is not a great career move. Yeah, nice that.
Yep thats prolly fair enough, Norelle Feehan. I am a tedious gobby pain in the arse and I’ve had my share of real estate.
So long AS the rest of you keep asking the Editors to line-by-line justify their censorship publicly. It is very very important to the future tenability of this site as a serious, independent, pluralist platform. Not to mention to a good writer’s ongoing capacity to earn a living.
Every single working writer should grasp this, regardless of your politics, gender, ideology, colour, sexuality, shape, size, reach, ambition or skill with words. All you all have to sell…is the authorial credibility of your byline. You must defend it. And we readers must support them in doing so, when we think that their byline, their words, have been unfairly injured.
In my readerly opinion, anyway.
You take that ‘worst thing’ way out of context and in very bad faith, by the way. That bit is not ‘fair enough’ at all. Crikey should republish Rundle’s article and explain clearly line-by-line why they unpublished it.
But, yes, it’s of zero account whether or not my own modded comment gets up. Enough said, from me. The site can of course choose to do whatever the hell it wants. It’s theirs, as ever, not mine. Chrs.
That’s not what he said at all. He said “being found naked and asleep on your boss’s office sofa is a career killer…”. Self evident if you ask me.
With that in mind, do you want to review your position?
Sorry, I missed your more than adequate response and made the same point.
(Hello world test)
He didn’t say that and it’s pretty grubby to misquote him. Easy to throw around accusations now that the article has been “unpublished” – the first of many corporate weasel words in this offensive editorial.
Objectionable doesn’t equate with “unpunishable”.
Yeah nah. It’s objectionable to YOU specifically. It’s not objectively objectionable. Your opinion is no lore valid than anybody else’s on the piece. Maybe it’s your opinion that objectionable to others. Ever think of that?
On that basis a man advocating for female slavery would not be “objectionable “ because it would be fine by lots of men. Not a very moral basis. Some opinions are objectionable even if u support them- ever thought about that? We have laws against sex discrimination because our whole society has agreed it is wrong. Journal articles that are blatantly sexist therefore are objectionable. Only the men on this site don’t seem to understand that – how surprising.
Alison, whatever one’s gender, one cannot with credibility or seriousness just assert that this or that article is ‘blatantly sexist’ and therefore ‘objectionable’, and therefore worthy of censorship. One must provide evidence grounded on and in the article’s material reality, and make a concrete discursive case from that evidence.
“……blatantly sexist therefore are objectionable”. To which you respond “Only the men on this site don’t seem to understand that”. Did you think about this before you wrote it? I am male and you have no idea what my thoughts are in this matter….
Interesting but alas far from uncommon assumption that “only men” can be sexist or hold objectionable opinions/beliefs/views.
This could be the very definition of a ‘phalluscy‘
Surely someone somewhere sometime must have noticed that ‘white=racist‘ is a flawed, inane, objectionable, ignorant and ..errr… racist statement yet it is virtually Holy (sic!) Writ in ..ahh…certain circles (in their minds).
“only men” can be …. Apart from the fact that there are women in these comments defending the piece, attacking sexist behaviour by making sexist generalisations is pretty weak.
Me too. Rundle is the main reason I subscribe to Crikey.
That is why female editors have a problem with Crikey’s audience- it’s made up of a lot of old white men.
A curious comment requiring factual support. Do you have the breakup demographics of Crikey’s subscribers?
Perhaps the ‘Subscription Editor’ (why is that even a title?) could assist with those stats.?
It would take a lot of effort, at least 2 or possibly even 3 keystrokes, so would probably require pacing to avoid exhaustion with appropriate support and affirmation.
As far as I’m aware, the subscription editor does not know if I’m old, if I’m white, and if I’m a male.
Give me a break. I’m an ageing white man and I know most of us here are the same. You don’t need facts or stats to know that the views here are representative of a fairly affluent comfortable segment of Australian men, with views that often lack self reflection and insight of the privileged we wield. Not everyone i.e. before anyone decides to jump down my un-reflecting throat.
Surely “You don’t need facts or stats to know…” is the perfect definition of the world view of an increasingly deluded cohort currently mangling society?
The reason “you” don’t need facts is because your sole function is to believe the folie du jour and obey your betters.
bigotry is ugly from whichever direction it comes.
Those old white men! Up to no good as usual!
