Jim Mora says “Je suis Charlie”. Then he asks, in baffled wonderment: “Do we all now have to be inoffensive and diplomatic?” The Panel, Radio NZ National, Monday 19 January 2015 Jim Mora, Nicky Pellegrino, Ellen Read, Julie Moffett
A few years ago on this programme, the poisonous right wing historian Dr Michael Bassett snarled, snorted and then croaked, with Stygian malice, that Nicky Hager was a Holocaust-denier. Not a word of demur was uttered by host Jim Mora, producer Susan Baldacci or anyone else in the studio.
Of course, the fact that Bassett’s statement was ridiculous didn’t matter; what DID matter was that he made the statement, and effectively derailed the prospect of any serious discussion of the revelations about Bassett and his cronies in Hager’s 2005 book The Hollow Men. That extraordinary outburst was followed by…. nothing but silence.
A charitable listener might have concluded that Jim Mora and the others were simply taken aback by Bassett’s ferocity, and were unable to believe that he had spoken those words. After all, how WOULD you ask a brutal ideologue to repeat what he’s just said? Perhaps you would say, ever so tentatively: “Sorry, Dr Bassett, but could you just say that again, clearly this time? Because it SOUNDED like you just called Nicky Hager, of all people, a Holocaust-denier! Ha ha ha ha ha!”
Or, like any sane person would do, you would simply presume that you had mis-heard and just plough on with the next discussion. That’s clearly what Jim Mora decided to do on that infamous occasion; he obviously took the view that nothing was to be served by dwelling on the matter, and that anyway, poor old Michael Bassett had pretty well lost his marbles.
Perhaps, though, part of the reason Jim Mora said nothing on that occasion was because he harboured some cock-eyed notion that even the most cynical and depraved liar has the right to say what he likes, even when what he says is complete and utter balderdash. This afternoon (Monday 19 January 2015) Jim Mora expressed support for the right of unfunny cartoonists to heap the foulest abuse on the weak and suffering. He even said, with only a little of his trademark sardonicism, “Je suis Charlie.”
As well as allowing Michael Bassett to tell the most incendiary lie imaginable on his programme, Jim Mora has allowed the likes of Jordan Williams, John Barnett, John Bishop, Nevil “Breivik” Gibson, Chris Wikaira, Barry Corbett, Garth “The Knife” McVicar and Stephen Franks [1] — to name only the most odious — to make provocative, partisan and highly contentious statements, rarely even demurring, let alone challenging or contradicting them. And today, in the same vein, he has expressed solidarity with the people who choose to engage in crude racial goading of a racial minority in a virulent French rag.
Try to engage in more measured, reasonable commentary, however, and Mora and his producers will run you off the programme. Just look how quickly they banned “Bomber” Bradbury after he had the temerity to draw attention to the crass and irresponsible behaviour of John Key. [2]
You support abusive cartoonists, but banned Bomber Bradbury. What’s going on?
Dear Jim,
You asked: “Do we all now have to be inoffensive and diplomatic?”
Interesting to hear you sticking up for free speech—or in this case, free racial abuse.
While you seem perfectly happy to endorse the right of Charlie Hebdo to unleash the foulest abuse against an oppressed minority, you—or was it your producers?—banned Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury for daring to criticise the misconduct of the prime minister.
I am sure that I am not the only one of your listeners to note the irony of your new stance.
Mora is being perfectly consistent. * If you make incendiary/false/defamatory comments about minorities or private citizens, then that’s “Free Speech” * If you abuse the establishment or criticise the powerful, you are banned. * If you are a whistleblower or reveal dirty secrets, then expect a visit from the cops.
Um, what race dya reckon’s been abused, Moz? I’d hate to think you’re lumping together many different peoples because of a shared characteristic. There’s probably a word for that, but buggered if I can remember what it is.
So apart from that aspect TRP, viz. Morrissey’s reference to “race”, what’s your take on the thrust of what Morrissey says, as neatly encapsulated by Ropata:Rorschach @ 22.1 ? You know…….the incendiary being “Free Speech” when deployed against the unfashionable while much less directed in reverse is heinous speech.
Disingenuous is your feigned loss of memory about the “probably” applicable “word”. Care to come right out and say what it is you think Morrissey’s up to…….”many different peoples”…….”shared characteristic” ?
Would “hate to think” you’re trying a gratuitous, irresponsible, snippy, Bassett move on Moz. Would “hate to think” the elusive word(s) begin with ‘A’ and ‘S’ with a hyphen chucked in there somewhere. “Je Ne Suis Pas….” for such passive aggression……if that’s what you’re up to.
