Liberal Party Senator Cory Bernardi gets a few rollicking reviews

Former parliamentary secretary assisting then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Liberal Party attack dog, Senator Cory Bernardi, has written another book.......

These are Amazon’s Most Helpful Customer Reviews.....

56 of 58 people found the following review helpful

Poor value, and very rough on the nether regions

By Tim Bell on January 6, 2014

Let me be upfront from the start: I didn't buy this book.

It's only 178 pages long, and at the current price of just under $27, it's quite expensive as well. So already one's expectations are for a good quality product, given that it costs over 15 cents per page (or 30 cents per sheet, in other words).

Just for comparison, my local Woolworths has toilet paper on sale for 20 cents per ONE HUNDRED sheets, or less than 1% the price per sheet of this book!!

As I confessed at the start, I haven't actually bought this book, so I just have to assume that it's printed on the same kind of paper that most paperbacks are printed on. If you're like me, and have occasionally wiped your nether regions with a sheet of an old Agatha Christie murder mystery, or maybe a Deepak Chopra self-help title, you know that it's a poor substitute for a good-quality piece of toilet tissue. So, without any evidence or claims to the contrary, I have to assume that this paperback is the same, with rough, untextured and single-ply pages that irritate, and (let's be honest) don't actually do as good a job at wiping as proper toilet tissue.

So that's really all there is to it: it's overpriced, and inferior to competing products, so why would you buy it? The Kleenex and Scott products are much better value for money, more effective, and so much more pleasant to use.

44 of 45 people found the following review helpful

Won't anyone think of the dachshunds?

By Simon666 on January 6, 2014

As a dachshund, I can't actually read this book or any other, but I thank Corgi Bernardi from the bottom of my heart for stopping gay marriage, and the widespread cornholing of both urban and rural animals that would have occurred should such a thing have eventuated. Like Corgi, I get all my information from fringe US-based religious websites, and so I must apologise for any misspelling that occurs in this post. As I've said, I am a dachshund and can't read, but Corgi looks very Karl Marx on the cover of his revolution book, just with better skin! As he doesn't have much future in politics, he might want to consider a career in infomercials, if there are any products that need angry stupid people in them. I mean, I'm a supporter (and would vote for him if I lived in South Australia), but let's say that Corgi isn't exactly from the highest branch. Also, I think Corgi will be offended by the "flip to back" function below his photo on this page - it's just not natural! Thankyou for reading.

30 of 30 people found the following review helpful

Does not do what it says on the cover

By Richard L. Watts on January 6, 2014

I read this book hoping to find advice on how to successfully overthrow a tyrannical warmist regime. But there is no details within on how to make gunpowder or bombs contained - not even contact numbers for my local far-right militia! Fail! Nor does THE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION contain the sort of information I have expected from Mr Bernadi such as graphic details on homo-beast sex or handy drawings explaining why step-families are inferior to Adam and Even normal red-blooded hetero families. Why have you failed me Corny? In short don't bother buying this book - I swapped it for a copy of ATLAS SHRUGGED that was missing half its pages and feel I have the better end of the bargain.

Comment  Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

29 of 30 people found the following review helpful

The contents are sader

By Charles Esson on January 6, 2014

The man on the front looks sad; is sad. The contents are sadder. If your from a blended family have step sisters and brothers you love and admire, this is not the book for you.

22 of 22 people found the following review helpful

Absolutely awful. Embarrassing to Australians. Misogynistic. Homophobic. Reactionary. Drivel.

By Sandra Bekin on January 6, 2014

These are views that would be right at home in the Deep South of the USA or the Southern Baptists. They are not even Conservative views. (Non Australians please note: The Liberal Party of Australia is a Right Wing party, the Left is the Australian Labor Party. There are no liberals in the Liberal Party.)

24 of 25 people found the following review helpful

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

By Steven J Darlington on January 6, 2014

The Dark One hungers. In his pit of eternal hatred he squats in the darkness feeding on the screams of the weak. Soon, his blood tide reaches a peak and he will scourge the unbelievers. Cory Bernardi claims he feels the hunger and screams for the blood of innocents, but his devotion to slaughter is not as strong as he would have you believe. His altars are empty. His axe is not stained wtih blood. This is not the Old Ways, Brother Bernardi. You know nothing of our dark rage. You barely even call for the murder of the pregnant women. NNGU'THALI-SZACTA!