If only the “..Crikey’s audience- it’s made up of a lot of old men.” could be expunged, cleansed, purged and disappeared…while simultaneously keeping the subscriptions they’ve paid.
Don’t laugh – this site routinely bans posters but refuses to refund the remainder of their subscriptions because, to quote, “…you will still be able to read the articles“. That’s more a threat than a boon.
Given the woeful quality of 3/4+ of the ‘articles’ it might be an idea to use those subscriptions, purloined under false pretenses, to update the dodgy chatBot which churns out the dreary, tedious & tendentious boilerplate to which by-lines are appended.
Why a writer would allow that escapes me, no shame or a Sign of the End Times?
Thanks Julie. I agree and while being a new subscriber – I actually took out my first full-year subscription recently – I have found Rundle’s pieces intelligent and forthright. I fear he now may be silenced – substantially – on this masthead. Obviously there has been complaints from Higgins’ team and, no doubt, with legal threats.
Julia.
Because he got his facts wrong.
Seems Stephen from the above you may not have actually read the article when you say ‘I only saw edited bits from the piece.’ Mmm. Well, your quick judgment of mine and others’ support of Rundle and his piece by saying he got his facts wrong comes across as a tad trite then. Facts can hardly be judged without actual knowledge which it seems in this matter you have an obvious paucity in. There may be disputed facts but that does not mean they are wrong. You have taken the editorial on face value only. At any rate, happy to be involved with you in discussion Mr Feneley. Cheers.
That is untrue.
See various above, ibid.
I tend to agree. I wrote last Friday that I also didn’t find the article comfortable, but that it did get me thinking. Unfortunately for Rundle, my conclusions were that the article overlooked a substantial amount of motive, did not examine the situation closely and that it could be downright dangerous to Higgins and to any moderate media, who are at war with the propaganda issuing from certain unmentionable companies The problem is that I don’t have access to the article any more to check my conclusions; nor, apparently, does Rundle have the right to reply to me, which he sometimes does with us commentators.
Dear Crikey, would it not have been better to leave the article up and have pot shots taken at it? If you’re going to ban it, you must have spotted flaws, inconsistencies, and a failure of analysis that warranted its removal. Yes, it’s dangerous. But why not take it apart instead of burning it altogether? My gut feeling is that Brittney Higgins, if she’s even aware of what was written, would be comforted more by its dissection and repudiation of content and logic, not by its removal.
I was very surprised by the tone of GRs piece. All it seemed to be doing was slathering doubt. My dictionary EGs ‘slathered’ used in context: “scones slathered with clotted cream” There was much clotted cream but with no scone in GRs piece. so, I put it down to “shit-stirring” (can I say ‘shit’ here?). I agree with you that it might have been better to “take it apart” rather my burn it. But we live in litigiousness days, Crikey has a reputation to protect and, after all, Ms Higgins is a living, breathing human being who has already copped enough from the media.
There’s nothing much to suggest fear of litigation was the reason for removing the piece. Nobody, including the editors who removed it, have suggested that had anything to do with it. But the idea it was taken down because ‘Crikey has a reputation to protect’ is just wonderfully perverse. Any publication such as Crikey is responsible for anything it publishes. Editors have a fundamental duty only to pass material for publication when they are happy with its quality and are ready to defend it. To publish but within hours reverse that decision while throwing blame on the author of the article does enormous damage to Crikey, demonstrates contempt by insulting their contributor and shows the editors to be incompetent cowards. Both contributors and subscribers must now have lost confidence in Sophie Black and Gina Rushton. Their continuation as editors appears untenable.
Have you read The Australian much? Or Daikt telegraph? Somehow those editors keep their jobs.
How would Black and Rushton be any more competent if I read The Australian? Black and Rushton say they are sorry and take responsibility. Are they? That is only credible and will only mean something if they go.
Probably by meeting the KPIs set by Moloch.
Only thing I have lost confidence in is Australian men, or at least the cohort commenting here. Thank u editors for removing the article. No women don’t need one more article doubting rape victims & expressing doubt about them, with flippant comments by privileged men. Her treatment has once again demonstrated why most women aren’t willing to report rape. It’s the only crime where the victim is automatically treated as a liar. These men blathering on here would be up in arms if treated this way when they reported an assault, but of course it’s always about them. Not Ms Higgins or any other female victim. Where are are the hit jobs on the accused? That’s different- he’s entitled to the assumption of innocence unlike rape victims.
