Gurgle, Gurgle, 'round The Plughole

ANYONE who has followed the decline of Fairfax Media over the past few years will have been waiting for the day when the slow, inexorable decline goes into free fall. That moment may today be closer, with the stock at one point this morning descending to 69.5 cents, just a cent-and-a-half above its all-time low. As of 2.30pm it had clawed its way back to 70.5 cents, which still left it down almost 3% on the day so far. What makes this interesting is the volume, with some 20.5 million shares changing hands. That is roughly twice the average daily tally and it suggests AFX is being dumped.

What happens when the stock drops through that 69 cent barrier? Only time will tell, but one strong possibility will be that Gina Reinhart’s bid for one or two board seats is going to get a rocket-powered boost. How can Greg Hywood & Co look their largest stockholder in the eye and tell her to get lost, especially when their own tenure has seen a downhill run all the way?

The luvvie left imagines Reinhart wishes to call the editorial shots -- no doubt an example of projection, as that is what it does when given half a chance. But perhaps Reinhart sees things with a greater clarity, realising that it is the nonsense Fairfax publishes which has done so much to limit its market, sales and stock price. Fix the product and she might just turn the business side around.

Readers sometimes write to the Billabong to ask after the Professor’s peculiar interest in Fairfax. The answer is simple, and it is two words: Rupert Murdoch.

Several months ago, News Limited made Glen Milne disappear. Phhhtt! and he was gone – and all because, or so it would seem, those who run the company perceived it a better policy to avoid further aggravating our for-the-moment Prime Minister and her rabble. Murdoch, of whom many good things can be said, insisted in London last night that he neither bows to nor intimidates politicians, but Milne’s banishment puts the lie to his words. So, too, does the Herald & Weekly Times’ shameful decision not to appeal Andrew Bolt’s conviction for hurting the feelings of a few sensitive and well-connected souls.

A second media organisation, even an imperfect one, would go some way toward to boosting the cause of freedom of speech. That is why a healthier Fairfax is worth the effort of desiring.

UPDATE: Daily volume is now at 26 million and the stock has dropped again, down to 70 cents.
 

Gina, start making a fuss. Given that you bought into Fairfax at 81 cents, these jokers have already cost you around $20 million.

UPDATE II: Bad numbers all over.

The Academic Mind In Action

WE HAVE all heard of the village idiot who, when asked why an illiterate man would write a letter his dog, replied that everything was OK because, while he could not write, the dog could not read. This morning in the Age, the old saw is given something of a modern twist, the opinion page being supplied with a pair of writers who dispense ignorance to readers via editors who know no better. The star attraction is Stephan Loondowsky who, as usual, serves up a litany of falsehoods, not least of which is the assertion that former Senator Nick Minchin and his sceptical kind deny the link between tobacco and poor health. There is nothing terribly new about Loondowsky’s latest seepage, which should not come as a surprise. The only thing more given to stupidity and repetition than Age contributors are the editors who publish them. Just in case you have forgotten Loondowsky’s urgent need for treatment, here is everything in today’s op-ed but delivered in spoken form: 

Now Loondowsky takes some topping -- although not, thankfully, in any sense that might get Peter Slipper excited -- but the Age manages it all the same by deploying the Parkville Asylum’s Don Edgar, who goes on at great length about society’s obligation to provide for all. To support this view, Edgar quotes Alfred Dolittle from Shaw’s Pygmalion. And remember, Edgar is aprominent academic, someone you might imagine to enjoy more than a nodding familiarity with one of the last century’s most notable plays. Here is his version of Dolittle:

George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion character Alfred Doolittle laments his lot as one of the ''undeserving poor'': "Think what it means to a man … he's up against middle-class morality all the time … 'You're undeserving, so you can't have it' … I don't need less than a deserving man: I need more …'' Doolittle was right. Evidence suggests it is rich, well-educated, higher-status people who feel entitled, not the poor.

Here is Dolittle’s original speech. As readers will note, Shaw is ridiculing both Dolittle’s selfish, grasping sense of entitlement and his eagerness to “sell” daughter Eliza for a quick fiver. 

What am I, Governors both? I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the undeserving poor: that's what I am. Think of what that means to a man. It means that he's up agen middle class morality all the time. If there's anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: 'You're undeserving; so you can't have it.'

But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow's that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I don't need less than a deserving man: I need more. I don't eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I'm a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving.

What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything. Therefore, I ask you, as two gentlemen, not to play that game on me. I'm playing straight with you. I ain't pretending to be deserving. I'm undeserving; and I mean to go on being undeserving. I like it; and that's the truth. Will you take advantage of a man's nature to do him out of the price of his own daughter what he's brought up and fed and clothed by the sweat of his brow until she's growed big enough to be interesting to you two gentlemen? Is five pounds unreasonable? I put it to you; and I leave it to you.

