One week in, and how’s the “keep-the-same-sex-marriage-yes-campaign-on-track” effort going? Well-ish, despite the best efforts of The Guardian to give the No case a bit of ammunition about groupthink and the elites. “This isn’t about political correctness,” Guardian editor Lenore Taylor writes, in a long and extraordinary article which sets out what sort of arguments the Guardian won’t be publishing.
Just about everything short of a North Korean style commitment to Yes it would seem, and a karaoke rendition of I Am What I Am. Taylor can edit the publication however she likes, and must have an eye to her audience, but the list of what she won’t consider is so long as to suggest that the Guardian closes its mind as fast as it closes its comments section.
It’s reasonable to treat pseudo-scientific surveys which purport to show that same-sex-couple-raised children get scabies or somesuch as beyond the pale. But Taylor simply dismisses any argument against same-sex marriage, ex cathedra. She appears to regard any argument from a religious basis as not worthy of consideration; arguments from a purely traditional base are not even considered. Issues of religious freedom and exemption are dismissed prior to anyone arguing them. It’s a bizarre manifesto of incuriousness and self-satisfaction. Indeed, it seems to make the point of those who argue that the same-sex marriage Yes case is about a lot more than same-sex marriage; that it is simply an instrument for the enforcement of an elite-progressive agenda on social life.
Who could doubt that it will be widely circulated by those seeking a No vote against political correctness? If the Yes case is so compelling, why the marked fear of a well-made argument to the contrary? Taylor’s programmatic statement is not only an indication of why the Guardian Australia has such an air of dull groupthink about it — it’s a betrayal of the pluralist attitude that any editor should hold.
Editorial selection, and selection in a certain political direction, is not censorship; but it’s precisely because publications have a certain direction, that a good editor should keep themselves match-fit to recognise a genuinely compelling counter-argument when they see it, and publish it. Editors who turn inward create publications that spiral inward, and eventually circle the drain. It’s a dispiriting conception of the editor’s role — and strikingly counterproductive to the Yes case.
But nothing in Taylor’s close-minded statement could equal, for sheer self-sabotage, the intervention by Tim Minchin. Hippie-haired, hugely rich, the Richard Branson of whimsical pseudo-satire released a witless, shapeless parody of “I Still Call Australia Home”. You won’t believe what he did with that last word! The ironies pile up here. The song was written as a tribute to what’s held in common by expats and in-country Australians alike by a gay man, a gay man who married Liza Minnelli — which pretty much makes Peter Allen the gayest man who ever lived — and a straight man has turned it into a blast of condescension, elitism and division, in service to a same-sex marriage Yes campaign which is trying to dispel notions that the vote is about anything other than marriage. It’s not exactly Chris Lilley/S.Mouse territory, but it’s on the way. With this sort of help, the No case won’t need to make any campaign materials; the Yes case is doing it for them.
Can’t agree Guy, both of these contributions are perfectly fair counters to the extremist rubbish that Abbott and Shelton are putting out, and that sooner or later the telecrap and oz will start to propagandise about.
He was called out last week by all and sundry for telling the GSD (Gender and Sexuality Diverse) community what’s good for them; for which they already have Abbott and Shelton.
He’s still shitty about it:)
hows that GSD acronym take up going for ya Lykurgus? Not catching fire….
Actually, you called him out on behalf of “GSD” (uhhh, pretty sure we got an acronym already, mate). As one of what I assume you mean by “GSD” my thoughts when reading it was “Shut Up, Lykurgus”. I hit cancel reply at the time because I felt it wasn’t worth saying, but I will say it now.
Shut Up, Lykurgus. Guy’s arguments echo arguments made by actual gays and lesbians and I won’t have you use this disingenuous argument to enforce middle class groupthink.
Yes an acronym already exists but it’s one that few can accurately say or write (including those that are part of that acronym). I hope GSD or something a little easier to use does catch on.
Lenore Taylor’s piece is linked and when read seems to also echo arguments made by actual gays and lesbians. Guy may not have had the shits when writing this piece but he sounds pretty shitty in his reply to Lykurgus, especially after urging others to be cool,calm and cogent.
Guy seems to have a bit of a “thing” going on with LT of late, the cynical side of me thinks perhaps LT was someone who Guy failed to coerce for a shag back in his Uni days.