Nice rant – how would you ‘feel‘ (sic!) were the allegation found to be untrue?
Might be just the cohort commenting here – I was quite stunned by the article when I saw it. Rundle is a solid and consistent writer and, while I often disagree with him, I have time for his often contrarian and “old left” views on things with an eye to history and literature. This was not up to his usual standard at all and just seemed to be finding every excuse in the book to throw muck. I’m fairly certain the reason for the reversal was Crikey subscribers like some of my friends (mix of male and female) looking for the exit door in subscription terms – I feel sorry for whoever was working the front desk that day.
Precisely what I have done, been looking for that exit door for ages
Alison, I think you will find the accused has also taken a big hit to his reputation, including rightly being sacked ( without a large payout). The beyond reasonable doubt/presumption of innocence principle saves both women and men being locked up simply on somebody’s say so. The basic problem is that in many such cases there is no hard evidence either way. You seem to want to put somebody in jail for 10 years simply on one person’s say so.
In a much earlier article Rundle worried at the wisdom of these young women becoming media poster girls for Me-Too. That there were great dangers to their personal well-being. The concern, I think, was genuine. He has been proved right. I get the strong sense that GR has simply outed this summary of events – most of which cannot be challenged – simply because some lunatic had to – though he would be pilloried and cancelled. That the lunatic was from the Left, is the absolutely necessary and absolutely unforgivable bit.
Agree, think the underlying error is having Rundle write an article as the devil’s advocate or contrarian position on social etc. issues, for ‘balance’, which may not be his area of expertise e.g. last year on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, suggesting it was provoked.
It WAS provoked. That’s a matter of objective fact and public record. It doesn’t justify the war crime of invasion but to pretend it happened in a vacuum is just silly
That’s the RWNJ and/or faux anti-imperialist view of the Anglosphere, especially from the US, UK, Hungary etc..
A matter of “objective fact”? That’s laughable. The events that provoked Putin to annex Crimea and foster separatists in the Donbas started over Yanukovych’s about-face on signing a trade agreement with the EU. There was no move towards NATO membership at the time, and those invasions made it even more remote by 2022. The Baltic States had been in NATO since 2004 without much fuss, and there was no significant NATO deployments in the Baltic States. Russia has 6,000 nuclear weapons, who’s going to invade them?
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was ‘provoked’ the same way as the US invasion of Iraq was ‘provoked’. Imminent threat, “They made us do it”, etc.
Both should be condemned.
No need to excuse warmongers just because they’re not American.
Lemme ask you all this: if the Kremlin staged a coup in Mexico, established an anti-american and pro-Russian government, began arming, funding and training anti-American militias that were involved in border skirmishes and attacks on US civilians would you consider that a provocation? (if you think any of that is hyperbole just do a quick bit of googling, all those things have been done by US in Ukraine its a matter of public record)
If, if, if, if only Russia did this thing I imagined in Mexico then Russia wouldn’t seem so bad for choosing to inflict war and terror on Ukraine and we could just carry on and blame America for all the world’s ills, even the ills of choice inflicted on Ukraine by Russia.
That comment indicates a profound lack of knowledge of history, recent political and socio-cultural developments in the Russian Eurasian Empire school of ‘thought’ and the major trends in Europe and Russia generally.
“Special Military Operatations” are not a response to provocation.
How do you feel about the covert, illegal, immoral ones and plain evil ones undertaken for commercial reasons by the hegemon on 54+ sovereign nations since WWII?
It’s not about picking sides, it’s about whether a country (any country) should be condemned for choosing to inflict war and terror on another country.
Anyone who opposed the US decision to invade Iraq should oppose Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. Both were unnecessary and unjust wars of choice, and killed and maimed innocent people for no reason other than Bush, Putin, and their partners in crime wanted something they didn’t already have.
I just don’t get how people here can’t recognise a war crime if it’s committed by a Russian.
Some sanity.
A very popular term in the ex-Soviet sphere of influence is “west-splaining”, where Westerners explain how Russia was provoked, how Russia didn’t really mean it, how Russia this or that, and discount the lived experience, cultural and historical knowledge of those who’ve suffered from Russian imperialism.
