Niall Clugston writes:

Let’s not have
some tabloid war of the sexes – humorous or not – which seems to be
being pushed by both sides of this ‘debate’. Michael Cowley has the
only sensible response to the issue, suggesting a gender-specific
occupational correlation. Please, please, please don’t change what you
do well by chasing some mythical female audience who will suddenly
subscribe if you become less blokey. Sure, Stephen Mayne and Christian
Kerr have a blokey side to their character – though let’s not
exaggerate this! But the character of your columnists is an interesting
part of the publication. A phoney anodyne approach would not be
preferable!

Barry Rosenberg writes:

Public
opinion is that Schapelle Corby is innocent. Why doesn’t the Howard
government do more to investigate her innocence? For instance, a
background check would probably show that she does not have a druggie
lifestyle; never did have, would not know where to acquire 4.5kg of
pot. Why doesn’t the government do this? The answers that I’ve seen so
far suggest that her innocence implies the guilt of the customs
service. A too hot potato.

Another possibility, which I haven’t seen suggested elsewhere, concerns
Howard’s desire to form a Free Trade Agreement with Indonesia. Howard
is afraid that to press the issue of Corby’s innocence would mean to
yield concessions in the FTA. Just as to say sorry to the Aboriginal
people means, to him, to pay retribution. This certainly is not the
time to be an innocent abroad.

Stephen Feneley writes:
I wouldn’t get too hot under the collar about The Age
ripping off Faine. While it’s an open and shut case of a newspaper
lifting an idea from radio lock, stock and barrel, is it really any
different from what broadcasters have been doing to newspapers forever?
Both radio and television would be lost without newspapers to set their
agendas and provide the guts of their research. I had an example of
this just the other day with a well respected broadcaster. I complained
about an item he put to air because it was full of errors. His excuse
was that he had got his information from the newspapers.

Get more Crikey, for less

It’s more than a newsletter. It’s where readers expect more – fearless journalism from a truly independent perspective. We don’t pander to anyone’s party biases. We question everything, explore the uncomfortable and dig deeper.

Join us this week for 50% off a year of Crikey.

Peter Fray
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
50% off