Thursday 25th of April 2024

about the freedom of the press and freedom of expression in a country where people get sacked for saying what they think...

the press

When Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg invented the movable type in 1439, he and his fellow printers discovered that the great advantage of simplifying the printing process was to make serious money by selling printed books for nearly the same price as hand-written manuscripts. By 1500, the price of books had dropped by 4/5ths.

But soon after his invention took off, printed books became the "organs of the passions of mankind". 

Printing/publishing, formerly painstakingly done by cumbersome woodblocks or by monks copying manuscripts by candlelight, now was becoming mass market and was somewhat used for political and religious "protests", especially against the Catholic Church from the Protestant reformers. One of the main beef from the reformers was that Latin was the exclusive province of priests and learned scholars. The masses never got a foot in "education" since schooling was relatively reserved for the gentry and the clergy (often second sons and daughters from the gentry). The reformers wanted the bible to be provided in the local languages to also help ordinary people learn reading and writing.

Of course the Catholics did not want the vulgar common languages being used to swindle souls away from their little racket that bathed in the mystery of arcane Latin. The same happened with the Muslims who do not want the Qu'ran written in other languages than Arabic. The carefully concocted arcane and sacredness tend to loose their cachet when fully understood as the con they are.

The printing of books was slowly "democratising" the understanding of the social order and awakening "spirits". That soon got squashed...

William Caxton was a successful mercer who, like a duck to water, took to "The Mystery" (the craft of printing alla Gutemberg) by translating, printing and publishing books. The first book "published" in the English language was Caxton's "The Recuyell of the Histories of Troy" in 1474. The first ever book printed in England was Caxton's "The Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers" in 1477.  

Soon, most of the newly published books, were works with popular appeal. They provided the masses with new view points, political and religious, as well as "entertainment" such as "romance" stories and hunting manuals.

A major problem for the Catholic Church was Tyndale's translation of the New testament into English. Protestants smuggled the book from Europe into England. When these books were found by the "authorities", they were burnt. 

One bishop decided to stop this noxious trade and sent an emissary to buy all the copies he could find in Antwerp. Of course, the "bishop buying all the books" provided instant cash for Tyndale to print second editions with extra plated illustrations, plus the Book of Exodus, on top of a very decent living. The bishop's ploy thus failed miserably.

The freedom to publish soon became a major problem for the Kingdom and the Church.

In 1534, the English Kingdom created a strong censorship regime by making sure all books published were "licensed" by a new guild, the Stationers' Company. This censorship lasted more than two hundred years to the resentment of authors and publishers though they still "published" clandestinely. Most authors were never paid, but the pamphleteers were still pushing their luck against the authorities who were cracking down harder and harder on subversive material and "unlicenced" book which were mostly the books the publishers wanted to publish. 

Here comes a witty Thomas Nash who, apart from sending the Elizabethan Queendom shitless, was also the "first" English literary critic, specially of bad writing and boring poetry. He was an inventor of word:

There is a Doctor and his fart that have kept a foule stinking stirre in Paules Churchyard; I crie him mercy, I slaundered him, he is scare a Doctor till he hath done his Acts: this dodipoule, this didopper, this professed braggart hath raid vpon me, without wit or art, in certaine foure penniworth of Letters and three farthingworth of Sonnets;...


The proliferation of seditious authors was soon counteracted by kings and their ministerial minions publishing their own books, swamping the market. 

Some books were published for the ideal of mankind, but many were to make serious cash. The new industry of literary critic started by Nash, flourished. Authors savaged authors. Private libraries became larger and larger and the nobility had to employ librarians to classify these books that no-one ever read, except the critics thereof. Some noblemen employed their librarians on their good looks and fuckability, not unlike some maids. Critics had a field day...

King James the First was responsible for the first "authorised version of the bible" in the common lingo of English, published in 1611, about 150 years after Tyndale's translations.... 

As well, scientific book were published "for The Improving of Natural Knowledge" (1667).

The printing press was improved with metal plates which allowed for longer lasting engravings and or etchings (1500). 

The paper cash was invented in the 7th century by the Chinese. But the first banknote issued by the bank of England (founded 1694) was printed in 1695 mainly to fund WAR.


And then the business of journals, news and printed "entertainment" was developed not to stir passions but to make money and regulate our intake of opiate. Religion is still in bed with governments. News is pre-muched, pre-digested, pre-packaged and there is little room for dissent on the margins. Plain wrongness by some pollies and advisors are SOLD to us as "different opinions". Opinions are often at the source of superstitions. Media barons became rich, especially when providing wrongness in an easy palatable format. 

