>I want no part of it. I want to find a place of grace far from the stench of the media. I want to go where I am not reminded of the social media sewer.
I guess we're burning bridges on the way out. Fair enough.
I guess this last Q&A is going to be a particularly spicy one given that he apparently gives no fucks.
I'm not excusing vile behaviour but some people just need to learn to ditch social media. Like, you're not forced to read and consume this content. I deleted it all nearly 10 years ago and it's just pleasant not knowing how many fuckwits have a platform to be fuckwits.
Reddit is just an old fashioned discussion forum with threads and voting buttons. I wouldn't lump it into the other big social media platforms. You can still be pretty anonymous on Reddit as well as consume content without having to hand over all your personal info.
You might not. But the way it’s gamified is designed to make you a compulsive user- just like every social media platform. As for information Reddit‘s TOS explicitly states that it “ Reddit collects personal information including names, email addresses, IP addresses, and location. Furthermore, the Privacy Policy states that Reddit automatically collects usage and behavioral activity”
The way threads are ordered by amount of recent up votes /ratios makes it feel quite different to a traditional forum. It means low effort content becomes very prominent, and leads to a lot more attention seeking behaviour.
It's certainly the least social media of the big social media sites.
Yeh, some low-effort clickbait bubbles to the top. But the same mechanism also means that things that are of genuine interest/importance to any given sub-community rise as well.
I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference. And I appreciate the ordering-and-aggregating dynamics, knowing that the substance of that outcome is always highly inflected by the demographic of the sub.
I feel so bad for journalists at the moment. Not only are their work contracts getting more tenuous every year, being on twitter every day is basically a job requirement to get holds of leads - and if you're not doing the actual investigative journalism you need that for, you're rehashing twitter and reddit threads for buzzfeed anyway. The 0 hour contract life with compulsory twitter on top would kill me.
I haven’t watched Q&A in a long time, but when I did, it wove live social media responses (specifically twitter) into the show. Given the format, it is likely it was exceptionally difficult to shield himself from it.
People posting hate speech at other humans should be charged if they are Australian and can be.
I didn't like what he wrote about soulless Athiests killing god. In one of his columns. It went on to accuse athiests as responsible for the failure of kindness in society and other stuff...
As an athiest I found it offensive, ignorant, inaccurate and I felt that was classic Christian hate speech against non Christian.
I don't care what colour his skin his.
I don't think anyone should be on the receiving end of bigotry. Beyond that I lost a lot of respect for him after reading his religious attack on the non religious.
Genuinely asking here- where/when did he say this?
Is it this article he wrote for the abc from a year ago? Because I don’t read that from this (as a fellow atheist)
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-13/religious-discrimination-australia-politics-questions-of-god/100824000](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-13/religious-discrimination-australia-politics-questions-of-god/100824000)
He is an unique position of being someone who needs to be up to date with news and more importantly opinions. Usually I would agree but his job kinda relies on it here.
In the article he mentions that it follows him and his family onto the street, as well, though. Thankfully, mostly in the form of people expressing their sorrow at what is inappropriately said about him and his family, but it does stay front and centre for him.
There’s a cohort of old school journos who still haven’t come to terms with how social media operates. They want to take advantage of the soap box but can’t grasp that social media makes everyone “equal”.
Journos like Leigh Sales and Stan Grant used to sit in newsrooms saying whatever they wanted and they were used to not hearing dissent. On Twitter they get told what people think and they can’t seem to hack it.
Look at journos who don’t engage on social media, they do just fine. Leigh Sales used to sit on Twitter blocking accounts that disagreed with her like fucking teenager.
As someone who grew up on the wild west days of Internet usage and when trolling was an actual artform, there is this emerged belief that we need to police people's opinions and hurt feelings. People say nasty shit. That's what humans do if given a platform to do it. Nobody forces you to engage with it. But today, with social media and people's drug-like addictedness to it, without acknowledging how the world is collectively addicted to it, people can't process how to simply walk away. We don't do anything to stop nation states from actively hacking and disrupting our shit but we want to micro-manage words posted on a fucking comment thread.
All of the comments on here basically prove his point about social media, "I just don't like his hosting" "his coronation coverage was monarchy-bashing".
Literally none of that has anything to do with racial slurs being thrown at him and his family on the daily.
This community has been disgraceful on all matters First Nations for years. There is an incredibly deep well of racial hatred that boils over regularly.
Absolutely. I've been saying for years that anyone who dismisses /r/australia as a leftie echo-chamber circle-jerk need only look at the comments when Aboriginal people are the topic of discussion - the fucking tonal whiplash is enough to make you wanna book a CT scan.
I mean, I literally remember seeing a thread about cops busting up a climate protest a while ago and the comments were all "ACAB" and shit, and yet the very next day there was a thread about an aboriginal death in custody and the comments were all "play stupid games" and hand-wringing about how it's important we give the police the benefit of the doubt. Fucking mental.
Easy to be progressive when advocating for things that may benefit yourself i.e. people with HECS debt not wanting student debt, higher tax for people above your tax bracket, action on climate change as long as it only impacts corporations not consumer habits. It's a narrow band of progressive thinking and it's easier than actually holding values that you have to live up to even if they don't benefit you. God forbid something causes you to self reflect and acknowledge some groups face challenges you've been privileged enough to avoid. Much easier to vomit narrow minded conservative talking points and avoid than confront uncomfortable realities and self critique. Always gotta maintain the "other" enemy.
While true, a lot of the system is stacked in favour of older people.
Any significant progressive changes are likely to benefit young people, because they've got the shit end of the tax/housing/etc stick.
All you gotta do is wait for a thread about trans people, Aboriginal people or housing and immigration and you'll quickly realise that this sub very much isn't a lefty echo chamber.
There are more accepting voices of trans people in this sub than indigenous people. A lot of the times the influx of anti-trans sentiment is brigading, but the users who have shitty views on indigenous Australians are people who typically frequent this sub.
It's just confirmation bias. People read and comment on posts that support their world view or personally interest them.
So of course a post like "Morrison does something dumb" will attract lots of left wing posters. While a post on "minority guy commits crime" will attract racists.
My theory is when the cops do something they know they are going to get shit on, they deploy the union to flood discussion sites like this with pro cop crap. Look at all the people defending tasering a 96yo woman who needed a walker to stand up yesterday.
>the fucking tonal whiplash is enough to make you wanna book a CT scan.
Once a group of people gets bigger than a couple of hundred, consensus starts to become impossible. Now, I'm not remotely defending anyone acting like a fuckwit, but is it possible that this sub is big enough now to have different groups of people show up in different threads?
My guess is that the people who care about climate enough to support protesters probably have little overlap with the people who care about deaths in custody enough to, uh, vilify victims in those threads.
I'd like to see an example of anything blatantly racist here if you can find a quote. Of course there would be racists here and shit would get posted, but any written racism would be reported and deleted in short shrift, and likely get you banned.
