FROM THE EDITOR
…AND WHY WE NEED TO FLEX OUR CRITICAL THINKING MUSCLES.
The recent online publication of DNA’s interview with Milo Yiannopoulos prompted an outpouring of strong opinions, some of which you can read on page 12 of this issue.
To begin with, the majority were from readers angry with us for giving Milo’s racist, homophobic, sexist views a platform. The comments changed slightly as people actually began reading the interview and realised what a sloppy thinker he is. Some readers applauded us for supporting freedom of speech.
As unpleasant as it can be, it’s important to hear the voices we don’t like and which we disagree with. We can live in a social media echo chamber and only have the opinions we agree with repeated back to us, but that’s unhealthy and makes us lazy thinkers. It makes us Milo or Trump. It also makes us oblivious to the opinions of those who campaign against us. That’s why I spent so much time on the Australian Christian Lobby’s Facebook page during the marriage equality debate.
I didn’t want to interview Milo, I disagree with almost everything he says and I dislike the way he says it. But he is part of our community and while we think we know what Milo is about, it’s my job, and my responsibility as a journalist, to keep testing that.
I knew, when we posted the story, it would upset some people, and I apologise for that, but hearing things that make us angry gives us perspective. It reminds us what we believe in and what we stand for. Hearing opinions we disagree with prompts us to re-state, even if only in our own minds, what our position is.
I was surprised, however, at the level of anger towards DNA for being the messenger. We don’t endorse Milo, we don’t support his opinions. I don’t like President Trump either but I don’t get angry at CNN or ABC for reporting on him. I hope that those of you who left angry comments on our website and Facebook page took the time to read the interview. In my opinion, Milo doesn’t come out of it well. I can’t point to one of his answers that redeems him in anyway.
No one left a comment saying they’d read the interview and he’d persuaded them to change their mind, either. For most, he simply harmed his own cause, revealed himself as a hypocrite, as an apologist for child abuse, as someone who appears psychologically damaged. As much as I dislike giving him a platform, it’s my opinion that he sets out to be excluded from the media deliberately. The lack of publicity is what elevates him. It allows him to claim he’s being censored, or “banned”, by the “Leftwing liberal media” and that rallies anyone feeling disaffected to his cause. It presents a dilemma for media – how do you justify giving air time to an irritant who niggles for the sake of self-promotion? But how do you challenge an opinion leader without engaging them?
I understand that many of our readers, especially on Facebook, come to DNA as a safe space where they can enjoy sexy guys, some light entertainment, and not have the ugly realities of the world intrude. I’m also sensitive to the fact that not everyone is equipped to process and deconstruct Milo’s hate-speak, and that many in our community are still feeling vulnerable after the marriage equality debate. And I regret that the DNA sanctuary was not there for them.
Social media allows us to be less tolerant of receiving news we don’t like, because we don’t have to. We can unfollow, we can block, we can tune it out. Or we can Trump it, and say everything we don’t like is fake. But is that good for us? I don’t think so. When a Milo comes along he makes us angry, but unless we’ve been flexing our intellectual muscles, how do we defend ourselves? We can’t just crawl further into our own Like-sphere and wish him away.
Thank you for reading.
I knew, when we posted the story, it would upset some people… but we need to hear things that make us angry and upset
us. It gives us perspective. It reminds us of the things we believe in and the things we stand for.