Blogging Perils

Blogging can be an unforgiving 'business', especially for those specialising in satire. Jack Marx, one of the Sydney Morning Herald's best bloggers got burnt back in May when his family and home was threatened by an aggrieved reader. The lesson learned was to never give your phone number out to readers. Doh !

The contentious post attracted healthy comment feedback and was eventually closed, though didn't warrant being removed. However on Monday, Marx posted a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that Israeli Jews be offered safe sanctuary in Tasmania. This not only drew around 200 animated responses but, for the first time, led to the comments being removed altogether. Marx's explanation,

Indeed, some of the comments were fractious, abusive, arguably offensive and not at all in the spirit of the original post. But it was something other than "embarrassment" that saw the comments go, for a newspaper cannot and should not ever be embarrassed by the behaviour of some of its readers - Jack.

In yesterday's SMH Gerard Henderson argued the Israel lobby has no influence in Aussie politics. One wonders if the same can be said for the Aussie media ? Otherwise, why were said comments removed, when back in May comments which lead to personal threats against Marx were deemed not dangerous enough to warrant being removed ?

Just curious, that's all. Besides the other question of can the MSM operate blogs without tight censorship robbing them(blogs) of their defining raison détre - citizen journalism.

Comments

[Greg]

Oh, please, that old canard. 'Jewish lobby' - what nonsense. Mightn't this just be a case of some comments being so thoroughly offensive as to warrant removal and being so persistent that taking the feature away entirely the only way to ensure there'd be an end to such behaviour. That there are some who'd inquire of this mysterious and pervasive cabal of Fagin's conspiring to control the banks and media - and what else? drink the blood of Christian children? - is enough to suggest plenty of legitimate reasons to pull back. There's no need to continue to perpetuate such myths. One wonders if there will ever be an end to such nonsensical bias.

[Dan Lew]

From the commentary:
people out there don't have the intelligence to realise this is sarcasm. I thought this kind of crap belonged to the Daily Telegraph. Now I see the SMH has stooped to new lows.

and

Equivalating blogs to Big Brother doesn't stop you reading them romain.
I thought it was mildly funny and at least raised the issue of stupid laws.
I agree with jon, most petty criminals would read the telegraph.

This from someone who can't use capital letters but can use the word "equivalating"...

I takes an amazingly smug bastard that can write disparaging comments about the Telegraph after an article The Tele would never print....

[Seneca]

This isn't evidence of Israel lobby influence on media, IMO. The argument about such influence is based on editorial line and op-ed pieces and I don't think anyone would see the SMH as remotely pro-Israel. The fact that News Ltd tends to take a more pro-Isreal stance can be explained by the general nature of its political outlook (security conservatives).

Maybe the SMH was a bit sensitive to perception of its outlook for once (and you could interpret Jack Marx's satire as satire of anti-Israeli positons - eg Iranian president's suggestion Israel be relocated in Germany).

On the issue itself, SMH overreacted I think - I'm sure it gets plenty of complaints about some of its straight political stuff but doesn't retract.

[Darlene]

Methinks that satire is beyond some people.

He might like to just write columns and forget about trying to appeal to those lacking in a sense of humour.

[ab]

I think you'd find that the content of blogs & particularly the comments, makes the SMH lawyers drop prozac.
As independent bloggers we can to a greater degree defend our posts and commenters as public interest, fair comment and robust debate, however a newspaper has to adhere to media legislation more strictly and as such its blogs also would have to tow the same line.
They could be held more accountable than the individual blogger for the comments in a court of law, because they should know better and have the resources and experience at their disposal to ensure they are strictly obeying the law, which would also make them more liable$$$$

[adrian]

When the Daily Truth already employs a policy of selective and prudent comment editing, I found it puzzling that a entire comments section would be chopped and wondered why.

Marx's post was at the expense of Israeli Jews, albeit light-heartedly, and attracted varying degrees of antsy responses. From memory there was nothing that outrageous warranting total removal of comments, as against simply shutting the forum, as has been done before.

Is there an Israeli/Jewish lobby ? Of course there is, like any other vested interest group ranging from ethnic to environmental to sexuality to business. Big deal. Does the Israeli lobby have influence in Aussie politics and media ? As much as possible, like any other lobby group, as is their brief. Would they petition a media outlet with well-prepared argument backed by legal advice ? Of course, as much as other lobby groups would see fit. That's to be expected. Do media outlets acquiesce to lobby groups ? If they're convinced by force of argument, quite possibly they would accomodate a concerned lobby group.

So long as lobby groups conduct themselves legally, ethically and transparently I have no problem with their existence or operation.

Therefore, given the subject matter of Marx's post-comments, it's natural to wonder if a lobby group complained, prompting the removal of comments. How about the anti-discrimination board ? The Aust Broadcasting Board, or such relevant body ? Or, was it simply a new direction from SMH editorial ?

After the teasing, oblique explanation provided by Marx, it would be interesting to know what prompted the decision. That's all.

[larry]

I too would like an explanation in the interests of transparency.I took part in this discusion over a 36 hr period and didn't see anything that warranted the collective punishment of the participants.Comments passed through an editer but then somehow became unfit for human consumption.I've heard a rumour that someone has copies of the comments and I'm interested in reading them again to try and work out why all of the comments and not just some,had to be removed.I've asked the editors for their reasoning,I've asked jack marx,I'm not convinced I've been given a satisfactory explanation.Jack marx blog today has a picture of Mel gibson's head on jesus'body on the crucifix.I don't see anyone telling him to remove it and I wonder if part of the reason he's done this is to appease the "cry baby" even further.Whoever is behind the removal of 260 something comments,one thing is for sure:You should be absolutely ashamed of your petty insecurities that have muzzled freedom of speech.When the truth comes out and the guilty party is named and shamed,don't start crying victim.

[adrian]

Larry, I'm not sure whether it's Marx or his editors who had a problem with the comments in question.

In yesterday's post you refer to, once again a reader queried the removal of all comments from the Israeli post, and Marx replied,

Became hateful. Had to turn it off - Jack

Once again, an disingenuous explanation from Marx. So I posted a comment before going to work,

Wouldn't normal comment moderation have served the same purpose, or have the 'terrorists' won ?

Needless to say it didn't appear online yet it's still a valid issue. Until the Daily Truth(!) stops treating readers like idiots and demonstrates transparency, the issue won't go away.

[Syd Ishus]

I was one of the alleged "anti-semites" that posted on that blog , I obtained half of the blog entries from a kind soul and you can judge for yourselves , one of my comments "go play under a Kassam rocket" may have been the last staw , I stand by my nasty put down directed at Israeli's who popped out of the woodwork to justify Israels criminal actions in Lebanon and label any critics of Israel "anti-semites" and spam the blog with religious nonsense.
Terror-australis.info~the infamous blog

[Larry]

Syd:You are a legend.Thanks for caring enough about our freedom of speech to do that.I can't beleive how shithouse all the explanations have been.Censorship on any issue is wrong but when people in their own country are being silenced by some invisible third party,it really pisses me off!
It's not so amazing to me,how they all popped out of the woodwork though anymore.Check out the "megaphone" at the following site..
www.giyus.org
Seems like it's no longer a conspiracy theory,just cold hard fact.Israel is running a campaign for Israelis to support and try to validate war crimes(as they are now classified by Amnesty International)and come up with lies and distortions to cover up the facts.Really sick stuff!