I was lucky enough last night to be abused on Twitter by some virtual unknown, narrow minded, so-called journalist, whose name I will not mention as his over inflated ego certainly does not need the boost.

The whole debacle started when I was having a twitter conversation with someone else about the well respected Fairfax Journalist Heath Aston’s article in the Sydney Morning Herald regarding Barry O’Farrell’s saving of a Tweet involving two young men kissing as a favourite. The sender of this tweet to Barry has apparently sent out previous tweets involving semi nude young boys, so there were some issues that were worth raising, unless we as a society are suddenly fine with exploitation of underage boys.

Barry O’Farrell blamed his big fingers for the apparent mishap, and who knows, maybe he did accidently press all the required buttons in the right order, and accidentally save that particular tweet, (I’m assuming he doesn’t receive many of this nature), long odds, but hey, innocent until proven guilty, and as all the evidence has now been deleted from his account, we will have to assume he is innocent.

Anyway, the man I shall refer to as The Angry Blogger, seemed to take massive personal offence that I would find this story of any merit, and referred to me as a “blinkered F#ckwit” for believing a story that was printed in one of Australia’s most respected newspapers, by one of our top journalists on State Politics, someone The Angry Blogger referred to as a c#%t.

So any readers of the Herald out there, I can only assume he thinks the same of you.

Anyway the story that in his mind, didn’t rate mentioning, rated enough for him to post a lengthy blog on it. So it would seem it only rates mentioning if you are of the same opinion as he is. So let have a look at The Angry Bloggers opinion. I have highlighted the quotes from The Angry Bloggers blog, and left my comments as standard.

“On Twitter, O’Farrell apparently marked as a “favourite” a tweet

What is with the word apparently? This is confirmed by O’Farrell.

“Again, we don’t know for sure because that Twitter account and O’Farrell’s favouriting have since been committed to the memory chute, and Aston hasn’t provided sources.”

So as long as O’Farrell has destroyed the evidence, questions shouldn’t be asked…?? Is that what you are suggesting?

“We have some random Twitter user, who themselves is presumably “under-age” because they “cannot be named for legal reasons”.”

I am glad you don’t like to make assumptions as you accuse Aston of doing…

“Aston implies some sort of kiddie-sex link, though he doesn’t come straight out and say it.”

He doesn’t need to. He clearly has people like you to put the words in his mouth…

“He just insinuates it by using “shirtless” to indicate nudity and “under-age” to imply that kind of wrongness — yes, that old chestnut about bare flesh automatically equating to sex, even though “shirtless under-age boy” applies to every Nippers event and every suburban swimming pool in the nation.”

And just what do you think would happen at that Nippers event or pool if there was a strange man nobody knew hanging around taking photos of the young boys. Nor do I see public pools using slogans like come and see beautiful boys bodies in their advertising. You are taking one context and turning it into another.

“That this random Twitter user made a public comment about some youth being “adorable” is perhaps unfortunate, but then I’ve heard plenty of proud parents being pleased that their kids are described as “adorable”. Context is everything and I’m doubting we can trust Aston to give us an accurate context.”

Yes it is unfortunate, I don’t think any of those proud parents you mention were thinking in the context used in the website in question. As for doubting Astons context and believing yours, I think your insinuation that parents may be proud that a pedophile may find their young boy adorable, tells me whose context to believe in this case.

“But in Aston’s perverted tabloid worldview, O’Farrell’s Twitter account “leads to images” of shirtlessness — shock horror! — and “promote[s] pornography”. How, exactly? “

Well I’ll tell you how, when a person of high profile with many followers as O’Farrell has, puts something in his favourites list, he is inadvertently telling his followers that these are tweets that he considers above all others, which in turn encourages his followers to look at them.

 Now O’Farrell says that he favourited the tweet by mistake, and perhaps he did. But quite frankly he should not have been “horrified”, as Aston reports. He should, in fact, have been proud and told Aston to get a grip.”

Most people yes, O’Farrell no, remember he is the leader of the Liberal Party in this state, a party that opposes virtually every gay reform that the gay community pushes for. He is also the leader of the party that insinuated that David Campbell was at a Gay Club on the night of the F3 dramas, pushing the homophobic frenzy that that story created. So yes, he was right to be horrified, as this story may show him as a hypocrite.

“Aston, I’m quite used to Fairfax beating up trivialities into supposed controversies rather than reporting on real news. But it takes a particularly low-rent species of bottom-feeder to turn a stunt conducted in the name of social equality into a homophobic attack. Very low-rent.”

For starters it was not the only news reported by Faifax that day. I also didn’t see it as a homophobic article or issue, the issue was the link to a site with images and inappropriate usage and connotations of those images of underage boys. The emphasis is on the age, not the gender, if the images were of girls would that make the story alright in your view? And if that is so, then who really has the issue then?

“Gay men and lesbians should worry too. Aston’s emphasis on “male” nudity and “gay” sex scenes — as if that’s somehow worse — is further proof that even in 2010 Fairfax is still part of the problem.”

Actually no, the problem here is that a story that raises issues of hypocrisy, and links to inappropriate usage of images of a minor, is being misinterpreted, and then trashed as being in some way homophobic.

A few weeks back, there was a lot of news about MP’s looking at porn sites on their notebooks, there was no mention of any of these sites being gay porn sites. By The Angry Bloggers standards we should have all been shocked and appalled at the blatant hetrophobic standards of the media, and their obvious bias against heterosexuals.

 I mentioned at the start how lucky I was, and you may wonder why.

I realise I’m lucky to not be as paranoid, yet as self centered as The Angry Blogger, where everything is targeted at his cause, and the world revolves around him. It must be exhausting to think that everytime anything about being gay or sex comes up in the media it is some sort of homophobic attack directed at him and his cause.

I am a heterosexual, I support gays in their bids to gain more freedom and rights. But being heterosexual  does not make me homophobic, in the same way that having a white partner does not make someone a racist.

On his web page, The Angry Blogger, talks about himself in the third person isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade. His style is mercurial, quick-wittedly flipping between playful and provocative. He’s sometimes offensive, often insightful, and always entertaining.

He’s also one of Australia’s most prolific and (according to NEWS.com.au) “interesting” users of the social messaging service Twitter.

Funny, I didn’t see the words paranoid, or arrogant used….

Leave a Reply