Prime ministerial priorities
Media - - Posted on July, 6 at 1:00 pm by Ken L
Kevin Rudd continues his role as art critic:
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he cannot stand the photo of a young naked girl published on the cover of an art magazine.
I can’t wait to read his views on the new Jay Brannan CD, goddamned. I can’t make up my mind if Jay has overstepped the blasphemy mark and I need prime ministerial assistance. And what about the new Bindi Irwin doll? I’m in an agony of indecision about whether the wee mite is old enough to make an informed decision about having herself ruthlessly exploited by adults and I’d love to hear Kevvie’s opinion.
So good on Insiders for exploring the really important issues and props to Kev for answering so honestly. And plaudits to Our ABC for knowing which are the vital stories to convey to the nation from its tedious Sunday morning show for political tragics.
At least they didn’t get into silly stuff like our reason for having troops in Afghanistan or Rudd’s attitude to a possible US/Israeli strike on Iran. You don’t want to waste prime ministerial time on trivia.
Posted in Media |
July 6th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Ok your point, as I understand it, is that Rudd should be concerning himself with other issues.
But do you really think that such a photo is appropriate? It is a fact that there is a significant number of people in the community who find those sorts of pictures inappropriate.
July 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
What about the artwork painted and plastered all over the Sistine Chapel and in the Vatican museums, Alastair, do you “find those sorts of pictures inappropriate.”?
In Norman Lindsay’s day people like yourself were described in iconic Australian magazines like The Bulletin as “bloody wowsers”.
Shock, Awe and Waste a million Iraqi citizens? Oh, that’s merely god’s gift of freedom being bestowed upon Mesopotamian oil fields. Nothing obscene in it whatsoever. Display a photo of a young naked girl on the cover of an art magazine, oh goodness gracious me, that’t just SO inappropiate!!!
July 6th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Alastair I have no opinion about the photo. I haven’t seen it and I have better things to do with my time than go looking for it. If it’s unlawful then let the magazine be prosecuted. I couldn’t care less.
Significant numbers of people in the community find all sorts of things inappropriate. The idea of two guys having sex with each other for example, or a woman having an abortion, or people wearing “Jesus is a cunt” t shirts.
I sincerely want the prime minister, whoever s/he may be, to refrain from engaging in talk-back radio level discussions about such things unless s/he proposes to do something concrete about them. Does Rudd propose to change the law? If not, who cares what he thinks? The prime minister is not the arbiter of the nation’s morals or artistic standards. Howard’s idea of prime-minister-as-father-to-the-nation is nauseating and treats people as mindless children who need guidance about every trivial aspect of their lives. I repeat, who cares what Rudd thinks about pictures of naked kids or drinking alcohol or obesity or internet pornography? He’s elected to do a job and the job description does not include shoving his Menzies-era morals down the throats of the population.
I was under the impression that Rudd had refused invitations to appear on Insiders - if this is the kind of thing they want him to opine on it was a wise decision and he should have stuck to it. And if this is the kind of ‘issue’ Our ABC wants to beat up into a ‘news’ story then the sooner they sell ABC TV to News Ltd the better. Ackerman, Bolt and Blair would be much more comfortable under a Fox News banner.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Ken thanks for your thoughtful response. That makes a lot of sense.
Enemy Combatant, I think you ought to have read my comment more carefully. I did not express an opinion about the photos, but posed a question. I am undecided what I personally think about photos like that.
As for this: “Shock, Awe and Waste a million Iraqi citizens? Oh, that’s merely god’s gift of freedom being bestowed upon Mesopotamian oil fields. Nothing obscene in it whatsoever.”
What on earth are you on about?
July 6th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
“I am undecided what I personally think about photos like that.” Actually I should clarify. I’m not a fan of photos like that but am not about to say that because I feel that way it should be banned.
EC, of course it’s clear what you’re saying in your last paragraph. However, who said anything about the Iraq War and who said it was okay?
July 6th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Alastair, so called ‘offending’ photo you can see via Google and I would be surprised that anyone would find it of interest,well that may be a bit too solid a statement, and if the current ‘moral outrage’ wasn’t being pushed as a vested interest in some quarters I doubt that any of this and previous images would have raised a sweat.
Over at Australian Values their is a note on Hettie Johnson ranting against a photographer when it seems the photographer was actually the ‘victim’ herself.So it seems that it can be a good idea to actually view what all the fuss is about and be independent in ones thoughts rather than get swept along in hysteria.
I think EC was quite correct to voice that opinion.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Lang Mack,
I’m not swept up in any hysteria. I form my own judgements.
