I really am over discussing this particular issue, but I don't think the issue is over being discussed. Geoff Elliot's latest piece deserves a mention because it brings to the surface some things that I don't think have been mentioned in much detail to date.
Some of these are less about #grogsgate per se than they are about the way public discussion is conducted more generally, and they have been apparent to me since I started blogging back in 2002.
The key issue is that of good-faith argument. So much of the bad will generated in online discussions arises from one party wilfully misinterpreting what the other person is saying, and Elliot's piece is a classic case of that.
What I'm talking about is a strawman type of argument, where a single comment from your interlocutor is taken either out of context, or taken literally when it was meant figuratively, or specifically when it was meant generally, or even seriously when it was meant as an aside, a quip, or even an outright joke, or is in some other way stretched beyond what someone in good faith could reasonably assume it meant.
So when Elliot says this, we know we are jumping headlong into the realm of bad-faith argumentation:
Former ABC journalist Julie Posetti, a TV and radio journalism lecturer at the University of Canberra and something of a doyenne of social media (she is doing a PhD on it), tweeted through the week on the topic that became known on Twitter as Grogs-gate.
In one tweet she wrote: "Steve 'I write what I like' Biko also used a pseudonym. And what of the anonymous bloggers who promote democracy in Zimbabwe [and] Iran?"
And the Jericho freedom movement thus pushed on from there.
The article is built around a wild over-interpretation of what Posetti said, that somehow Grogs had been elevated to the level of freedom-fighter of the sort that Biko was, and that people were comparing what happened to Grogs with the fact that Biko was "beaten and tortured to the point that he died in the back of a van en route to Pretoria." Not only that, but Elliot assigned that false interpretation of Posetti's words to virtually everyone (Elliots speaks of "the echo chamber of Twitter") who expressed some sort of annoyance that Grogs was outed.
Read the whole article and you'll see what I mean.
This method of argumentation is not only dishonest, it speaks to an almost unbelievable immaturity, a willingness to play gotcha in a sort of sneaky and childish way in the hope that nobody will notice what you have done. Because on the surface, the argument is plausible -- you are quoting something your opponent actually said. But to anybody over the mental age of thirteen, the ruse is immediately apparent, and you just have to stare in embarrassment when an adult tries to get away with such an approach.
A reasonable person could despair that a leading journalist working for a major national newspaper would do this. But there it is.
To me, that is the most revealing aspect of Elliot's piece, this ridiculous strawman-type argument that he has erected, because a willingness to do that speaks to a more fundamental problem with public debate.
But let me make a few other points about this article.
1.This is around about the seventh article The Australian has published on this matter and I believe there are more on the way. Some say this is clever commercial milking of a controversial story that helps generate hits for The Australian. I don't buy that, not as a primary motivation. The Australian is obviously deeply invested in justifying what they did and for all their bravado are somewhat shell-shocked at the reaction. The bottom line is, if the matter was as clear cut as they like to pretend, if the outing of Grogs was so straightforwardly correct, not one article of justification would've been necessary.
2. Apart from the Biko strawman, notice something else about the introduction to Elliot's article:
CHANCES are you haven't heard of Greg Jericho. But for a clique of probably a few thousand people, maybe less, Jericho was elevated this week to the status of freedom fighter and likened to Steve Biko.
Notice how this conflicts with The Australian's main reason for outing Jericho, namely, that he had reached a level of influence that warranted his exposure. How can that be true if "chances are" you haven't heard of him and that his exposure mattered to only "a clique of a few thousand maybe less"?
3. Also, could they stop pretending they are concerned about Grogs' welfare. James Massola said in another article that he hopes Grogs keeps writing. Elliot goes further:
Twitter would have been no use to Martin Luther King or to Biko without their bravery and that of their supporters. But it sure helped Jericho become a name in the Australian political and media market. He's now even more popular, thanks to The Australian. Thankfully, he didn't lose his job and is likely to get offers from media concerns in any case. And why not?
Please. Massola saying he hopes Grogs keeps writing is like the guy who punched you in the face saying he hopes your broken nose gets better. Elliot's claim that all this has been to Grogs' benefit is just another pathetic attempt at justification. Clearly, it is not for them to judge. Besides, if they are that keen on his writing, they should've just hired him in the first place rather than outing him.
4. This raises another under-discussed point which is power. Elliot derides as "conspiracy theories" charges "that The Australian was bullying and intimidating a supposed critic", but this conveniently overlooks the massive power imbalance between The Oz and Grogs or any other lone blogger or commenter. When someone who "chances are you haven't heard of" is singled out by one of the largest media organisations in the world for doing nothing more than expressing his opinion, then you are almost by definition in the area of bullying and intimidation.
As I say, I'm pretty over discussing the matter, but as long The Oz keeps offering up these self-serving, lame and inconsistent justifications, then people should respond.
And Elliot's piece in particular warranted comment because it engaged in the sort of bad-faith argumentation that is a blight on public debate more generally.