18 of 18 people found the following review helpful

Promised much. Delivered little

By Amazon Customer on January 6, 2014

Cory Bernadi is a giant of a fish in the tiny pond we call Australia. He is single-handedly responsible for numerous Australian achievements, from the stump-jump plough and Hill's hoist (mistakenly named after a neighbour) to the recent 5-0 defeat of England in the Ashes test series.

And really, that's why this book is such a disappointment.

Turns out, Bernadi is just a bit of a tool.

965 of 1,034 people found the following review helpful

Take extreme caution.

By May Kadoody on January 6, 2014

A good friend and I perform an annual gift exchange, where we purchase each other the least suitable present imaginable. This year my friend received merkin underpants and I unwrapped "The Conservative Revolution". I congratulated her on winning this round, and threw the book in my drawer ne'er to be seen again.

Or so I thought.

Two weeks ago I hosted a dinner party at my apartment. We discussed how luscious Sarah Hanson Young's hair is whilst dining on miso glazed tofu, then retired to the sitting room for port. I entered the room to find guests whispering worriedly; as I approached my heart leapt into my throat - Bernardi's book was lying on the coffee table. Despite assurances it was a joke gift, my friends left hurriedly. I glared at the offending paperback and tossed it in the bin, confused and angry.

My life started to spiral out of control after this, everytime I met up with friends "The Conservative Revolution" would inexplicably be on my person. After I was nearly mobbed at a Newtown cafe, my friends asked that I stop calling. I tried leaving the book in a Salvation Army bin, on a bench, in a skip, but it would always be back in my loungeroom or bag. I even tried to burn it: the darkness behind Bernardi on the cover grew deeper - as though it absorbed the flames, but the remainder of the book wasn't even singed. Yesterday I returned home to find my collection of Sarah Waters novels thrown off the balcony, and a giant portrait of Julie Bishop painted on the wall. I feel as though Cory is watching me with those fanatical eyes, judging my sinful lifestyle.

If anyone knows an atheist celebrant I can hire to perform a conservative exorcism, please let me know.

Abbott and the height of pollie hypocrisy

Politics makes outright whores of so many, but never have I seen someone take to that role with as much gusto as the Hon. Tony Abbott MP.
From his Australians for Honest Politics Trust (and maybe two other associated 'slush' funds) created to bring down a politically inconvenient former protégée to this apology made years too late and run in the online meeja by the likes of the Boorowa News last Wednesday:
"THE likely key independent MP Andrew Wilkie said Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had apologised for the Howard government's vilification of him over his opposition to the Iraq War.
Mr Wilkie said the apology came as both Mr Abbott and Prime Minister Julia Gillard began to court his support as a key player in the shape of the next parliament.
The former intelligence analyst was pursued by the Howard government in 2003 after his decision to quit its Office of National Assessments and speak out as a whistleblower against the war.
Prime minister John Howard claimed at the time that Mr Wilkie was ''guilty of distortion, exaggeration and misrepresentation'' in his attacks on the government's use of intelligence."

The gentler, caring side of Tony Abbott in 1987?

Excerpts from an article by Tony Abbott in The Bulletin 18 August 1987 via Australians for Honest Politics:

*A little earlier, I had been appointed college infirmarian. This post was a legacy from quasi-monastic days and involved supervising the medicine cabinet and ensuring that the ill were not forgotten in their rooms.

But during winter, when up to 30 percent of the college would be down with “flu” at any one time, the infirmarian spent much of his day ferrying food and aspirin to the rooms of the sick. My view was that I knew nothing about medicine and that those too sick to eat in the dining room ought to be in hospital.

Anyway, I thought, most were malingering. So I encouraged “self-service” of medicines and suggested that meals would be better fetched by the friends of the sick. Many deeply resented this disdain for college’s caring and communitarian ethos. And, I confess, I did not have the courage to refuse room service to members of the seminary staff.