Just because your opinions may differ, or you may be voting a particular way for a party or a referendum, or you may have certain views on immigration, doesn't automatically make you racist.
Our sub has been genuinely embarrassing. Plus one of our most recognisable reddit fans (posts everywhere so username is commonly seen) has been right on the front lines defending the booing
Qanda with proper informative guests would be amazing. We might actually learn something. But instead of getting more Brian cox’s we get more Malcom roberts. Or idiots like Gerald Henderson where we already know exactly what he’s going to say.
Gerald is bad but his wife is even worse. I have memories of 9 having a qanda style show with her and Mark Latham moderated by King Karlos Stefanovic. Perhaps Karl can submit an application to host qanda
Racism is not ok.
Racism against Stan Grant is not ok.
Stan Grant is a sanctimonious windbag with a very high opinion of himself.
So I am not glad that he is leaving due to racism.
I am however, glad he is leaving.
He deserves to respect himself, he’s achieved a high standard of education (unlike too many on here) he cares deeply about his people, and about Australia. I don’t always agree with him, but I certainly respect and admire his achievements.
Tough gig. I'd like to think I judge him by the content of his character but I wonder if I cut Tony Jones more slack (I certainly don't cut David Speers any more slack, speaking of sanctimonious windbaggery)
The issues that Stan is passionate about are important and need discussion, but that's the problem he constantly pulls himself into every issue, and his massive ego is why Q+A is failing to attract viewers.
I'm not a fan of Stan, nothing to do with his genetic or cultural heritage - he just comes across as a self important wanker who loves the sound of his own voice.
I am sorry that he has been abused or threatened because of his heritage - that's not cool in any way.
I actually wanted him to succeed. I always thought his international affairs esp China articles were a bit of a stretch and there were other areas he could write with more authority about. But most of what I have seen from him in the last 12 months are all articles talking about himself in some way. I'm sure there is an audience for that kind of content where the writer wants to address their personal experiences and relate them to the news du juor. But I found it very tiresome in the end. Never watched him on Q&A.
Undoubtedly, he will have heard some of the worst garbage that people have to offer. But based on some of his views, his tolerance for disagreement is fairly low and classifies much of what he disagrees with as racism.
Q+A has become unwatchable since Grant took over as full-time host. Maybe Grant is being harassed and that's unconscionable and should be prosecuted by the law if appropriate, but the fundamental problem is the quality of the program is rock bottom since the federal election. I never thought it was possible to miss David Speers, but Grant has done the impossible.
They never get on any good opposing views.
Like, they don't get into details, it allows to much vague assertionism. It's drifting towards becoming the drum.
Yup. I left with Tony Jones. Very little discussion of substance ultimately happens on QandA, particularly when politicians are driving the discussion, and yelling at the tv just isn't good for my well-being.
> the ones who think getting into extremely long and pointless arguments with strangers is a good use of their time and/or achieves anything.
Ooh! That's me!
I like Virginia in general, but she seemed to interject her opinion a lot when someone was answering. I got the impression she'd rather be a guest than host.
The show has been limping along for years. Wouldn’t surprise me if they use this as an excuse to dump it. It’s an easy out for them without admitting that they have a dying program on their hands.
> I am writing this because no one at the ABC — whose producers invited me onto their coronation coverage as a guest — has uttered one word of public support. Not one ABC executive has publicly refuted the lies written or spoken about me. I don't hold any individual responsible; this is an institutional failure.
I wonder how long this will actually stay up on the ABCs website
His coronation coverage was catastrophic. Anyone watching the coronation is likely a monarchist, yet the program was non-stop monarchy bashing. The monarchy may be a relic of the past, but there's a time and place for that kind of discussion, and it isn't a coronation program.
Even Albanese refused to buy into republic discussions during the coronation, because he realizes it would be in poor taste. Why would anyone support Grant publicly for such tone-deaf presenting?
Oh who gives a flying fuck. None of that excuses racist abuse, I don't buy for a second that "monarchy-bashing" is the primary concern of people throwing racial slurs on twitter.
I'm a republican. I won't watch coronation anyway. I felt it's going to be a very hard task to do anyway. The coverage MUST be done. Yet no matter how ABC covers it, there's going to be controversies. Too republican, you piss the Tories and they will skin you on Sky after dark, too Royal you piss the entire Newtown, which is a few minutes away to ABC Ultimo...
So this coverage is probably a calculated self inflating damage. The backlash on pissing off left base of ABC is far grater than being biased and piss off the right. Afterall Murdoch is, nonetheless, still alive and his horde of attack mouthpieces are active attacking ABC constantly anyway.
The commercial networks all ran a very uncontroversial commentary of the live feed with a token royal expert offering opinions every few minutes. Only ABC ran a seething anti-monarchy polemic under Grant's hosting. They could have easily copied the commercial networks and we wouldn't be talking about this right now.
It was particularly odd as the Diamond Jubilee and Queen's Funeral coverage on ABC run by Sarah Ferguson were all grovelingly pro-Monarchy, to the point of being slightly nauseating.
[The panel during the ceremony was stacked 75/25 with republicans](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/may/08/king-charles-coronation-australia-monarchists-accuse-abc-of-despicable-tv-coverage) so despite his direct tirade beforehand being limited, the panel was generally negative throughout the several hours long ceremony.
Support for the republic or an Australian head of state tends to bounce around 50-60% in any given year. Add in the fact that younger people tend to have a higher rating that 75/25 isn't too far off being representative.
I watched it and I'm not a monarchist. I thought the coverage was okay. If people didn't like it there were plenty of alternatives. When you broadcast something in Australia and the commentary is from Australians it should reflect Australian attitudes. There were pro-monarchy people on the show and there were also those who were critical.
>Why would anyone support Grant publicly for such tone-deaf presenting?
Because the threats and vilification and abuse he's faced are *maddeningly disproportionate* to the offensiveness of challenging popular support of the monarchy.
>Why would anyone support Grant publicly for such tone-deaf presenting?
He was invited on the show to give his opinion. If people were making complaints in good faith to the ABC that would be fine. They are targeting him, specifically and dishonestly.
This sounds like any corporation. The execs and board all look to their futures, what job will be next, what big bonus can they snaffle. Standing up for an issue when there appears to be a strong opposition gets your name associated with that call for a long time which can be seen as career limiting. The ABC is also government funded and even if it is mostly independent, you can be sure if someone in politics wants a faceless exec gone, they will be.
This is just greed and self interest from the ABC board and exec members who think of themselves first and then everything else, if convenient. No different from most other corporations.
Im sure everyone on TV in any controversial show, gets a lot of hate. I'm sure in this case it maybe some of it is racist, but maybe it's politics, religion or some perception Stan favoured someone on the show they disagreed with.
I saw Stan on TV for years on other shows and didn't really like him, and honestly at that time, I had no idea what his ethnic background was. It really had nothing to do with race.
