EDITOR'S NOTE: Catherine Deveny's column will no longer appear in The Age.Ms Deveny's comments on other media are not in keeping with the standards we set at this newspaper.
This is an absolute disgrace. Has the editor been approached by the rabid right-wing reactionary religious bigoted establishments to deny Catherine a voice in The Age?
What are the comment on other media to which the editor has taken exception?
We won't get an explanation, but we will be censored because Catherine dares to mock our society and in the process to give us something to think about and to have a laugh.
The Age has became a pathetic shadow of its former self - editors like Michael Gawenda and Andrew Jaspan haven't help lift the standard of what was once a great newspaper.
How art the mighty fallen??
Time to get rid of the current editor and try to restore some balance to this pathetic rag - now only one degree better than the other daily rag, but plumbing the depths of that one by publishing - or not - what it thinks its delicate readers ought to read.
Newspapers are rapidly sinking below the horizon, and it is easy to see why, after this effort to silence one of its better journalists who is not afraid to open her mouth. Pity all those others who have to shut up because their livelihoods depend on working for these disgusting people who control the media.
AND THANK GOODNESS FOR THE WORLD WIDE WEB AND ITS GREAT INVENTOR WHO HAS ENABLED US TO GET WHAT WE NEED IN THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY FROM AROUND THE WORLD!
--------and all this in response to a letter by Nicholas Yallop - who? I hear you ask? Oh, yes, Nicholas's father had some involvement with The Age some time ago. Here is Nicholas's letter:
Calculated to raise a profile - and offend
FOR someone of her experience in the media industry, Catherine Deveny seems quite naive to the power and reach of her insensitive Twitter comments.
The Age may employ her for her controversial and allegedly funny commentary, but I think many readers see her as an intellectual imposter doing nothing more than indulging her warped view of the world.
While she occasionally makes valuable points, Deveny seems intent on making them in the most vulgar manner. Just as with her disgusting attacks on Anzac Day, Deveny's comments regarding Rove McManus and Bindi Irwin were crude, thoughtless and merely said to provoke a reaction.
In her defence, she described Twitter as some form of intimate social networking platform, akin to ''passing notes in class''.
That is rubbish. Politicians and celebrities are using it to shape their brand and Deveny appears to be no different. Every tweet seems to be a calculated attempt to promote her shock-making ways, which are often nothing more than offensive.
Nicholas Yallop, Surrey Hills
Interesting thoughts, Mannie. As much as I'd love to think my opinion is worth enough to get Catherine Deveny sacked, I dare say she did a pretty good job of doing it herself. I'm all for free speech but the fact is she was a representative of their newspaper and therefore they had every right to get rid of her. What she said on twitter on a number of occasions was completely out of order and I wouldn't want such a writer working at my newspaper. As for calling her a 'journalist', that demeans real journos, such as my late father.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response Nick. I can't comment on your father as a journalist because I may not have read his work - I have only been living in Melbourne for the last 9 years - but it all begs the question of what the definition of a journalist is.
ReplyDeletePeople like Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine are apparently journalists and are paid salaries by the Murdoch and Fairfax bosses who employ them.
Of course The Age has the right to sack those it employs although I am not convinced that what Catherine Deveny wrote or twittered were sacking offences. In any case, twitter is not The Age.
Many male "journalists" on newspapers and television get away with much worse, but they are males and journalism is still a male dominated profession as are so many other professions, so they get a little rap on the knuckles - maybe - and continue on their merry bigoted paths.
Why was what she said on twitter completely out of order? The world wide web is a very complex being and there is so much worse and more offensive than Catherine could possibly dream about in her lifetime - as a gay Jew in his 80s I can assure you some of what I see on the web is actually criminal.
Catherine may have made a few errors of judgement, but they are not sacking offences! and she wasn't a representative of The Age any more than I am when I write them a letter, except that they don't publish my letters so I have a blog and web pages and don't need that rag any more!