*I missed the glittering company of Oxford and the student burly­ burly. But mostly l felt “had “by a seminary that so stressed ”empathy” with sinners and “dialogue” with the Church’s enemies that the priesthood seemed to have lost its point.  

The Lib-Nats class war continues apace and General Turnbull reminds us of another victory

On 1 July 2018 Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull proudly reminded his fellow Australians that the planned personal income tax cuts had started that day.

He was careful not to point out that to get that $530 tax refund next year this nurse or school teacher would have to earn above the average full-time wage in their respective professions.

Turnbull was also careful not to mention that these personal tax cuts excluded the lowest income earners - many of whom would be hit with the second tranche of penalty rate cuts which came into force on 1 July as well.

While the fact that on 1 July he just happens to get a 2 per cent parliamentary pay rise for the third year in a row, during a period of extremely low wage growth for ordinary workers, passes without mention as well.

It did not go unnoticed...........

The Guardian, 1 July 2018:

This week saw criticism of Labor starting a class war. But the real class war is being fought by those who seek to erase people on low and middle incomes from the debate. And too often the media are willing participants in this erasure.

Let us be honest: Australia is a nation whose politicians are for the most part drawn from similar socioeconomic (and education) backgrounds, covered by journalists who (including myself) come from similar backgrounds, and where any interruption to this course of events – such as when Ricky Muir was elected to the Senate – is greeted with a barely disguised level of condescension that someone not university educated or white collar has deigned to enter the sanctum.

It is a situation of course not solely devoted to income – gender and especially race are also major factors at play. In positions of power we remain a very white, relatively well-paid male nation (and I speak as one of that group).

It is not a situation without consequences.

Retirement age of 70? Well, that seems doable to one who sits behind a desk. The shift of jobs to the services sector? Well, after all, who would want to work in a factory? Low levels of industrial disputes? That must be good – let me quote some measure of international competitiveness while I pass over these record low wages growth and wonder at the coincidence.

It’s the type of thinking that has journalists asking “Is $120,000 the new rich” because that will generate a headline without even caring that it is more than double the median income.

And it is why I have little time for the theatre criticism that can infest political coverage where journalists writing for publications whose target audience is the very wealthiest in our society talk about how Labor’s “class war” attacks on Malcolm Turnbull are poor politics that won’t fly, and are divisive.

That’s pretty rich given today low-paid fast-food, hospitality, pharmacy and retail workers around the country are seeing cuts to their penalty rates.

Let us not fall into the trap of believing we can’t suggest that the situation and wealth of those in power has no impact on the policies they put forward, even while such policies actually benefit those same people who are putting them in place.

Oh no, we must instead keep to the myth that Australia is some egalitarian paradise where our history is one of everyone buckling down and working together to forge a nation against the odds. Bugger the rum rebellion, put John Macarthur on the $2 note, and bask in the warmth of misremembered history……

We see this erasure in his speeches where he talks of “school principals and police superintendents” to describe those deserving of a tax cuts as being somehow not wealthy – indeed as very much middle class.

The base level salary for a Victorian police superintendent is $154,412, the median salary for a Victorian school principal in 2015-16 was $113,446. That someone would use such incomes to talk up tax cuts says all you need to know about who he sees as the most deserving.

And here I must admit the media is often hostage to this erasure as well.

Upon the passing of the income tax cuts, one newspaper ran the line “What do low-medium income earners get?” and noted that “From July next year, Australians who earn up to $125,333 will get up to $530 cash-back when they lodge their tax return”.

In 2017 the median income was $52,988 and the top 10% of employees earned more than $109,668. Congratulations to those in the top 10%, you’re now officially middle-income Australia.

It means those who are actually middle and low-income workers are effectively erased from the debate – their situation ignored, and where to even raise it draws a rebuke – how dare you play the class war card! Why do you hate deserving middle class like the police superintendent?

The budget, despite what we might be led to believe, given the tax cuts that have just been passed without any savings measures attached, is not a magic pudding. Money spent on tax cuts to those presented as middle class but who are actually wealthy, means less money for those on actual low and middle incomes.

We do have a class war in Australia, and right now it is being won by those who not only would have you believe it is not occurring – and should not be mentioned – but who also would have you believe that those who are actually well off are doing it tough.