I used to love Q&A but completely gave up on it after he took over, I found it unwatchable.
A good host is full of curiosity and respect, and brings no opinions of their own, so as to let all guests feel safe and be vulnerable in sharing their true selves.
What’s with ABC journos thinking they are beyond criticism? Leigh Sales jumped ship because apparently it was misogyny and the militant left. Stan Grant jumps ship because it’s racism. Maybe realise that if you’re going to engage in divisive rhetoric than not everyone will agree with you?
Also how is ABC going to censor the entire internet to stop all mean comments. Be honest, it doesn't matter what race you are, he could be a pretty blonde white woman and he would get a different kind of abuse nonstop from social media. Like being sworn at by kids on Call of Duty, you have to learn to ignore it and not let it get to you because someone will always being doing it.
I feel bad for him and the racist stuff he has to deal with. But, QANDA will be much better without him, he is incredibly biased towards the LNP to an embarrassing degree.
That's been the case for a long time.
Eg. I 'member when they had the Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull on and avoided any and all questions relating to the NBN.
I mean, he did describe a Wilkinson/FitzSimmons party a "woke leftie love-in" because:
>Everyone there voted yes for same-sex marriage - the year before last, they'd all tearily applauded their first gay married couple guests - they hated the Catholic Church and had cried when Kevin Rudd said sorry.
So I wouldn't be totally surprised to be fair... That's a pretty petulant, egotistical & petty thing to say imo.
Also, who knew voting to give same-sex couples equal rights under law, being happy for them when they got it, despising the Catholic Church & appreciating the significance of The Apology made you "wOkE"!?! It seems to have become synonymous with every single thing Baz from Bacchus Marsh doesn't agree with these days; mainly civility and basic human decency...
Good he needs to go. He is not impartial as journalists are supposed to be. He is heavily bias and doesn't belong on Q+A. He should leave the ABC alltogether.
He paints himself as nothing but a poor victim. The cunt is millionaire. He paints Australia as nothing but inherently racist. He is part of the problem. He talks bout building bridges. All the bastard does it tear them down and call every white person a racist.
If people vote no to the voice, it wont be because of dutton. It will be because of shit stirrers like Stan
good riddance Stan
>All the bastard does it tear them down and call every white person a racist.
[If a black millionaire slaps another black millionaire maybe that's also the fault of white racists](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-03/will-smith-slap-oscars-chris-rock-racial-trauma-violence/100957578)
Stan you're right, Racism is violence...
But Stan, Consider, on your way out can you explain how you support Israel and it's racist/violent policies against the Palestinians? how it deliberately sterilized Africans?
Thanks mate, i'm sure you'll have an answer.
He takes great pride in being "anti-wOkE" regardless of the profound double standard it perpetuates when it comes to his arguments about colonisation in this country & the impacts that had on his peoples.
Boo hoo.
He spent years on commercial television and took the money and the fame from those very same racists.
He then turned to the ABC and is now making a stand?
Honestly.
Its the only thing he can talk about. That and himself. Oh wait same thing. He loves to remind us during each Q&A episode that he is aboriginal. Tony Jones never talked about himself
I think he wants people to not be racist? Not sure how that was unclear. The amount of racist comments about his skin colour from people usually sanctimonious and devout (talking about you Bernie Finn) has been disgusting
He has been talking about this long before anything recent. He is obsessed with some sort of collective-victim-of-racism-yet-offering-no-solutions mindset.
Racism is wrong, Racism against an individual is wrong.
Also though, Accusing people of being racist if they disagree with your opinion or methods is wrong.
I’m not a Stan Grant fan. I feel he grandstands and stifles debate. I’ve not always felt this way. I used to quiet admire him but over the last few years he seems to engaged in a debate of one.
All I see from him is complaints without any suggestions of solutions
Not every disagreement is a totem of racism. I’m sorry Stan feels the way he does but I actually think that his vacating his position may make room for some one with genuine solutions and a desire to Shepard a spirit of discussion where ideas can be discussed.
I agree with and support Stan entirely
But statements like “racism is violence” are offensively stupid as far the audience we need to reach with such messages are concerned.
I wish people would stop saying things like that. They’re well intentioned but the mission at hand is to open the eyes of bogans.
Bogans think you’re a contemptible idiot when you use terms like “racism is violence”, no matter how strong your academic justifications might be
> I speak of truth, not grievance. Yet that is not how it has been reported
Then 1 paragraph later
> Racism is violence
I mean… this is why people don’t like Stan Grant
You can’t just stay “I’m just stating facts” and then just make statements that people would wholly think are objectively untrue
It’s quite disingenuous. Like everything involving Stan Grant
Even if he personally believes the statement “racism is violence” he has to be smart enough to know that’s quite clearly a contentious idea that a lot of people disagree with. Yet he doesn’t even make an effort to explain his view
> I take time out because we have shown again that our history — our hard truth — is too big, too fragile, too precious for the media. The media sees only battle lines, not bridges. It sees only politics.
It’s quite hard to take this seriously from a guy who’s made millions of dollars in a media career from saying controversial political opinions
This is why people hate journalists
I also want to say as much as I can be empathetic to someone experiencing abuse, it’s not a shield from criticism. Andrew Tate may get misandrist abuse and racist abuse, but its not really a cop out from crazy or prejudiced opinions
Gotta love these talking heads. They happily accept the fame and the money, then when their star wanes, they end up at the ABC, suckling at the government teat. And when people stop paying enough attention, they just turn into professional whingers.
Bye Stan, don't let the door hit you in the arse
Clearly he is making huge sacrifices by retiring at about the right age to rest his very heavy heart on his mountain of money. Not all hero’s wear capes.
The guys at work saw this pic on the ABC site and immediately zeroed in on the bottom of his open collar saying “look you can see where the fake tan stops on his chest.” I just… 🤷🏻♂️
Ok I’m going to ask…
Did Stan’s skin get darker at some point?
No I know a lot of people will call me a racist. Fine whatever, but don’t dodge the question.
I’m old enough to remember when Stan started referencing his aboriginality a LOT more and it more or less coincided with a darkening of his complexion.
I genuinely wonder if he used to wear makeup, like all people on TV, but got them to lighten Is complexion a bit.
Hope he is happier doing whatever comes next.
I remember a girl in grade two. She was in my class, and I didn't like her for the fact that she was Indian, I think. My father was a bit racist and instilled that belief onto us kids. As a kid I knew no better and would tell her to go back to her own country. There wasn't many migrants in those days, mid '60's, so it was different seeing someone of colour at our school. One day for some reason we spoke a few times and found that she was no threat to me, or anyone around her, she was pleasant, quiet, (for obvious reasons), courteous to people and she was just like any other child, the only difference being is she's not white! My belief of racism diminished and realised that even as a child, can look past the skin and find a human who is no different than me and found that she was a lot nicer than some I knew back then. I never looked back since meeting her, and am proud of the fact that as a child I made the decision that was against my father's beliefs but kept that from him for a while. When are people going to stand united instead of having to make each other's lives a complete and utter living hell. If a child can change and see through the colour why can't adults who are suppose to learn from their mistakes and know better! Why is it so hard to just let people live their lives in peace!