The truth is hard yakka. it needs a lot of caveats and explanation, while any falsities can be printed without the need for back-up documentation. Anyone can spruik anything... Garbage outsells the truth one hundred to one.


All this to say that now in the epoch of electronic "communications", we're still marooned in deceit and brain-massaged by entertainment — and plunged in latent censorship and managed shifts of moods. Our distractions are many. Our comfort in submission to the insipid and the predictable is boundless. We don't read the small print of our social contract. 

We gawk at pictures of newly born princesses, without realising our ideal of a more equal society are once more destroyed by the kingdom.  The pundits now question why the "polls were so wrong" in the recent elections in England, where the conservatives won handsomely... Though the polls are made with substantial margins of errors, the main influence on the result was in my book the birth of Princess Charlotte... Isn't she so cute... two points shifted on the news towards the CONservatives... The importance of the royal coitus cannot be underestimated in a country like England and by default Australia presently led by a rabid royalist iddiott.


And these con artists who swindle our spirits with snake oil in books are smiling with hypocritical compassion as we become cocooned into complete annihilation of free thoughts.


The rise of narcissistic individualism is a relative mana for governments. While we look at our navel in the shape of an iPhone, we don't pay attention to the truancy of our leaders.


These days we get so much printed matter and "packaging" in our homes though that there is enough to fill a packed cubic metre every three months. Lucky we recycle but the cycle continues with more crap coming our way. Of course "paper" was invented by the Chinese in about 100 BC. Soon it was used as packaging to wrap tea as well as writing stuff on it. The oldest "books" known — as opposed to parchment and scrolls were instruction manuals. They were found in Egyptians tombs as 4000 year old instruction booklets on how to deal with the dangers of afterlife. Apparently these books were never used. 


Gus Leonisky

Your Local Publishing expert.

when the truth hurts the new sacred myths of war heroes...

 

The social media protocol provides that “SBS, as a public broadcaster, must be, and must be seen to be, independent of political, commercial and other influences. Maintaining SBS’s independence and integrity is the responsibility of all SBS employees.”

In my view, it can be argued that Ebeid breached the code himself, in that he undermined the reputation of SBS by encouraging the perception that he bowed to political interference and intervention by the Minister.

Ironically, many of the angry tweeters he sought to placate began from the standpoint that public broadcasters have no integrity to defend.

He refused to heed any messages from free speech defenders or others urging caution. To Channel Ten News anchor Hugh Rimington, he tweeted on Sunday, ‘Hugh this has nothing to do with free speech, it’s not tenable to remain on air if your audience doesn’t trust you.’

Which audience was he referring to - Malcolm Turnbull Jamie Briggs, Chris Kenny and the anonymous bullies? 

Turnbull’s original replies to Crikey focussed on staffing decisions, while the focus of the Act is on ‘content’. While publicly and privately declaring his own view, he sent a clear message about content. It seems reasonable to suggest that without Turnbull’s intervention, McIntyre would not have been sacked. Like Ebeid’s action, Turnbull’s acted to satisfy one lot of political interests while silencing others.

News Corp commentators mobilised and channelled the angry tweeters towards Turnbull.  Having achieved the desired result, he and other commentators celebrated the sacking in columns last week as if they had nothing to do with it. Typically of those who would suppress dissent, Kenny equates the angry right wing bullies with the mainstream. We must hope that he is not correct.

Kenny has moved on for now but if you’re in the line of fire in News Corp’s long march against public broadcasting,  you’ll no doubt be hearing from him again soon.

Silence assists the cause of suppression and censorship. Knowing that, more than 2,700 people, many of whom strongly support public broadcasting, have signed a petition asking Ebeid to reinstate McIntyre.

Consider joining them.

Another option is laying a formal complaint that SBS’s management has brought the broadcaster into disrepute by not being seen to protect its integrity and independence. 

 

- See more at: https://newmatilda.com/2015/05/06/getting-scott-mcintyre-lest-we-forget-role-pundits-politicians-and-social-media-mob#sthash.uVnKn9GQ.dpuf

 

SBS may have scored an own goal...

 

Former SBS sports reporter Scott McIntyre is taking legal action against the broadcaster after his he was sacked in a furore when he tweeted controversial views about Anzac Day.

His lawyers, Maurice Blackburn, filed a discrimination claim on Monday with the Fair Work Commission.