We need to be honest about who makes decisions in this country, how they are made and who they benefit. And we need to be honest about what is the reality for people on low and middle incomes. Failure to do so not only erases them from the debate, it ensures the system remains unchanged.

Read the full article here.

On 7 May 2015 there is a general election in the U.K. Are you eligible to vote?

North Coast Voices received this email from the Leader of the Green Party of England & Wales on 14 March 2015.

__________________________

Greetings from London, where we Greens are in the final weeks of our biggest-ever national election campaign.

Did you know that all Australian adults currently in the UK are eligible to vote in British elections?

It’s true. So are most British citizens living in Australia. The UK elections on May 7 are the most important in a generation — and a Green vote has never been more powerful.

Find out if you can vote in the UK election today.

British politics is broken. 3.5 million children live in poverty but the old parties all support huge cuts to public services. The Conservative government here is slashing clean energy and expanding fracking across the country — just like Tony Abbott.

But people here are standing up. Nearly 50,000 people have joined the Green parties of the UK in the last year alone. There is a hunger for change and it’s showing in the polls. Predictions show that if we can turn out every Green supporter on May 7, we will help decide who forms the next government.  

That’s why we need you. Our key seats will come down to a handful of votes — eligible overseas voters could decide this election for the Greens.

If you're an Australian in the UK or a British citizen in Australia, register to vote today.

Just like in Australia, the Greens are the only party keeping multinational companies honest about the tax they (don’t) pay. We’re for keeping healthcare in public hands and providing good homes for everyone.

I was the only party leader to mention climate change in the election debates last month.

For the good of the planet, keeping a Green voice in the UK Parliament has never been more important. That’s why we need everyone next month.

Please, register to vote in the UK election today - and vote Green on May 7 to change politics forever.

Yours,

Natalie Bennett
Leader, Green Party of England and Wales

PS As an Australian myself, I really appreciate your support in this. Know any Australians in the UK at the moment — or British citizens living in Australia? Please forward this email to them to get the word out. We can change politics, but it’s going to take all of us.

__________________________

Voting in a UK General Election

In a UK parliamentary general election, registered voters in every area of the country vote for an MP to represent them in the House of Commons. There are 650 geographical areas - these are called constituencies.

You can vote in a UK parliamentary general election if you’re registered to vote and:

 * aged 18 or over on polling day

 * a UK citizen, Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic

 * not legally excluded from voting (eg because you’re in prison)

You can’t vote in a UK parliamentary general election if you are:

 * under 18

 * a member of the House of Lords

 * a European Union citizen (and not also a UK, Irish or Commonwealth citizen)

 * in prison (apart from remand prisoners)

Tony Abbott's 'Australians for Honest Politics Trust' may come under the legal spotlight

Former One Nation Co-founder states intention to sue Liberal Party Leader Tony Abbott

So you are a professional journalist and you personally don't like the social media platform, Twitter? Read on.......

IMAGE: The Wheeler Centre

University of Melbourne academic, author, writer, Tim Dunlop writing at Patreon, 19 September 2021:

The audience-journalism treadmill

 This post is out from behind the paywall for a few days. Feel free to share. If you find your way here via this article, please consider a paid subscription. It will give you access to the full archive and all future work. Thanks. (My Twitter travel hiatus continues.)

The best thing about Leigh Sales writing about abuse on Twitter, I was thinking as the story broke, was that it will likely bring forth a response from Margaret Simons.

Lo and behold.

Simons has a piece in The Age responding to Sales's piece at the ABC.

I want to say something about both, and the debate more generally, about why we keep going over the same old ground and what journalists who hate social media think the endgame might be.

Apologies if you've heard all this before.

The Sales' piece, as far as it goes, is compelling. It addresses a serious issue that needs regular reiteration, and it highlights a failing of social media that users––and owners––of various platforms need to acknowledge, that particularly for women, and maybe particularly for women journalists, such spaces can be sites of unforgivable and unrelenting abuse.

Honestly, read the article and take it to heart. Keep the tab open. We are all diminished by the abuse she documents.