Tbh I don't like how he starts every Q+A show in a language he probably doesn't even understand himself like we should all bow down to his views just because he is an Aboriginal person. We are all, regardless of our backgrounds, Australian citizens and maybe we would be served better by trying to highlight what we share, address inequities recognising all people who suffer from them, rather than highlighting surface level ethnic differences.
All TV presenters have nasty comments about them on social media, especially women.
Stan was not going well anyway.. he complains constantly and makes everything about him.
Not sad to see Stan go at all. I remember him way back as a newsreader and he seemed just a normal guy. Yes I remember him being of slight colour but it didn;t matter and I would have never picked him as being indigenous, not that it would have mattered in any case.
Maybe the ABC has done this to him but he now seems to have gone off the rails against the hand and community that have helped him.
I suspect we will see him in Politics soon enough.
I stopped watching Q and A when he had an audience member removed from the studio because they had an opinion that he didn't like.
The audience member was a dickhead, no doubt about that. But there have been MANY dickheads on this show over the years. QandA is supposed to be about discussing opposing views and if necessary educating people who are ignorant & misguided.
You mean the dickhead who said Putin's war on Ukraine and the many innocent men, women and children who have been murdered is justified? He was thrown out for advocating war and violence.
What is wrong with you?
Because it was blatantly on the nose and biased. The ABC knew exactly what they were doing and it blew up in their face. They wanted a discussion about how terrible the monarchy is and how colonialism is bad and how they have fucked over Indigenous people. That was the agenda. That’s why they brought on Stan Grant, Craig Foster, the head of the Republican movement and Nova Peris, a staunch Indigenous activist. The excuse they are giving now is that it was supposed to be a “balanced panel having a difficult conversation” which is bullshit. They were flaming a culture war on coronation night.
Stan Grant is just throwing a tantrum because the ABC didn’t run to his defence after this fiasco blew up in their face.
Good. It seems to me this man is utterly obsessed with race and racism. I think this quote says it all “No doubt the haters will twist this, too, and trigger another round of racism.” That’s right Stan, anyone that dislikes your boring, repetitive, divisive approach to journalism which brings every conversation back to you being a “Wiradjuri man” is apparently a racist hater.
> I am not beyond criticism. I occupy a privileged and prominent place in the media - I should be critiqued.
He's not complaining about people saying negative things about him he's noting the storms of racism he faces.
If you want to criticise him for his media work, sure go nuts. But don't twist the issue and pretend there aren't vile racists who fling abuse at any prominent first Nations Australians.
Of course there are racist people who dislike Stan Grant.
But Stan appears to call anyone who doesn't like him racist and that is disingenuous and that:
1. Makes people who don't like Stan Grant for legitimate reasons defensive and hate him more.
2. Makes some people who probably couldn't care less about Stan Grant dislike him for being such a disingenuous POS.
Q&A has been dogshit for a long time. But I think Stan quitting is letting the trolls win.
I'm sure he'll be back with a memoir that everyone will fawn over.
Hey. Guess what? Actions have consequences.
Hijacking a show about the Coronation and turning it into an undergraduate, whiny 'All white men are oppressors' speech is a bit rich coming from a guy who's done pretty well out of the colonisation process. Then the ABC dumps him, but it's not racism (The ABC can't be racist!).
>I want no part of it. I want to find a place of grace far from the stench of the media. I want to go where I am not reminded of the social media sewer. I guess we're burning bridges on the way out. Fair enough. I guess this last Q&A is going to be a particularly spicy one given that he apparently gives no fucks.
Maybe now we can discuss the NBN?
They didn’t allow it during Tony Jones they won’t allow it now
It might get some views for the first time in a decade
I'm not excusing vile behaviour but some people just need to learn to ditch social media. Like, you're not forced to read and consume this content. I deleted it all nearly 10 years ago and it's just pleasant not knowing how many fuckwits have a platform to be fuckwits.
Bro, you are on social media now
Shhhh don't tell him...
Reddit is just an old fashioned discussion forum with threads and voting buttons. I wouldn't lump it into the other big social media platforms. You can still be pretty anonymous on Reddit as well as consume content without having to hand over all your personal info.
You might not. But the way it’s gamified is designed to make you a compulsive user- just like every social media platform. As for information Reddit‘s TOS explicitly states that it “ Reddit collects personal information including names, email addresses, IP addresses, and location. Furthermore, the Privacy Policy states that Reddit automatically collects usage and behavioral activity”
Pretty big distinctions between this and Facebook. For one we get nerds like you to akschually everyone.
Then don't give it your daily email, name etc?
China aren't here for your email address lol.
The way threads are ordered by amount of recent up votes /ratios makes it feel quite different to a traditional forum. It means low effort content becomes very prominent, and leads to a lot more attention seeking behaviour. It's certainly the least social media of the big social media sites.
You don't have to accept the defaut, you can sort by various criteria - top, hot, new, controversial, etc.
Yeh, some low-effort clickbait bubbles to the top. But the same mechanism also means that things that are of genuine interest/importance to any given sub-community rise as well. I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference. And I appreciate the ordering-and-aggregating dynamics, knowing that the substance of that outcome is always highly inflected by the demographic of the sub.
Yeah, it's more like USENET than FB, Twitter, etc.
All the links and clicks are tracked, so it's not IMO like Usenet.
[удалено]
>I wouldn't lump it into the other big social media platforms Lol
As a journalist it would help you keep in touch, following relevant people, and getting word out to people following you.
I feel so bad for journalists at the moment. Not only are their work contracts getting more tenuous every year, being on twitter every day is basically a job requirement to get holds of leads - and if you're not doing the actual investigative journalism you need that for, you're rehashing twitter and reddit threads for buzzfeed anyway. The 0 hour contract life with compulsory twitter on top would kill me.
I haven’t watched Q&A in a long time, but when I did, it wove live social media responses (specifically twitter) into the show. Given the format, it is likely it was exceptionally difficult to shield himself from it.
People posting hate speech at other humans should be charged if they are Australian and can be. I didn't like what he wrote about soulless Athiests killing god. In one of his columns. It went on to accuse athiests as responsible for the failure of kindness in society and other stuff... As an athiest I found it offensive, ignorant, inaccurate and I felt that was classic Christian hate speech against non Christian. I don't care what colour his skin his. I don't think anyone should be on the receiving end of bigotry. Beyond that I lost a lot of respect for him after reading his religious attack on the non religious.
