Looking at the news in several sources this morning, while sipping my morning coffee, I couldn’t help but wonder whether people calling themselves journalists think we are all fools with the bourgeois sensibilities of a caricatured bourgeois drone.
There’s day five of Tucker Carlson, with zero new information, and hand-wringing commentary on Mark Latham’s homophobia without evidence.
The Carlson thing is probably just about Schadenfreude, but really, how much more blood can the augurs get on their hands pulling at the entrails of this one? How much more ambiguous and irrelevant can the speculation get? Or is this no more than a self-promotion? Of sooth-sayers trying to convince us they are wise and prescient without demonstrating either of those qualities?
As for Latham, those adults who don’t know that he needs the help of a psychiatrist maybe should see one themselves. But if you are going to allege homophobia, you don’t then get to pretend you are withholding the offending comments to spare … whom, exactly?
Sure, homophobic slurs may be crass and offensive. But are we such hysterical puritans that we can’t be told what the hell it is the commentator is trying to say, and why?
This is like all those tight-arsed prigs who refuse to spell out shit or fuck, using instead asterisks, as if this meant we were being spared the awful import of words too naughty for adults to bear. Do media workers really think we have the maturity of blue rinse church elders?
If you’re too chicken to report on the source of a serious allegation in a comment, don’t comment at all. Most of us already know Latham is hardly a moderate, thoughtful man.
No comments:
Post a Comment