The article is, though, a very partial take on what is a much bigger issue. I say this as a criticism, not just of Sales' piece, but of the way too many journalists continue to wear blinkers when it comes to social media.

We can all acknowledge the problems with Twitter, but if we are ever going to seriously address the underlying issues we need to engage with a few other things, and it is a constant failing of journalists that they don't. This is not to diminish their complaints; in fact, it is take them more seriously than they tend to themselves.

Neither Sales' piece (nor Simons') can be read in isolation from the previous two decades of exchanges between professional journalists and their post-digitisation audience, and one of the most frustrating things about the issue is the way in which various journalists reinvent the wheel every time they get annoyed with Twitter.

As often happens in the media, the controversy du jour is presented as just that, and little regard is given to history or wider context.

Even worse, insufficient attention is paid to matters of power and institutional structure, of the place of the media in society more generally, of the way in which public spaces like Twitter and Facebook are controlled by privately-owned corporations, and of the ongoing relationship between audience and media. Little or no reference is made to the endless pieces that have already picked these issues apart outside journalistic op eds.

We have been having this discussion since at least the turn of the century, since blogs, but to read Sales' piece is to start from scratch.

It is a huge failing, and no wonder nothing changes.

So, it is worth noting that Sales offers no structural analysis, makes no attempt to understand the wider issues in which the abuse she rightly criticises arises. She responds to precisely none of the, by now, extensive body of work that exists on the nature of journalist-audience interaction on social media. It is all reduced to personal anecdotes (powerful ones, I might add) and generalisations, an unfortunate combination.

Can we at least be honest here and recognise the problems she describes are not limited to social media, let alone to Twitter in particular. Racism, sexism, misogyny, all sorts of gendered and class abuse are stock-in-trade for other platforms and, for the mainstream media itself.

In an Australian context, News Ltd in particular has elevated bullying––the almost unchecked exercise of their own power––to a reflex, and Margaret Simons herself, along with any number of others, have been victims of this, and it is more damaging than any 'pile on', so-called, on Twitter.

Can we talk about that?

And don't tell me this isn't relevant to Sales' piece, or that she is making a more specific point. It is part of the same problem.

Let me let you into a secret: part of the reason people take to Twitter in the first place is because the media, its journalists, and editors, and its so-called regulatory bodies, fail to respond to the way in which the media regularly drops the ball, either in terms of accuracy or analysis, or, indeed, in terms of abuse. They create a vacuum into which an audience with access to social media is inevitably drawn.

Journalists will regularly invoke badly formed theories of free speech to defend their own shortcomings, but never extend anything like the same standards to "Twitter". To put it another way, they hold Twitter to a standard they don't apply to their own industry.

.........

Some people are running the line that the Sales' piece is about abuse she has received, not about other sorts of criticism, and that therefore––the logic runs––if you are upset about her piece, then you must have a guilty conscience.

This is disingenuous at best and goes to the heart of the problems we have in discussing these issues.

By which I mean, the line is not that easily drawn. Indeed, the difference between abuse and criticism is one of the matters at stake. Sometimes the line is obvious, other times it isn't.

Over and over, journalists write pieces like this and they respond to the most mindless abuse they receive, generalise that to all of 'Twitter', while ignoring more thoughtful criticism that comes their way. It is a lazy and self-serving approach.

Journalists are completely within their rights to complain about the way people respond to their work, but it would help everyone, especially them, if they acknowledged and engaged with the huge body of work that already exists on these matters. If they responded to the best of the criticism rather than the worst.

Only then are we likely to get off this treadmill.

Yes, Sales makes a valid and concerning case about the abuse directed at, particularly, women journalists. And yes, such abuse is cowardly, demeaning and indicative of broader issues of misogyny in public culture and should never be tolerated.

But now what?

Unless journalists also engage with the legitimate criticism they receive, they run the risk of conflating criticism with abuse, and that is what at risk in Sales' piece and other articles like it.

A double standard develops.

The people Sales blocks on Twitter include well-credentialed journalists who have criticised her, not abused her, and while it is entirely up to her who she does and doesn't block, can we at least acknowledge that lines are, at best, blurred.