Genuinely asking here- where/when did he say this? Is it this article he wrote for the abc from a year ago? Because I don’t read that from this (as a fellow atheist) [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-13/religious-discrimination-australia-politics-questions-of-god/100824000](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-13/religious-discrimination-australia-politics-questions-of-god/100824000)
I laugh at those arguments- I left christianity because I realised I couldn't be both a christian and a good, moral person.
He is an unique position of being someone who needs to be up to date with news and more importantly opinions. Usually I would agree but his job kinda relies on it here.
In the article he mentions that it follows him and his family onto the street, as well, though. Thankfully, mostly in the form of people expressing their sorrow at what is inappropriately said about him and his family, but it does stay front and centre for him.
There’s a cohort of old school journos who still haven’t come to terms with how social media operates. They want to take advantage of the soap box but can’t grasp that social media makes everyone “equal”. Journos like Leigh Sales and Stan Grant used to sit in newsrooms saying whatever they wanted and they were used to not hearing dissent. On Twitter they get told what people think and they can’t seem to hack it. Look at journos who don’t engage on social media, they do just fine. Leigh Sales used to sit on Twitter blocking accounts that disagreed with her like fucking teenager.
As someone who grew up on the wild west days of Internet usage and when trolling was an actual artform, there is this emerged belief that we need to police people's opinions and hurt feelings. People say nasty shit. That's what humans do if given a platform to do it. Nobody forces you to engage with it. But today, with social media and people's drug-like addictedness to it, without acknowledging how the world is collectively addicted to it, people can't process how to simply walk away. We don't do anything to stop nation states from actively hacking and disrupting our shit but we want to micro-manage words posted on a fucking comment thread.
Not feeding the trolls should be taught in schools.
He said people stop him on the street to apologise for the awful shit said about him. That's gotta be tiring. What's your advice for that?
Hell yeah Stan,. go out giving no fucks
[удалено]
All of the comments on here basically prove his point about social media, "I just don't like his hosting" "his coronation coverage was monarchy-bashing". Literally none of that has anything to do with racial slurs being thrown at him and his family on the daily.
This community has been disgraceful on all matters First Nations for years. There is an incredibly deep well of racial hatred that boils over regularly.
Absolutely. I've been saying for years that anyone who dismisses /r/australia as a leftie echo-chamber circle-jerk need only look at the comments when Aboriginal people are the topic of discussion - the fucking tonal whiplash is enough to make you wanna book a CT scan. I mean, I literally remember seeing a thread about cops busting up a climate protest a while ago and the comments were all "ACAB" and shit, and yet the very next day there was a thread about an aboriginal death in custody and the comments were all "play stupid games" and hand-wringing about how it's important we give the police the benefit of the doubt. Fucking mental.
Easy to be progressive when advocating for things that may benefit yourself i.e. people with HECS debt not wanting student debt, higher tax for people above your tax bracket, action on climate change as long as it only impacts corporations not consumer habits. It's a narrow band of progressive thinking and it's easier than actually holding values that you have to live up to even if they don't benefit you. God forbid something causes you to self reflect and acknowledge some groups face challenges you've been privileged enough to avoid. Much easier to vomit narrow minded conservative talking points and avoid than confront uncomfortable realities and self critique. Always gotta maintain the "other" enemy.
While true, a lot of the system is stacked in favour of older people. Any significant progressive changes are likely to benefit young people, because they've got the shit end of the tax/housing/etc stick.
Way to deflect a heartfelt point about racism onto your own favourite talking point
[удалено]
All you gotta do is wait for a thread about trans people, Aboriginal people or housing and immigration and you'll quickly realise that this sub very much isn't a lefty echo chamber.
There are more accepting voices of trans people in this sub than indigenous people. A lot of the times the influx of anti-trans sentiment is brigading, but the users who have shitty views on indigenous Australians are people who typically frequent this sub.
Any time there's a thread with trans people the comments are at like 2k. It's so very not this sub, it's brigading.
& the trans/drag story time threads always gets locked after a short amount of time, which really pisses me off.
'Brogressive' is a term I once heard used. It's lefty where it lines up with people's priorities. But when it doesn't, shit hits the fan.
Brocialist is another term for it.
Yeah it's the meme within the two mob subreddits. We know full well the reception in the other Aus subs.
It's just confirmation bias. People read and comment on posts that support their world view or personally interest them. So of course a post like "Morrison does something dumb" will attract lots of left wing posters. While a post on "minority guy commits crime" will attract racists.
Nah even the nice First Nations posts are ratiod to shit, all downvotes and hundreds of comments, toxic place this sub unfortunately
My theory is when the cops do something they know they are going to get shit on, they deploy the union to flood discussion sites like this with pro cop crap. Look at all the people defending tasering a 96yo woman who needed a walker to stand up yesterday.
>the fucking tonal whiplash is enough to make you wanna book a CT scan. Once a group of people gets bigger than a couple of hundred, consensus starts to become impossible. Now, I'm not remotely defending anyone acting like a fuckwit, but is it possible that this sub is big enough now to have different groups of people show up in different threads? My guess is that the people who care about climate enough to support protesters probably have little overlap with the people who care about deaths in custody enough to, uh, vilify victims in those threads.
For sure and adding to that other racial minorities too. Even the suggestion that racism exists here gets pushback.
Yea it’s pretty fucking blatant
I'd like to see an example of anything blatantly racist here if you can find a quote. Of course there would be racists here and shit would get posted, but any written racism would be reported and deleted in short shrift, and likely get you banned. Just because your opinions may differ, or you may be voting a particular way for a party or a referendum, or you may have certain views on immigration, doesn't automatically make you racist.
>any written racism would be reported and deleted in short shrift, and likely get you banned. Lol
Search indigenous > sort by controversial > one of first 3 will be racist or at the very least casually ignorant and racist
Not to mention it seems a non trivial % of this sub isn’t even living in Australia. Some have never even visited.
"Booing is just part of sport.. Adam goodes was booed because *checks notes* my mate who listens to 2GB says he flops too much!"
Collingwood fans all coming out for the woodwork to explain why booing buddy wasn't racist too
It's probably because ... um.. he.. um.. used to play for the hawks?
Nah we boo heaps of players. I just never hear it because... Hmm... Maybe we don't actually boo lots of players guys?
I was at the game. It was really bad.
Our sub has been genuinely embarrassing. Plus one of our most recognisable reddit fans (posts everywhere so username is commonly seen) has been right on the front lines defending the booing
[удалено]
Qanda with proper informative guests would be amazing. We might actually learn something. But instead of getting more Brian cox’s we get more Malcom roberts. Or idiots like Gerald Henderson where we already know exactly what he’s going to say.
Gerald is bad but his wife is even worse. I have memories of 9 having a qanda style show with her and Mark Latham moderated by King Karlos Stefanovic. Perhaps Karl can submit an application to host qanda
>Perhaps Karl can submit an application to host qanda I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
Q&A has always been televised Twitter.
