The Blot Report

Discussing World Issues

Featured Blog
Newest Blog
May 16, 2022
1

For [Scott] Morrison, words are just distracting noises that come out of a hole in his head. They are not connected to any logic or fact or principle. They are not constrained by anything he has said or done in the past, nor do they commit him to any future course of action. To expect otherwise is to make a categorical error. Morrison’s political career provides no grounds for believing that he will ever give a straight answer to any question, offer a cogent and consistent argument, explain himself in any way, or do anything he says he will do. He has never baulked at any hypocrisy, small or large. He speaks in order to make the very act of questioning him an exercise in futility, addressing no concrete reality beyond the immediate imperative to generate static. It is a form of anti-oratory: the rhetorical equivalent of avoiding an awkward conversation by starting up a leaf blower. [https://sydneyreviewofbooks.com/essay/amen-snorter-rotten-fish/]

James Ley
May 13, 2022
0

When Christians talk about how they are being ‘persecuted’ what they really mean is that they are discontent at no longer being able to use social and political power to force their views, their morality or their dogma onto other people the way they once did. They can no longer burn people at the stake, prosecute people for blasphemy, and have much less of an ability to oppress minorities and ‘keep them in their place’. The dogma, ignorance and authoritarianism that is required for Christianity to maintain control has greatly diminished and religious authorities and their institutions no longer have the power nor the respect that they once had. This makes them feel that they are being unfairly persecuted, though they actually have no real understanding of what that word really means.

Ephraim C. Brown
April 27, 2022
1

‘The unborn’ are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

David Barnhart
April 25, 2022
0

I'm working on a research paper analysing the interaction between journalists and the audience on twitter. What we've found so far is that, contrary to what we often hear from journalists, replies to news items are not full of what could be deemed 'personal abuse' but instead show the audience is pleading with journalists to look at stories from different perspectives, and to do a better job of verifying information - for example. These critiques of journalists' work are almost entirely received defensively by journalists as 'trolling'. I thought about this when I read the different perspectives from journalists in your [Tim Dunlop] piece. Apart from Amy Remeikis, they all did feel quite defensive in justifying what they're doing. I disagree that the audience don't 'understand' journalism - they know how important it is to democracy and when they see it being done badly - for whatever reason - they complain. And rightly. It's their democracy. I also don't think the journalists collectively can discount just how damaging the obvious bias of Murdoch has had on faith and trust in journalism as an institution. It has become a rule of thumb that most Murdoch journalists are out to campaign for causes rather than objectively reporting facts. When the audience has acknowledged that the largest media organisation in the country is producing what looks more like propaganda than news, it's only natural that they'll draw parallels between this bias, and bias creeping into other outlets - particularly the ABC of late. Journalists don't seem to want to acknowledge the problem of Murdoch bias, and instead host Murdoch journalists and commentators in a collegiate way on their panel shows etc., and sometimes even defend them as 'friends' when they're being criticised. As as media researcher interested in the sustainability of quality journalism, the lack of concern from journalists about the impact of Murdoch bias on trust in journalism is the elephant in the room amongst discussions of 'disruption' and 'doing more work with less resources'.

Victoria Fielding
Bitnami