Abuse on social media is given disproportionate attention by journalists, but the abuse, sexism, misogyny, and racism that is structurally embedded in the mainstream media is given little attention at all.

Sales is on strong, if anecdotal, ground when she highlights abuse. She is less convincing in some other matters, and it is a shame she didn't offer a more in-depth analysis.

For instance, she writes, 'Let's not duck the common thread here — it is overwhelmingly left-leaning Twitter users who are targeting ABC journalists for abuse.'

Given the way in which the ABC is targeted by News Ltd, the IPA and the Liberal Party (a point Sales notes in passing) I would like to see some data that supports the claim that abuse is 'overwhelming left-leaning'. It may well be true of Sales's experience, but as I say, it would be good to see some evidence that this 'fact' extends beyond that.

The plural of anecdote is not data, as they say. And the use of 'left-leaning' as a descriptor is itself hardly an example of precise labelling.

My own experience is that most abuse is from the right and from the centre (yes, also imprecise terms), not to mention from the mainstream media itself––particularly true in the days of blogs––but I would try not to say this amounted to a common thread, let alone present it as an overwhelming fact of Twitter or any other social media platform.

Let's look at the Simons' article.

Margaret Simons is one of a relatively small number of established journalists who were trained and came to professional maturity in the pre-digital age who have meaningfully adapted to the changes wrought by digitisation and rise of social media. In fact, she is a leader in the field, and has written extensively and wisely on the topic. From the beginning, she has engaged with the new landscape and has tried to make sense of how, not just the industry, but the craft of journalism has changed. (And yes, she is a friend, so I am biased.)

She is simply one of the best journalists out there, with a love of, and dedication to, public interest journalism that shines through everything she does, and that she enhances with her own use of social media, as anyone who followed her Twitter coverage of the lockdown of the Flemington public housing towers in 2020 can attest.

In her hands, Twitter is a powerful tool, and her journalism on the platform has won her plaudits and a dedicated following amongst those other journalists dismiss as the Twitterarti. Her example puts the lie to the idea that the site is nothing more than a sewer.

Beyond all that, she is journalism educator, most recently as the head of the Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne, where she has nurtured some of the best young journalists in the country.

And this is one of the things I keep wondering as journalists continue to bag and rubbish social media: from a purely pedagogical standpoint, what message are they sending to young journalists who will inevitably have to work in this environment?

Maybe a Leigh Sales or a Chris Uhlmann or a Chris Kenny can excuse themselves from such platforms, but it is a privilege not available to most journalists, especially newbies.

Simons' response to Sales is measured, but with steel in it.

She acknowledges the problems with bullying; she concurs with Sales' concerns about accusations of bad faith. 'Nevertheless,' she writes, 'I think she fails to draw a distinction between abuse and legitimate critique.'

She calls Sales bluff on journalists not being thin-skinned, and writes: 'Journalists ARE thin-skinned, sometimes ridiculously so, when they are criticised in public.'

Simons makes the point that simply withdrawing from social media is not good enough, arguing, 'Journalists who do not interact are missing a professional opportunity.'

Many journalists dismiss Twitter as unrepresentative of broader society in order diminish its relevance, and Sales says it is not 'anything remotely representative of the Australian public.'

But as Simons points out, Sales is underestimating the number of people who use Twitter:

Leigh Sales quotes data from the ABC’s Australia Talks survey to assert that only 6 per cent of Australians use Twitter regularly. The University of Canberra figures suggest that is closer to 18 per cent – but these general figures obscure important details.

The Digital News Report data shows Twitter users are particularly news-aware and engaged.

They are more likely to use Twitter mainly for news, whereas Facebook and YouTube users come across news incidentally.

 

Twitter users are more likely than other social media users to follow mainstream media outlets and journalists, and less likely to get their news from social media personalities and “influencers”.

Importantly, at a time when persuading people to pay for news is crucial to the survival of serious journalism, Twitter users are much more likely to be already paying subscriptions.…

By comparison, only 14 per cent of Facebook and YouTube users pay for news, although the user bases are much larger. (Park emphasises that sample sizes are small once cross-tabulated, so the data should be treated as indicative rather than precise.)

In other words, the more serious contributors on Twitter are exactly the kind of people serious media organisations most want to attract.