EC was right to have whatever opinion he/she chooses. They were not right to make wild assumptions about the “type of person i am” and about other views which I may or may not have.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Alastair, you did pose a question then follow it with a qualifying sentence. My response (bloody wowsers) would have been better wholely directed at the sort of people(like Kevvie) who reflexly condemn such a photo on the cover of an art magazine as inappropriate, rather than at you. I withdraw any suggestion that you personally are a wowser and appreciate your view(and Lang Mack’s too) that I’ve a right to express an opinion, a rather strong one actually, on the matter.
The sooner Albrechtsen, Brunton and Windschuttle get the arse from the ABC board, the more likely it will be that the AB friggin’C quit sensationalising such piffle, when far more important issues like Garnaud on global warming need “fleshing out”.
Self-appointed bastions of the public morality have always given me the shits.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
‘I withdraw any suggestion that you personally are a wowser and appreciate your view(and Lang Mack’s too) that I’ve a right to express an opinion, a rather strong one actually, on the matter.”
Thank you.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Alistair, the second paragraph of my statement was of general interest, not directed at any person. ( Parramatta is getting in the way,they make me get teary eyed sometimes, like now
)
July 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
()
July 6th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Bloody hell, that was to show my grief, no wonder I follow these buggers.( No sympathy around here either).
July 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Lang Mack,
Fair enough. I completely agree that one should form their own judgements based upon reality.
Looking at the cover in question, it appears purely artistic to me. I can’t understand how it could be taken any differently. However, a reality is that some people have a problem with it. I’m personally undecided as to whether or not they have a valid argument.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Lang I feel your pain. I used to follow Manly until I lost interest in the NRL. Are they still in the competition?
Oh wait *gets maroon and white scarf from cupboard*
July 6th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Mate, some people had a problem with table legs a while back, mixed bathing, a turn of ankle, the only valid thing about the new moral crusaders is that they are pushing an agenda for ,mostly a self serving purpose, it’s old ground, FFS, a human of any age is a human of any age, to be undecided is I guess, I can understand but, on who’s behalf are you undecided. I’m not being pugnacious or doubting your good intentions, from my point of view there is no ‘moral crusade’ warranted at all.
And I’ll repeat what Ken and EC suggested, that ‘art’ should be taken up as an axe to grind from a tiny minority with a problem, against ,well where do you start, limb loss of children from the USA carpet bombing in SE Asia,CIA in South America, CIA in every, just about, stinking ‘arrangement’ around the world.
Thing is, were worn out from news of genocide,the reporting of what a mob of cunts the Bush regime are, the Howard grovel, so we have a target, child photo’s. Great.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
#14. Like to inflect it eh;I was at Manly grounds when we flogged you layabouts in all three grades in 1969. And you don’t feel my pain, maybe a twinge(probably old age), no one feels pain like an Ells fanatic.Bloody hell I could give my mob a shake, maybe water board the bludgers,whoops :).
July 6th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Lang Mack,
Your view is a perfectly valid one. That of course does not mean that other people have to agree with you. I am a simple pleb with a view or in some cases a lack of a view.
“a human of any age is a human of any age”
There are obvious differences between a child and an adult or a child and an adolescent or an adolescent and an adult - in physical and mental attributes.
What would you say to Mr Rudd’s argument that a young child the age of 6 can’t decide for themselves whether it is appropriate to do a naked photo shoot?
Please everybody note: I am not endorsing Mr Rudd’s view. I am merely bringing up a discussion point.
“the only valid thing about the new moral crusaders is that they are pushing an agenda for ,mostly a self serving purpose”
Would you care to share with us what self-serving agenda you belive these people might be pushing?
July 6th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Aggrandize their zealot,politics and religion.
Toss in a bit of look at me.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:00 am
I wish Kevin did sound more and more like John Howard..talk about the big things Kevin and give your art critic day job,,,and try shutting up on occasions when the media wants your opinion of trivia.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I am against censorship in general, people should be able to turn the other way if they don’t like what they see.I too do not care what Rudd thinks about those photographs of a 6 year old girl, however I do like the fact that he thinks about them in the same way as I do.As far as the Sistine Chapel they are paintings of Angels and Sauls and not of real people or children they are the product of ones imagination.Photographs are of real people and recognisable.Photographs of young children,in provocative positions,placed into a painting does not make it art.
Why should the PM not have an opinion about those photos?Especially since he was asked,he had,to give an opinion,he did not volunteer his opinion.What s**ts me is that the media continue to ask silly questions of Rudd just as they did with Howard,while the things that actually effect us goes unasked.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Muskiemp I agree in general terms, but pollies are pretty good at not answering questions they don’t want to answer. Howard did a good petulant line in “I’m not going to give a running commentary on every xxx”, so Kevin can surely refuse to give a running commentary on the front pages of obscure magazines. Otherwise he just becomes a puppet of the media, contributing to whatever clowns like Ackerman and Milne decide is the issue du jour.