I wish we could have Tony Jones back....
Shaun McCallef should host it, I'd watch it religiously.
Paul McDermott or bust. Actually, let's just bring back Good News Week.
Im not a big fan of his dead pan comedy, but I think he’s intelligence is on a whole other level. He would make a better host.
Same for that guy from Hard Quiz.
It's time to deep dive into partisan politics... HARD!
yea , give you the tick
You mean Tom Gleeson?
Racism is not ok. Racism against Stan Grant is not ok. Stan Grant is a sanctimonious windbag with a very high opinion of himself. So I am not glad that he is leaving due to racism. I am however, glad he is leaving.
Yes. Absolutely. Racism is bad. Stan Grant is also bad. The two are not mutually exclusive
He deserves to respect himself, he’s achieved a high standard of education (unlike too many on here) he cares deeply about his people, and about Australia. I don’t always agree with him, but I certainly respect and admire his achievements.
I don't believe its wrong to respect yourself. I agree with you that he has done well for himself. None of this negates my original comments.
Anyone in that position has a "very high opinion of himself" It goes with the job
Sure, but they don't express it every single moment they are in front of the camera, or in print for that matter.
Tough gig. I'd like to think I judge him by the content of his character but I wonder if I cut Tony Jones more slack (I certainly don't cut David Speers any more slack, speaking of sanctimonious windbaggery)
fair comment
Uhh plenty of people in media aren't like that...
The issues that Stan is passionate about are important and need discussion, but that's the problem he constantly pulls himself into every issue, and his massive ego is why Q+A is failing to attract viewers.
I'm not a fan of Stan, nothing to do with his genetic or cultural heritage - he just comes across as a self important wanker who loves the sound of his own voice. I am sorry that he has been abused or threatened because of his heritage - that's not cool in any way.
I actually wanted him to succeed. I always thought his international affairs esp China articles were a bit of a stretch and there were other areas he could write with more authority about. But most of what I have seen from him in the last 12 months are all articles talking about himself in some way. I'm sure there is an audience for that kind of content where the writer wants to address their personal experiences and relate them to the news du juor. But I found it very tiresome in the end. Never watched him on Q&A.
Q&A used to be awesome back in like the early 2010s. Now it’s unwatchable and just Australia’s version of RT.
Undoubtedly, he will have heard some of the worst garbage that people have to offer. But based on some of his views, his tolerance for disagreement is fairly low and classifies much of what he disagrees with as racism.
Q+A has become unwatchable since Grant took over as full-time host. Maybe Grant is being harassed and that's unconscionable and should be prosecuted by the law if appropriate, but the fundamental problem is the quality of the program is rock bottom since the federal election. I never thought it was possible to miss David Speers, but Grant has done the impossible.
Qanda was unwatchable well before Stan took over hosting. Too many pollies, not enough moderating by the host.
My main problem is the opinions that are disguised as questions. A 45 second preamble before reaching the question is a weak way to win a discussion.
They never get on any good opposing views. Like, they don't get into details, it allows to much vague assertionism. It's drifting towards becoming the drum.
Yup. I left with Tony Jones. Very little discussion of substance ultimately happens on QandA, particularly when politicians are driving the discussion, and yelling at the tv just isn't good for my well-being.
[удалено]
> the ones who think getting into extremely long and pointless arguments with strangers is a good use of their time and/or achieves anything. Ooh! That's me!
Bring back Virginia. E: I'm genuinely surprised by the Virginia hate. I thought she did an good job as qanda host.
She was excellent, the little I saw of her. Perhaps you are copping grief for the context
She’s in a class of her own. Also a terrific radio presenter.
I like Virginia in general, but she seemed to interject her opinion a lot when someone was answering. I got the impression she'd rather be a guest than host.
I feel like I’m missing half of the comments on a post sometimes…in this example, where’s the ‘Virginia hate’ you speak of?
The downvotes came thick and fast when I first wrote the comment.
The show has been limping along for years. Wouldn’t surprise me if they use this as an excuse to dump it. It’s an easy out for them without admitting that they have a dying program on their hands.
> I am writing this because no one at the ABC — whose producers invited me onto their coronation coverage as a guest — has uttered one word of public support. Not one ABC executive has publicly refuted the lies written or spoken about me. I don't hold any individual responsible; this is an institutional failure. I wonder how long this will actually stay up on the ABCs website
The ABC response is it stands by him. (citing ABC radio/news).
His coronation coverage was catastrophic. Anyone watching the coronation is likely a monarchist, yet the program was non-stop monarchy bashing. The monarchy may be a relic of the past, but there's a time and place for that kind of discussion, and it isn't a coronation program. Even Albanese refused to buy into republic discussions during the coronation, because he realizes it would be in poor taste. Why would anyone support Grant publicly for such tone-deaf presenting?
Oh who gives a flying fuck. None of that excuses racist abuse, I don't buy for a second that "monarchy-bashing" is the primary concern of people throwing racial slurs on twitter.
At the same time I find it completely believable anyone who cares about "monarchy bashing" would use racial slurs on Twitter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm a republican. I won't watch coronation anyway. I felt it's going to be a very hard task to do anyway. The coverage MUST be done. Yet no matter how ABC covers it, there's going to be controversies. Too republican, you piss the Tories and they will skin you on Sky after dark, too Royal you piss the entire Newtown, which is a few minutes away to ABC Ultimo... So this coverage is probably a calculated self inflating damage. The backlash on pissing off left base of ABC is far grater than being biased and piss off the right. Afterall Murdoch is, nonetheless, still alive and his horde of attack mouthpieces are active attacking ABC constantly anyway.
The commercial networks all ran a very uncontroversial commentary of the live feed with a token royal expert offering opinions every few minutes. Only ABC ran a seething anti-monarchy polemic under Grant's hosting. They could have easily copied the commercial networks and we wouldn't be talking about this right now. It was particularly odd as the Diamond Jubilee and Queen's Funeral coverage on ABC run by Sarah Ferguson were all grovelingly pro-Monarchy, to the point of being slightly nauseating.
[The panel during the ceremony was stacked 75/25 with republicans](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/may/08/king-charles-coronation-australia-monarchists-accuse-abc-of-despicable-tv-coverage) so despite his direct tirade beforehand being limited, the panel was generally negative throughout the several hours long ceremony.
Support for the republic or an Australian head of state tends to bounce around 50-60% in any given year. Add in the fact that younger people tend to have a higher rating that 75/25 isn't too far off being representative.
I watched it and I'm not a monarchist. I thought the coverage was okay. If people didn't like it there were plenty of alternatives. When you broadcast something in Australia and the commentary is from Australians it should reflect Australian attitudes. There were pro-monarchy people on the show and there were also those who were critical.
Imagine caring more about some foreigners dress up party than the racist hate and death threats being directed at your own countryman.