I marched against the various US imperialist wars, but am capable that non-US powers can also wage brutal imperialist wars.
First there is no such thing as “objective facts” when it comes to historic events other than “this happened on this date” and “this many people were killed (we think)”.
Second in my opinion there was no provocation whatsoever unless you call provocation removing a completely corrupt leader who was Putin’s puppet and attempting to establish a democracy and have a closer relationship with other democracies.
There also appears to be a common theme here of victim blaming…..
Indeed. I am of the opinion something (I’m not sure what) happened to Grundle a while back and he went a little off. In the search for contrarian views he appears to be headed on the trajectory of the lamentable Paddy McGuiness. I pray it’s avoidable because he used to be good reading.
Maybe he could write articles for Quadrant 🙂
Let’s hope he gets back to his brilliant best.
I thought Guy gave false equivalence to the dishonesty of Higgins and Lehrmann – her evidence was picked apart by police and legal eagles, his has not been properly examined.
The public evidence seems overwhelmingly in her favour, and Lehrmann seems to have extreme difficulty with honesty and decency.
What Rundle was correct about is that both parties were LNP political operatives who are paid to lie and distort. Doubtless Higgins is now only too well aware that deciding to work for the LNP was a grave mistake.
Deciding to work for the LNP does not justify sexual assault. The article was misogynistic crap
Lehrmann has been accused and has no obligation to say anything, let alone provide “evidence” of a negative.
It is a basic requirement of (British) Common Law that an accusation be proved by the Crown which is the opposite of the iniquitous systems, prevalent on the Continent, under the Code Napoleon.
Turns out your gut feeling couldn’tbe farther from the truth. Ms Higgins is quite aware of it and has commented on it. She is not, needless to say, ‘comforted’ by it.
I continue to be staggered by the way in which people from Guy Rundle down are discussing the quality of the article when its unwilling subject is a young woman who has already endured trial by media and a thorough going over by lawyers and still some people seem to be suggesting she lied to cover up an indiscretion. All I can see is ever more vivid examples of the fundamental misogyny that still stunts Australia as a progressive, creative country.
Quite frankly, it’s pathetic.
If you looked a little more closely “All I can see…”you might notice that Grundle’s piece was NOT about Higgins but the mania which overtook the media in not examining the original (two year old story) too closely for fear of facts getting in the way of a great, CV burnishing scoop.
So many involved, each trying to outdo in the Sackcloth & Ashes Stakes and impervious to the very concept of having been gulled.
Oh, it’s you again. How was the hot chockie?
https://twitter.com/britthiggins_/status/1669523770871267328?s=61&t=dmG_gnloVafwFHPx9oWO0w
Oh she saw it alright.
That’s nice that you felt intellectually challenged and a bit uncomfortable. For survivors of assault it was a(nother) brutal, nasty attack.
no. it was not. and simply asserting that it was does not and will never make it so.
Yeah, I don’t think you get to tell me how the article made me feel.
Jack never hesitates to tell people how they should feel, and berates them if they feel differently to him.
Citation required – a single example would do.
Do those 2 d/v mean that two ‘people’ do not want, or fear/hate facts which might disturb their illusions?
Garngizzahint!
C’arn, ‘berate’ is a litte strong, Fairs. I like to think ‘gently encourages to help re-embrace their agency and refuse to be ghettoised as lifelong Victims, by cynics exploiting them prosecuting selfish agedas‘, Fairmind.
Granted, it doesn’t roll quite as pithily off the tongue in a thread-bash as ‘berate’…so perhaps I’m pedantic to quibble, FM. 🙂
Also like to remind everyone that it’s not about them, it’s about him.
smithy! good to see you at the gig, didn’t pick you as a rock and roller.
Pssst, what’s your poison, man…blues? reds? Colombian sleet? Bruges superskunk? I can get you anything, Smithy…Hey – do you…want to see a copy of Rundle’s censored article? It’s hot, mate. It’s the best sh*t at this gig. But it’s only for grown-ups. Apparently.
It’s not about me, DrSmithy. It’s not even about Guy Rundle. It’s about the words he wrote. And that Crikey then published. And then…censored.
I want to know why the editors chose to do that. In line-by-line detail. Here, publicly, for those of us who make this site possible with our money to see. And ecide for ourslves, each independently. I want Crikey’s editors to make their case for censorship. Not just tell me to accept it because…they say so.