I know you have plenty of wiggle room here TRP. That obviates the need to respond dismissively, or from high-horse, or even vulgarly…….as of late seems to be your wont.
Well, to start from the top, North, I replied to Moz in a subtle way that I’m sure he appreciated. He’s a stickler for accuracy, as we all know.
R:R makes a good, if somewhat strained point. Mora was inconsistant with Bomber. Matthew Hooten has done worse, but has still been kept on. He (Bomber) should not have been dropped. Or, more pertinently, should never have been picked in the first place given his history of brain fart ranting. Bomber is as Bomber does.
Free speech (or freedom of expression) has limits, but I have no problem with taking the piss out of religion. You can’t insult what doesn’t exist, so Gods all all kinds can do one as far as I’m concerned. However, insulting faith gets tricky. The insult becomes personal. So context is important.
The difficulty in some folk’s understandings of the concept of free speech is basing it on a false equivelance. Denying the holocaust, for example, is not free spreech, it’s a hate crime.
I replied to Moz in a subtle way that I’m sure he appreciated. He’s a stickler for accuracy, as we all know.
Actually, I am. When I am a little loose with my terminology, as you have rightly pulled me up for here, I am happy to be corrected.
Mora was inconsistant [sic] with Bomber. Matthew Hooten [sic] has done worse, but has still been kept on. He should not have been dropped.
Very good, Te Reo. So far so good.
Or, more pertinently, should never have been picked in the first place given his history of brain fart ranting.
Nonsense. Bomber Bradbury’s contributions to that show, like Gordon Campbell’s and (recently) Dita Di Boni’s, stood out for their lucidity and honesty. He memorably drove Michelle Boag into a near fit of apoplexy one day by insisting that she explain why the rich should not be forced to pay their taxes. Your words describing Bomber are not only disrespectful, they’re utterly wrong.
Bomber is as Bomber does.
That’s a vacuous statement if ever there was one.
Free speech (or freedom of expression) has limits, but I have no problem with taking the piss out of religion. You can’t insult what doesn’t exist, so Gods all all kinds can do one as far as I’m concerned. However, insulting faith gets tricky. The insult becomes personal. So context is important.
Good, Te Reo. See, you CAN write sensibly!
The difficulty in some folk’s [sic] understandings of the concept of free speech is basing it on a false equivelance. [sic] Denying the holocaust, for example, is not free spreech, it’s a hate crime.
What about the cartoons that Der Stürmer and Völkischer Beobachter published in the 1930s and ’40s: were they free speech too?
I’m just disappointed that you missed ‘spreech’. I’d like to think I’ve invented a new word that is apt for a discussion about Bomber Bradbury; a combination of speech and screech.
PS, whaddya reckon about Bomber’s own attacks on free speech via the medium of selectively removing comments from The Daily Blah that challenge his worldview? He’s almost RadioNZ like in his determination not have alternative views upset the zeitgeist.
Confused about what the heck is going on out there with money in politics? Look no further! Your speed guide to the issue of money in politics is here!
It’s about money in US politics but I’m sure much applies here as well despite our electoral spending limitations. Especially this bit:
Money has always been a part of elections, but in recent years – and especially since the Citizens United decision in 2010 – campaign spending has exploded. The big problem, though, is that elections are now paid for by corporations and the super rich, and politicians do what the people who pay them want. (“Sorry, taxpayers.”)
Why? Because the candidate with the most money wins 94% of the time so politicians care a lot about getting their hands on the moolah.
Getting money out of politics is essential to the health of our democracy.
I only half heard it. Mike Williams seemed to be making a rare good strong argument for Govt intervention in the Housing market ie Govt is only thing big enough to actually make a big enough dent. And she whoever she was just like ‘oh I disagree obviously’ no evidence or better solution.
“Do we all now have to be inoffensive and diplomatic?”
The Panel, Radio NZ National, Monday 19 January 2015
Jim Mora, Nicky Pellegrino, Ellen Read, Julie Moffett
Northcote Point
* If you make incendiary/false/defamatory comments about minorities or private citizens, then that’s “Free Speech”
* If you abuse the establishment or criticise the powerful, you are banned.
* If you are a whistleblower or reveal dirty secrets, then expect a visit from the cops.
Mike Williams seemed to be making a rare good strong argument for Govt intervention in the Housing market ie Govt is only thing big enough to actually make a big enough dent.
And she whoever she was just like ‘oh I disagree obviously’ no evidence or better solution.