I would make a further point: the fact that Twitter is not representative of the broader population is a feature not a bug. Used properly, as many have found, it can be an endless source of useful information and, what's more, can offer insights not available elsewhere.

In other words, by virtue of the engaged and learned nature of many participants, Twitter users are often ahead of the game precisely because they are not beholden to the same echo chambers and self-reinforcing problems of journalists who talk only to their own kind.

I know this flies in the face of a lot received 'wisdom', but so be it.

Users on the platform saw the end of Malcolm Turnbull long before the gallery did. They saw the relevance and power of the Gillard misogyny speech while the press gallery was churning out Tweet after article dismissing it as a gimmick.

To say you don't want to deal with the most engaged edge of your readership/viewership is a limiting professional decision.

For most people––for the representative Australian public Sales invokes––politics is completely mediated, known only by the way it is reported. Twitter, on the other hand, is full of people who interact with politics more directly and it therefore offers, as Simons says, a tremendous resource for any journalist who is smart enough to take it seriously on its own terms.

There is another inconsistency here. If Twitter users are as small and irrelevant a section of the population as Sales claims, and if your intention is to make a stand against bullying and abuse, then why is Twitter given so much journalistic attention and the mainstream media itself so little?

There is a glaring double standard here.

Again, this has all been pointed out before.

In the early 2000s, when blogging took off, it was inhabited by engaged amateurs, often with expertise in various areas, and it was noticeable how the tone shifted––from a deliberative space to one of gotchas and, yes, abuse––as more and more mainstream journalists started to use the space.

When I blogged for News Ltd, my comments thread would on occasion fill with abuse and I knew that in all likelihood Andrew Bolt had 'mentioned' me and linked, thus encouraging his carefully cultivated readership to whip over to my joint and tell me what they thought of me. This wasn't an accident: it was a business model, and when I complained to higher ups, no-one was willing to confront Bolt, let alone issue any sort of wider directive about such matters.

Sky News doesn't exist to deliberate on matters of public importance: it is there to cultivate and monetise anger and disaffection and it does so in such a heavy-handed way that YouTube recently suspended Sky's channel on the platform.

Can we talk about that? Can we get a phalanx of journalists who are concerned about standards in public debate to put pen to paper on that?

Journalists who regularly find fault with 'Twitter', rarely call out abuse when it is other journalists doing it, and they use their powerful platforms to intimidate, and in some instances, actually abuse a particular sector of citizens, namely, those on Twitter. They rarely take the time to discriminate, dismissing and criticising 'Twitter' with a broad sweep of their hand.

In the Phil Coorey article the above Tweet links, Coorey says of the Lindy Chamberlain trial:

One can only imagine how even more hideous the whole episode would have been had the internet – including its sewer, Twitter – existed back then.

It's laughable. One of the huge failures of mainstream Australian journalism, and his concern is it might've been worse if Twitter existed.

Great argument. Compelling analysis.

Coorey dismissing Twitter as a sewer and Uhlmann calling people on Twitter sewer rats is itself a form of bullying. By itself, each insult might be a glancing blow, but they reinforce prejudices that poison public discourse. The difference is, Uhlmann and Coorey (and others) are doing it from a position of much more power than any no-image user on Twitter.

Can all mainstream journalist concerned about bullying and abuse on Twitter write a swathe of articles about that?

Until journalists acknowledge this power imbalance, until they openly address the structural problems with their own industry and pay more than lip service to the failings of their profession, they are never going be taken as sincere contributors to this important debate.

And round and round we will go.

I honestly don't expect Sales to pay any attention to this piece, but that's why I was glad Margaret Simons wrote a response. Maybe Sales will be less willing to dismiss the criticism Simons offers, and take to heart, not just the article itself, but the way Simons conducts herself on social media and how she deploys it in her journalism more generally. 

Regardless, the issue goes beyond individual behaviours and rests on structural matters to do with the incentives––algorithmic and human––built into the business models of both social and mainstream media. If journalists genuinely want to address abuse in the public sphere, they could do worse than enlist the support of their most engaged readership and work with them towards a common solution rather than simply dismiss that readership as the problem.