Why are you so scared, so angered, so objecting to…me wanting that? Why don’t you want that, too?
Best regards.
Jack, you seem to be the only one here offering Guy unqualified support.
Everyone else reckons Guy went way too far this time, and has blotted his generally excellent copybook.
Far from “…everyone else reckons…” (the sure fire, certain verbal tic of the group think victim) – plenty of posters here who think Grundle was spot on and applaud in admiration of his moderate tone.
Count ’em, even if it means taking off your ruby shoes.
Aye, exactly.
Now pass that me number, Numbers, stop railroading it…and come on, when’s Rundle coming on..?
Great for everyone else then, Fairmind. For verily dost thine speaketh as one Holy Choir. (Someone help me out with my Olde Englishe tenses & syntax there will you.) If that is indeed so, Fairms.
Which, tbh…I don’t think is right, anyway, is it? Lot of scepticism re: this edit, I’d have thunk…lot of warm moshpit lerve for Runders in the pleasantly acrid, evening gig air…
How can we know, if we missed the narrow window of publication, without emailing Jack for a copy so we can read it?
Your need to know does not count – YOU MUST BELIEVE!
You could always trust…me to tell you what to think about it…?
I mean, obviously Eric Beecher would have to make me Crikey editor first, so I could be installed with the Holy Powers of Godly Omnipotence & Objective Wisdom that come with the gig. As Peter Fray could doubtless confirm.
🙂
Nah, nothing else flies, does it, Hoojakafoopy, but…just letting each grown-up make up our own minds.
Don’t speak for me guv.
Hell, I’ll do it for the original $500 and give you $499 for ‘luck penny‘.
Thanks to your providing a copy and having had the opportunity, post cleansing down the memory rshole, to peruse Grundle’s opus I’d be able to do the job – using all the boiler plate cliches, weasel words and false equivalences that you just know they’d use.
It would be indistinguishable to the subChatGPT blather above.
And I don’t think you get to tell us how everyone else feels.
Agree Infierno – it was another brutal reminder that if victim/survivors speak up and try to change the way sexual assault is managed – we will be attacked and trivialised. No other crime is reduced to a ‘he said she said’ equation.
Nope, it wasn’t. Take it that way if you choose to. But that’s your choice, not the writer’s intention.
Guy Rundle has written many wonderful, thought provoking pieces, keep him on, Crikey.
Yeah, actually, I’d suggest it ‘might’ not be Crikey’s decison to make, to be honest.
The Rundles of Crikey provide the actual words. The content. The editors and the publisher just, you know, arrange the potplants ‘real nice’ and make the tea and photobomb the Oz Meeja Pond schmooze-fests and the like. Apparently.
Hey Gina. Hey Sophie: cite cite cite quote quote quote line-by-line edit Rundle’s censored piece…and explain in detail why you retrospectively made it disappear. Explain why and how – exactly – it was too ‘harmful’ for us to read.
Happy to pay you for it, above and beyond my sub. You know, as freelance editors.
I’ll give you $500 to line-by-line the piece publicly, justifying your decision.
That’s a week’s rent for me, Sophie and Gina. Just sayin’.
Hey Jack, I didnt get to say good bye before my subs expired. Im spending the money on the Oz so I can follow Albrechtsen’s indepth coverage of this sh*tshow. I really enjoyed yours and others contributions to discussion. Take care of yourself and keep up the good fight.
Reckon you are going in the right direction Strawman, but few of us here will follow you.
Good luck to you too, the poor old Oz needs every blinkered supporter it can get.
you too mate.
and likewise, yours. lonely biz this, over the last few years. chrs.
Rundle’s best contribution to public debate is his relentless determination to view things through the lens of class.
I read the article before it was taken down. I thought his comments on the alleged amount Higgins was paid was a reference to the many victims of assault who don’t have her connections, who didn’t work (and therefore weren’t assaulted) in Parliament House, and who never in their wildest dreams would receive any payout at all. If people can’t see the injustice there, they aren’t paying attention.
Rundle was right to point out that her class background has effected every part of this process (and yes, that includes the recent targeting from both sides of politics). Black women, migrant women, and women from poor backgrounds suffer more assault than their upper class peers, and have far less ability to combat it.
