Wednesday, December 14, 2005
THE POST ANDREW WEST REJECTS
SMH online political writer Andrew West—still at work; shouldn’t he be striking with his comrades?—explains why he removed a post in which he was critical of some elements of Islam: “The problem was that a lot of folks—not all—on both sides just didn’t, or wouldn’t, get it.” Oh no—the readers decline to agree! West also writes:
It’s important to point out this was entirely a unilateral decision. There was no pressure, suggestions, hints, “counselling”, warnings, or friendly advice whatsoever from colleagues or editors at the Herald or Fairfax. The decision was mine alone. I consulted no one.
Well, yay. I don’t think West gets blogging; he seems overwhelmed by reaction to his post (400 comments) and by the nature of that reaction, from readers all over the political spectrum. He also describes his attention-drawing post as a “blog”. Andrew, mate, a blog is the place where you write; the individual items are “posts”. You know, like “newspaper” and “story”.
UPDATE. Now West’s post on the removed post has itself been removed.
UPDATE II. West emails: “It was MY decision alone. See today’s Oz op-ed pages. Fairfax most assuredly did NOT censor it.” No; West did.
UPDATE III. The original Islam item has been reposted.