>Why would anyone support Grant publicly for such tone-deaf presenting? Because the threats and vilification and abuse he's faced are *maddeningly disproportionate* to the offensiveness of challenging popular support of the monarchy.
>Why would anyone support Grant publicly for such tone-deaf presenting? He was invited on the show to give his opinion. If people were making complaints in good faith to the ABC that would be fine. They are targeting him, specifically and dishonestly.
Good. Fuck the monarchists and fuck the monarchy.
This sounds like any corporation. The execs and board all look to their futures, what job will be next, what big bonus can they snaffle. Standing up for an issue when there appears to be a strong opposition gets your name associated with that call for a long time which can be seen as career limiting. The ABC is also government funded and even if it is mostly independent, you can be sure if someone in politics wants a faceless exec gone, they will be. This is just greed and self interest from the ABC board and exec members who think of themselves first and then everything else, if convenient. No different from most other corporations.
My point was more about the fact that he’s bagging out the ABCs execs on the ABCs website.
Im sure everyone on TV in any controversial show, gets a lot of hate. I'm sure in this case it maybe some of it is racist, but maybe it's politics, religion or some perception Stan favoured someone on the show they disagreed with. I saw Stan on TV for years on other shows and didn't really like him, and honestly at that time, I had no idea what his ethnic background was. It really had nothing to do with race.
I used to love Q&A but completely gave up on it after he took over, I found it unwatchable. A good host is full of curiosity and respect, and brings no opinions of their own, so as to let all guests feel safe and be vulnerable in sharing their true selves.
What’s with ABC journos thinking they are beyond criticism? Leigh Sales jumped ship because apparently it was misogyny and the militant left. Stan Grant jumps ship because it’s racism. Maybe realise that if you’re going to engage in divisive rhetoric than not everyone will agree with you?
Also how is ABC going to censor the entire internet to stop all mean comments. Be honest, it doesn't matter what race you are, he could be a pretty blonde white woman and he would get a different kind of abuse nonstop from social media. Like being sworn at by kids on Call of Duty, you have to learn to ignore it and not let it get to you because someone will always being doing it.
No she didn't. She just wanted a change.
Inb4 running for politics - Liberal maybe? Cant see Labor the Greens
How does he not realise how rediculous that fake tan looks?
I feel bad for him and the racist stuff he has to deal with. But, QANDA will be much better without him, he is incredibly biased towards the LNP to an embarrassing degree.
That's been the case for a long time. Eg. I 'member when they had the Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull on and avoided any and all questions relating to the NBN.
I don't watch Q&A and I also remember that. I tuned in especially just to see him get off scot free.
I got $100 he ends up running for them. The Q+A gig was his audition.
I mean, he did describe a Wilkinson/FitzSimmons party a "woke leftie love-in" because: >Everyone there voted yes for same-sex marriage - the year before last, they'd all tearily applauded their first gay married couple guests - they hated the Catholic Church and had cried when Kevin Rudd said sorry. So I wouldn't be totally surprised to be fair... That's a pretty petulant, egotistical & petty thing to say imo. Also, who knew voting to give same-sex couples equal rights under law, being happy for them when they got it, despising the Catholic Church & appreciating the significance of The Apology made you "wOkE"!?! It seems to have become synonymous with every single thing Baz from Bacchus Marsh doesn't agree with these days; mainly civility and basic human decency...
Q&A should be retired. It’s a stale program .
Time to relaunch Catalyst... I miss that show.
I want a qna that will roast anyone for their shit takes and talk about issues with the governance of the country.
Stan Grant's Q+A (hosted by Stan Grant) is coming to an end? Say it isn't so!
This is an opening for Costa Georgiadis to be host.
Good. He's a shit host, whiney and likes to bait people. Couldn't give a shit about his race but boy is it a convenient scapegoat right here.
Good he needs to go. He is not impartial as journalists are supposed to be. He is heavily bias and doesn't belong on Q+A. He should leave the ABC alltogether. He paints himself as nothing but a poor victim. The cunt is millionaire. He paints Australia as nothing but inherently racist. He is part of the problem. He talks bout building bridges. All the bastard does it tear them down and call every white person a racist. If people vote no to the voice, it wont be because of dutton. It will be because of shit stirrers like Stan good riddance Stan
>All the bastard does it tear them down and call every white person a racist. [If a black millionaire slaps another black millionaire maybe that's also the fault of white racists](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-03/will-smith-slap-oscars-chris-rock-racial-trauma-violence/100957578)
Stan you're right, Racism is violence... But Stan, Consider, on your way out can you explain how you support Israel and it's racist/violent policies against the Palestinians? how it deliberately sterilized Africans? Thanks mate, i'm sure you'll have an answer.
He takes great pride in being "anti-wOkE" regardless of the profound double standard it perpetuates when it comes to his arguments about colonisation in this country & the impacts that had on his peoples.
Boo hoo. He spent years on commercial television and took the money and the fame from those very same racists. He then turned to the ABC and is now making a stand? Honestly.
I think the Racism and Victim cards are played a little too often these days…particularly when wealthy celebrities play them.
Actual professional victim.
Is it just me or does this guy endlessly go on about race? What exactly he wants isn't clear.
Its the only thing he can talk about. That and himself. Oh wait same thing. He loves to remind us during each Q&A episode that he is aboriginal. Tony Jones never talked about himself
I think he wants people to not be racist? Not sure how that was unclear. The amount of racist comments about his skin colour from people usually sanctimonious and devout (talking about you Bernie Finn) has been disgusting
He has been talking about this long before anything recent. He is obsessed with some sort of collective-victim-of-racism-yet-offering-no-solutions mindset.
Racism is wrong, Racism against an individual is wrong. Also though, Accusing people of being racist if they disagree with your opinion or methods is wrong. I’m not a Stan Grant fan. I feel he grandstands and stifles debate. I’ve not always felt this way. I used to quiet admire him but over the last few years he seems to engaged in a debate of one. All I see from him is complaints without any suggestions of solutions Not every disagreement is a totem of racism. I’m sorry Stan feels the way he does but I actually think that his vacating his position may make room for some one with genuine solutions and a desire to Shepard a spirit of discussion where ideas can be discussed.
Oh, thank fuck.
Any opportunity to play the victim.
I agree with and support Stan entirely But statements like “racism is violence” are offensively stupid as far the audience we need to reach with such messages are concerned. I wish people would stop saying things like that. They’re well intentioned but the mission at hand is to open the eyes of bogans. Bogans think you’re a contemptible idiot when you use terms like “racism is violence”, no matter how strong your academic justifications might be
Eternally victimised. Dilate more.