And spare me the predictable and intellectually repugnant argument that Higgins coming forward ‘helps all victims of sexual assault’. Garbage. Higgins spent years in the liberal party before her alleged assault. A party that spent years with a despicable record on responding to violence against women. I don’t know what personal views she held on the issue prior to her alleged assault. But I do know that Rundle was damn correct to ask the questions.
Finally, if he does go, he will still write excellent pieces on ARENA. Go read him there
Not only had “Higgins spent years in the liberal party before her alleged assault…” she remained schtumm for another TWO YEARS AFTER “her alleged assault” in expectation of preferment.
When that was not forthcoming, the ferment began to overflow and the rest is, alas, history.
Great comment RL.
Unfortunately, as a method of critical analysis, ‘class’ has largely (nay entirely) disappeared from public discussion and been replaced by the sacrosanct categories of gender and race. Rundle, as ever, pushes against those secondary categories, whose purpose has always been to elide any consideration, whatsoever, of class.
The Higgins brouhaha is undeniably an issue firmly anchored in class politics. The facile dominant narrative that Higgins and women from lower SES groups are all comparable in terms of responses to, and results of, alleged sexual assault, is ludicrous.
I’m hoping Rundle severs his connection with this outlet… their grovelling ‘explanation’ is nauseating.
Could hardly blame him if he did, but I still hope he doesn’t.
spot on, great comment.
Yeah, it’s like if you complain about inequality and you’re rich, you’re a champagne socialist (a hypocrite). And if you complain about inequality and you’re poor, you’re playing the politics of envious (you’re envious).
Either way, you just shouldn’t complain about inequality unless you want to have your motives impugned and your character attacked.
Sexual assault is a crime no matter who it happens to.
The Respect@Work report on by Kate Jenkins looked at women at all class levels and particularly focussed on migrant, lower class and indigenous women. The Morrison government sat on that report until Brittany Higgins went public and events like the Women’s March on Parliament forced their hand. Recommendations from the report were designed to help all employees in the workplace, not just those in Parliament House (the subject of a separate inquiry by Jenkins). The Morrison Government implemented some of the recommendations and the current government has committed to implementing all 55 recommendations.
In this case there was no evidence of sexual assault 4yrs ago nor any proffered since.
Yes, yes, the same 3 minus minions who seem to co-ordinate, like slime mould.
Able to form a single entity to perform comple tasks like d/v anything contrary to the fou du jour then dissolve back into unconsciousness until next aroused.
Pathetic.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Wendy,
Re your first comment – couldn’t agree more. Sexual assault is wrong in all circumstances.
I have read the Exec Summary and Recc’s of the Jenkins Report (and a couple of the sections that particularly interested me). Of course I didn’t read the whole thing. It’s really long.
Jenkins does indeed highlight intersectionality in her report, particularly the manner in which gender intersects with class and race. She discusses at length how Aboriginal, migrant and lower SES women are more likely to suffer sexual assault in the workplace. Unsurprisingly, and though it is not the focus of her work, they are also much more likely to suffer in the home.
I thought Rundle’s article was written in much the same vein. He brought a class analysis to the matter (so it could intersect with the dominant narrative re gender). He did this by pointing out Higgins’ role as a (relatively) privileged staffer for a powerful public figure, somewhat at the expense of Higgins herself (something that is sadly lacking from journo’s, academics and the general public). He also pointed out that she had received a paid settlement. Some of his language was scathing. That should certainly be the catalyst for a robust discussion. But not a reason for censorship. It is more than a little absurd that exactly that discussion is now happening in this comment thread.
His piece was a contribution to public debate. And he’s right – an accusation being made is not a reason to swallow a narrative uncritically.
On a side note, there was also a terrible false equivalence being made by most in the media between Higgins and Grace Tame. Tame’s abuser was tried and found guilty. He then doubled down and boasted about his crimes on FB (i.e. he was guilty and admitted it).
Lehrmann has been accused. He has maintained his innocence. The jury was tampered with and the Justice stopped the trial. Noting this in an opinion piece is no reason to be silenced.
I always look forward to Guy’s articles. They are thought provoking and entertaining. This particular article I found difficult to read. Actually it was impossible for me to read. I had to stop reading because it was extremely triggering. On this occasion, Guy and I are polar opposites but I appreciate that we can have different opinions on issues but still have respect.