News Hit

I was first made aware of the news in 140 characters or less - but it wasn’t the little birdie that told me.

It was a text from a Deveny-despising friend.

On Tuesday, I fell asleep to the Twitter feed of all things @CatherineDeveny, #Deveny and #logies. From the feedback to online news articles published by mass media and blogs alike, I knew she would be headlining the news the next morning.

I woke to her voice, as she was interviewed on Nova.

I checked my phone before I got out of bed, to find another text about Deveny’s dismissal. I was impressed - this friend was considerate enough to send me the news at 5:11am when he became aware of it, just in case I’d missed it (even though he didn't like her either).

The news on every major radio station from 7:30 yesterday morning to noon made some mention of Deveny’s debacle. More often than not, presenters began to debate her discharge from The Age.

Having read every single article published on the subject at that time, (UPDATE: Found another hyperlink), I turned to the interview I’d had with her in February.

And I have to admit; I cringed as I read it. Not just because it was my own piece - though that usually does the trick. 

Are there any hints in that piece about the fate that’s about to befall the protagonist?

Now, I know the people who read News Hit - and who would bother to read this piece, in particular - are savvy enough to know what this article is about, without me having to explain it. If not, here’s the best I can do while maintaining an essence of journalistic objectivity: Deveny, Twitter, Logies, Boned.

The provocative, subjective and subversive nature of Deveny’s work - and her dismissal from it for, ironically, the same reasons - means that I cannot so much as string the key elements of the story into a sentence without adopting a stance on it. And I’d much rather that you form your own opinions on her and her predicament before I reveal mine, if possible- the point here, after all, is not for me to push my personal opinions on you; it’s to facilitate a discussion.

So, have you clicked all the hyperlinks in this story, yet? Found out all you need to know to start talking?

Great. Let’s go.

I understand why some of my friends might not like Catherine Deveny’s work, and may find her public persona abrasive. Especially given the nature of her recent tweets with regards to ANZAC Day and the logies. Yes, raunch culture with regards to underage and pre-pubescent girls is extremely disturbing and problematic. However, Deveny chose to employ an equally extreme example to illustrate this. Considering her stance with regards to the sexual objectification of women- and her own children- I find it highly unlikely that she intended her comment to be taken literally. Deveny may be a lot of things, but an advocate for such an unspeakable act, I think not. Although, knowing her style, this was most probably intended as a satirical joke, a forum as public and media-sourced as the Twittersphere was always going to be an explosive medium to share it on; if it involved sex and a pre-pubescent celebrity, its shock-factor was always doomed to overshadow any other. Whether or not her comment has been effective in proving her point is contentious; it may have got her fired and damned, but if it was intended to advocate the right of pre-pubescent girls to be viewed as children in the eyes of society, the cause now has the whole city's support.

Hoping that Rove and Tasma can enjoy their relationship for many years to come, in lieu of the tragedy that befell Rove when Belinda Emmett died, is unlikely to have been a thought unique to Deveny when she saw the unquestionably ‘cute’ couple arrive at the Logies that night. It’s important that there be somebody in society brave enough to say what people are thinking- even if they are representing the views of a minority group.

However, this must be balanced with the damage it would cause to expose such a thought in such a manner. Had Deveny only worded her idea in a way that avoided the reference to Belinda’s death, and framed it in the positive light she said she intended it in - hoping that Rove and Tasma’s love prospers for many years to come - the outcome of Twittergate may not have been as severe. One does not always have to be brutal to be honest; although Deveny’s writing style is typified by her daring wit, the context of the comment and the manner of its expression did not warrant the same shock-tactics.

But hey, when has she ever played it safe before?

Deveny’s honesty is, fortunately, not limited to her Twitter feed. She has always professed herself to play the part of the Devil’s Advocate, and the hype surrounding her sacking is a testament to how well she does it.

She also acknowledges that she doesn’t always agree with what she writes - and very few of her supporters will claim to concur with every word the controversial columnist writes, either.

The beauty of writers like Deveny is that they endeavor to challenge conservative culture. They write with the intention to provoke, to liberate and to initiate debate. It’s that courage I respect most, regardless of whether I agree with her on any particular issue.

Yesterday, The Age decided that Deveny had turned from provocation to irritation. Melburnians were no longer at a pleasant state of intellectual agitation, debating her ideas; The Age was convinced the popular mood was against her and that this would have consequences on its reputation as a publication.   

However, its actions set a precedent for the standards of its writers - their jobs seem to be secured by popular vote, rather than their contributions to the publication itself.

Is this Australian Idol, or the Australian press? And was The Age justified in its issues management tactics? Was it good PR, or poor form?

What is your opinion on Deveny, and her Tweets? Do the ethics surrounding Freedom of Speech apply here?

Should she be forgiven for her comments- does she need to seek forgiveness from Melburnians?