Yeah, they both reflect LGBTIQ etc views because we’re not a monolith. I just wish people would stop trying pretend there is one single view on this within the yes camp. I can’t believe how much flak guy copped for daring to suggest lobbyists and the media campaign differently for something most folks in this comment section can agree is a good thing: legalized SSM
Agree with the strategy or not, it doesn’t deserve arguments like Lykurgus’, that Guy should simply shut up for the duration of the campaign. Frankly, I wish Lykurgus would stop projecting onto the entire “GSD Community”, swinging in to tell people like me what the correct opinion is.
fair’s not the question. effective is. the question is whether either of these are likely to get out more ‘yes’ votes than they generate no votes. surely they tend to help abbott’s argument that its a culture war, not refute it?
How Very Dare you propose that the outright condescension of tedious twits won’t work, Guy? I think you’ll find that the use of Anna Wintour, and all her chic guests at the Met Ball, really delivered success to Clinton in Wisconsin. Now, she is President.
Totally agree
Papa, don’t preach.
“a good editor should keep themselves match-fit to recognise a genuinely compelling counter-argument when they see it, and publish it”
Amen to that. A good paper not only publishes but also addresses the best of the arguments against its views. Most, alas, are content to repetitively demolish the worst. And as a rule of thumb, you can’t be sure you have read the best of the opposing side until you find yourself wavering, if only for a moment or two, in your own thinking.
As for the tactics for the mail vote – polls that show a majority for SSM include many who hold their positive view lightly, mainly because they don’t see the issue as important. Antagonise them and it will become important to them – to vote NO.
This entire argument makes no sense to me. That we should permit an iron age religion with an already privileged position to demand equal treatment for it’s position that a sky god doesn’t like marriage equality. They can say it in a democracy, but it should be attacked for the joke that it is.
And why Tim Minchin’s wealth (if he is) be linked to his publishing of a funny song is also beyond me? In the face of crude obscenities of the “no” case that have thus far been displayed, the proponents of the “yes” case have been rather low-key and orthodox.
Interesting argument, GR?
nf
who’s ‘we’? who ‘permits’? im saying a newspaper editor should have an open mind to good argument, rather than dictate narrow terms of acceptable opinion. isnt that part of the rationalism you’re arguing for. sky-god believers outnumber no religion adherents, and they vote too. treating them as a joke may feel good; wont argue them round.
i’d suggest the overseas communique telling australians how to vote – so that australians overseas don’t have to feel embarrassed – is more likely to gain no votes than yes votes.
I acknowledge that “permits” was a poor choice of words, but is your argument one of equal time in the debate? Why not editorial equal time for anti-vaxxers, or climate deniers? That the law allows (stronger then “permits”) unequal treatment under law for Australian citizens condems itself.
If you are arguing for equal editorial treatment across the board surely there are greater and more deserving questions than marriage equality in the age of News Corp and government partnerships? The whole thing looks, feels and smells like a LNP setup so if the media (for once) is treating it like a joke I’m not surprised.
“is your argument one of equal time in the debate?”
My argument (and I think GR’s) is don’t alienate tactical allies. My estimate is that a majority of “sky -god”-ists actually support or at least don’t oppose SSM, certainly among the christians, jews and even the muslims of my acquaintance. There is some polling evidence for this https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/21/most-christians-in-australia-support-marriage-equality-and-want-a-free-vote
Why make it hard for them to maintain their position and even, perhaps, persuade co-religionists? They are, in fact, on the our side of one front line of this particular battle.
“That we should permit…”
Yup, there it is right there. What he (GR) said.
Couldnt agree more about the pointlessness of Tim Minchin involvement. He may as well declare no-voters to be a basket of deplorables.
Well, in fact he called them all ‘bigoted cunts’, so ‘deplorables’ would have been a marked improvement in tone/decorum/hate speech stakes.
On the zinger side – Jiminy, how’s about that dazzlingly original ‘Australia/failure’ couplet, Mr Lehrer?! O, author, author!
No fan of Timmo’s work myself but if I as asked to describe the likes of Abbott/Abetz/Andrews, Bronnie Bish.,Lolz Shelton and their ilk I reckon deplorable bigoted ***** would be pretty accurate.