The experienced football journalist was fired 12 hours after posting a series of tweets on Anzac Day that the communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, described as “despicable” on Twitter the same evening.

 

McIntyre began his tweets on the centenary of the Gallipoli landings by criticising what he said was the “cultification [sic] of an imperialist invasion”.

“Remembering the summary execution, widespread rape and theft committed by these brave Anzacs in Egypt, Palestine and Japan,” he said.

Turnbull has admitted communicating his dismay about McIntyre’s posts to the managing director of SBS, Michael Ebeid, the night before the SBS staffer was sacked.

Ebeid later said McIntyre’s remarks were inappropriate and disrespectful, and that they breached the broadcaster’s code of conduct and social media policy.

McIntyre’s lawyers are claiming SBS breached its policies, including its code of conduct, and did not follow due process when the broadcaster dismissed McIntyre less than 24 hours after he posted his views on Twitter.

“The case is not about whether Mr McIntyre’s opinions are correct or not, Maurice Blackburn spokeswoman Amanda Tattam said in a statement. 

“It will focus on whether the views expressed by Mr McIntyre constituted political opinion and whether SBS terminated his employment for expressing these views. Section 351 of the Fair Work Act protects employees from adverse action by their employer (including sacking) if they express political opinion.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/18/sports-reporter-scott-mcintyre-to-sue-sbs-for-sacking-over-anzac-day-tweets

 

 

Read article at top...

 

rummaging for reasons to destroy free speech...

Scott McIntyre is taking SBS to court over their Malcolm Turnbull-motivated decision to sack him for some anti-war tweets. University of Sydney labour law expert, Professor Joellen Riley, says the odds are stacked against him.

WHEN Scott McIntyre tweeted his own opinions about the horrors of war on Anzac Day, he probably didn’t expect to be sacked from his job at SBS.

After all, we have plenty of examples in this country of journalists and commentators – Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and Kyle Sandilands, to name just three – who make a living from expressing controversial views that often offend at least some section of our community.

McIntyre is now appealing his dismissal, on the grounds that his employer has breached the “general protections” for workplace rights in the Fair Work Act 2009(Cth).

The particular provision McIntyre is relying upon is section 351, which provides that:

'An employer must not take adverse action against a person who is an employee, or prospective employee, of the employer because of the person’s race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.'

Adverse action includes dismissal, as well as other forms of workplace discipline (such as demotion), and the Fair Work Act places the onus on the employer to prove that they were not motivated by an impermissible reason (covered under section 361).

So it will be for SBS to demonstrate that it sacked McIntyre for a legitimate reason, not including his political opinions.

read more: https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/mcintyre-vs-sbs-will-test-workers-right-to-express-views-bosses-dont-like,7732

 

Meanwhile at the Turdy Centre for Fabricating Emotions:

...

The centre is to be reached via imitation trenches and will offer a 'leading edge, multimedia experience' which is 'immersive, interactive and informative' (rather like, one imagines, the original Western Front experience). There will be'dramatic and emotive narratives' and the visitor will leave 'filled with a sense of quiet pride and sorrow'. (No mention of passion, wonder or joy.)

No indication either of asking the big questions, or even some lesser ones. No clue yet to which subjects are on, and which off the interpretive centre’s agenda. Is venereal disease to be covered? What about the “mutinies“ (CEW Bean’s word, though the modern euphemism “combat refusal” may have been in use then) in France in 1918 in perhaps ten battalions? What about shootings of German prisoners?

Taking in the Villers-Bretonneux announcement, some observers wrote letters to the editor. For example, one Canberra reader said this:

'Outside of Anzac Day it is hard to see who will visit such a centre in the middle of nowhere unless hordes of tourist buses are expected to bring Aussies from Paris each day. There are a lot better things to spend $100 million on than extravagant seldom-visited memorials.'

Another letter writer imagined the ghost of Monash entreating the prime minister to spend the money on something more useful.

Other people, though, seemed not to care. Perhaps the effort of kickingWoolworths or Scott McIntyre into touch had sapped their energy.

We reckon Monsieur le PresidentFrancois Hollande, thinks John Monash has saved France again, though. Unemployment in France is at around 11 per cent, a record level, and the Villers-Bretonneux area has been particularly hard hit. Even if a lot of the technical work on the interpretive centre is done in Australia, there should be plenty of digging, lifting and banging jobs for the locals.

Read more: https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/constructing-emotions-australia-leads-world-in-wwi-commemoration-spend,7730