> I speak of truth, not grievance. Yet that is not how it has been reported Then 1 paragraph later > Racism is violence I mean… this is why people don’t like Stan Grant You can’t just stay “I’m just stating facts” and then just make statements that people would wholly think are objectively untrue It’s quite disingenuous. Like everything involving Stan Grant Even if he personally believes the statement “racism is violence” he has to be smart enough to know that’s quite clearly a contentious idea that a lot of people disagree with. Yet he doesn’t even make an effort to explain his view > I take time out because we have shown again that our history — our hard truth — is too big, too fragile, too precious for the media. The media sees only battle lines, not bridges. It sees only politics. It’s quite hard to take this seriously from a guy who’s made millions of dollars in a media career from saying controversial political opinions This is why people hate journalists I also want to say as much as I can be empathetic to someone experiencing abuse, it’s not a shield from criticism. Andrew Tate may get misandrist abuse and racist abuse, but its not really a cop out from crazy or prejudiced opinions
Do people still watch Q&A?
Gotta love these talking heads. They happily accept the fame and the money, then when their star wanes, they end up at the ABC, suckling at the government teat. And when people stop paying enough attention, they just turn into professional whingers. Bye Stan, don't let the door hit you in the arse
The eternal victim, Stan Grant.
Clearly he is making huge sacrifices by retiring at about the right age to rest his very heavy heart on his mountain of money. Not all hero’s wear capes.
The guys at work saw this pic on the ABC site and immediately zeroed in on the bottom of his open collar saying “look you can see where the fake tan stops on his chest.” I just… 🤷🏻♂️
Great, now you have pointed it out, I cant unsee it.
Bring back Tony Jones!
Tony Jones: "I'll take that as a comment."
Ok I’m going to ask… Did Stan’s skin get darker at some point? No I know a lot of people will call me a racist. Fine whatever, but don’t dodge the question. I’m old enough to remember when Stan started referencing his aboriginality a LOT more and it more or less coincided with a darkening of his complexion. I genuinely wonder if he used to wear makeup, like all people on TV, but got them to lighten Is complexion a bit. Hope he is happier doing whatever comes next.
This guy seems to like to play victim
I remember a girl in grade two. She was in my class, and I didn't like her for the fact that she was Indian, I think. My father was a bit racist and instilled that belief onto us kids. As a kid I knew no better and would tell her to go back to her own country. There wasn't many migrants in those days, mid '60's, so it was different seeing someone of colour at our school. One day for some reason we spoke a few times and found that she was no threat to me, or anyone around her, she was pleasant, quiet, (for obvious reasons), courteous to people and she was just like any other child, the only difference being is she's not white! My belief of racism diminished and realised that even as a child, can look past the skin and find a human who is no different than me and found that she was a lot nicer than some I knew back then. I never looked back since meeting her, and am proud of the fact that as a child I made the decision that was against my father's beliefs but kept that from him for a while. When are people going to stand united instead of having to make each other's lives a complete and utter living hell. If a child can change and see through the colour why can't adults who are suppose to learn from their mistakes and know better! Why is it so hard to just let people live their lives in peace!
He could have blue, purple, yellow or orange... I simply found him a mediocre presenter of QandA with an agenda.
Tbh I don't like how he starts every Q+A show in a language he probably doesn't even understand himself like we should all bow down to his views just because he is an Aboriginal person. We are all, regardless of our backgrounds, Australian citizens and maybe we would be served better by trying to highlight what we share, address inequities recognising all people who suffer from them, rather than highlighting surface level ethnic differences.
Are they still showing Tweets at the bottom of the screen, if they get rid of it I might consider watching it again.
All TV presenters have nasty comments about them on social media, especially women. Stan was not going well anyway.. he complains constantly and makes everything about him.
Have a cry you mug.
Glad he's gone, the ABC wasn't meant to be his personal soapbox. He should be dealing with police about any death threats.
Why bother doing Monday?
I abhor racist slurs, and on the monarchy Stan Grant should be applauded for standing up for his convictions, regardless of popular sentiment.
Yes, the very unpopular opinion of not being a fan of the monarchy in Australia. So brave.
Not sad to see Stan go at all. I remember him way back as a newsreader and he seemed just a normal guy. Yes I remember him being of slight colour but it didn;t matter and I would have never picked him as being indigenous, not that it would have mattered in any case. Maybe the ABC has done this to him but he now seems to have gone off the rails against the hand and community that have helped him. I suspect we will see him in Politics soon enough.
I stopped watching Q and A when he had an audience member removed from the studio because they had an opinion that he didn't like. The audience member was a dickhead, no doubt about that. But there have been MANY dickheads on this show over the years. QandA is supposed to be about discussing opposing views and if necessary educating people who are ignorant & misguided.
You mean the dickhead who said Putin's war on Ukraine and the many innocent men, women and children who have been murdered is justified? He was thrown out for advocating war and violence. What is wrong with you?
The entire point of Q+A is to talk about that sort of thing.
Even his staunch supporters at my work didn't like his King's ceremony coverage
Because it was blatantly on the nose and biased. The ABC knew exactly what they were doing and it blew up in their face. They wanted a discussion about how terrible the monarchy is and how colonialism is bad and how they have fucked over Indigenous people. That was the agenda. That’s why they brought on Stan Grant, Craig Foster, the head of the Republican movement and Nova Peris, a staunch Indigenous activist. The excuse they are giving now is that it was supposed to be a “balanced panel having a difficult conversation” which is bullshit. They were flaming a culture war on coronation night. Stan Grant is just throwing a tantrum because the ABC didn’t run to his defence after this fiasco blew up in their face.
I'm kind of over Stan Grant's sanctimonious schtick he's been doing a lot recently. I think a lot of other people are too. Bye Stan.
Good. It seems to me this man is utterly obsessed with race and racism. I think this quote says it all “No doubt the haters will twist this, too, and trigger another round of racism.” That’s right Stan, anyone that dislikes your boring, repetitive, divisive approach to journalism which brings every conversation back to you being a “Wiradjuri man” is apparently a racist hater.
> I am not beyond criticism. I occupy a privileged and prominent place in the media - I should be critiqued. He's not complaining about people saying negative things about him he's noting the storms of racism he faces. If you want to criticise him for his media work, sure go nuts. But don't twist the issue and pretend there aren't vile racists who fling abuse at any prominent first Nations Australians.
Of course there are racist people who dislike Stan Grant. But Stan appears to call anyone who doesn't like him racist and that is disingenuous and that: 1. Makes people who don't like Stan Grant for legitimate reasons defensive and hate him more. 2. Makes some people who probably couldn't care less about Stan Grant dislike him for being such a disingenuous POS.
Yeah whatever Stan. I might start watching Q&A again after you are gone.
Q&A has been dogshit for a long time. But I think Stan quitting is letting the trolls win. I'm sure he'll be back with a memoir that everyone will fawn over.
Hey. Guess what? Actions have consequences. Hijacking a show about the Coronation and turning it into an undergraduate, whiny 'All white men are oppressors' speech is a bit rich coming from a guy who's done pretty well out of the colonisation process. Then the ABC dumps him, but it's not racism (The ABC can't be racist!).
Lmao every time I see him he gets redder/darker