As all but Prof Edgar knows, Shaw was a socialist and keen to improve the lot of the downtrodden by, amongst other things, keeping the lucre of largesse away from graspers like Dolittle. Somehow, by the end of his column, Edgar has arrived at precisely the opposite conclusion, writing: “We should not pit the ‘deserving’ against the ‘undeserving poor’, or we will all be poorer in every way.”

If you are inclined to spare a kind thought for the poor, focus first on Fairfax shareholders, who grow poorer by the day. Do you think the piffle their newspapers publish might have something to do with it?

Apologies for Bad Manners

THERE WAS some trouble with the computer, that was to start with, or more correctly, that was the second of the day’s trials, because the round of golf, which had not gone well at all, concluded on a worse note with a fit of sweating and coughing.  The machine required $100 and two days to fix, and good manners really should have obliged a little post by way of explanation. Apologies for its non-appearance, but there were family matters in need of attention.

Young Master Bunyip has been moving house and the opportunity to drive a biggish truck and bark orders at young people carrying furniture was too tempting. By the time he was settled, several days had passed since the last post, but then author David Foster intervened. He is not everyone’s tastes -- the fascination with castration makes you wonder – but there is so much fun in his books, you forgive Foster for the many moments when you cannot be sure if he is engaging in satire or succumbing to one of the impulses that upset this ABC reviewer. Six books later, the Professor still isn’t sure.

The obstacle now blocking a return to full-strength posting is a promise of assistance given long ago to a friend. It has now come due, so the next month or so will see much time away from the Billabong. There will be a few posts over the weeks to come, but they will not be regular, and their appearance will be governed more by the rural availability of a sound computer connection than a desire to hold forth. By June things should be back to normal.

Speech Permitted

THE ABC has now published some comments on Big Ideas' webpage. Many are critical. How long will the thread last? Sportingbet should open a book.

ADVISORY: A beautiful day in Melbourne and the first tee beckons. Back tonight.

Random Good Fortune

THE PUBLISHER Random House, which is no small business, recently issued Anita Heiss' Am I Black Enough For You? As readers will know, the book has been the subject of much comment, but not lately on Random House's web site, where hundreds of critical, but by no means racist, remarks were erased not once but twice. The same thing happened at the ABC, where a comment thread vanished without trace. There were no calls to burn crosses, distribute blankets contaminated with smallpox or remove dusky moppets from their parents' care. The comments were critical of Heiss and that was enough to see them obliterated. This is the sad state of free speech in Australia, and we can only hope that the soon-to-be Abbott government will do something about it.

With this in mind, there is one other thing the next government might wish to examine. Indeed, given the wreck our current PM has made of the nation's finances, one would think it has an obligation to do so without delay.When she sat down to pen her book, Ms Heiss was in receipt of some $90,000 in government grants reserved for Indigenous writers. Had she lacked the requisite melanin to qualify for such support, Heiss would have gone to Random House, pitched her idea and, if it had been accepted, pocketed an advance against future royalties. When the book came on the market, she would not have received another penny until the publisher had recouped its initial investment.

Instead, she and Random House would appear to be making out like bandits. Paid by the taxpayer to write a book about which taxpayers are not allowed to comment, she is now free to pocket royalties from the very first sale. And executives at Random House must be smiling as well. Very little of the company's own cash went into the book's preparation, as its only expenses were printing and distribution. It, too, will be in the black (so to speak) very soon after the release date, regardless of how well or poorly Heiss' book is received.

If this in an inaccurate summation of the way the grants system works, the Professor would like to know. But that is the way it seems from a quick reading of Australia Council charters and wotnots.

So here is a nifty idea for PM Abbott, one that might save the taxpayer just a little bit of cash and improve both the quality and breadth of Australian writing: Instead of simply handing out money in the form of grants, why not underwrite advances to authors? This would mean favoured authors could not double dip -- once on the grant and again on the sales -- and it would also oblige publishers to invest a little more thought to the commercial and literary appeal of projects they take up.

Or think of it this way: You are an acquiring editor and two proposals land on your desk. One is supported by the Australia Council and guarantees a return, regardless of the merit you might see in it. The other is an unsubsidised pitch, one that may well be the worthier of the pair.

Which is likely to get the nod, do you think? 

It's A Norwegian Thing

AS The Age would have captioned it:

Athletes display the symbol of right-wing hate at the 1968 Mexico Olympics.

UPDATE: More on the history of angry fisting here.

Big Ideas, Big Gag

UPDATE: As of this morning, 22 comments have been permitted.

ON RADIO NATIONAL's Big Ideas this evening, straight man Paul Barclay interrupted his flow of hit-em-for-six slow balls to Anita Heiss midway through the show. It was both the standard pause for station identification and a moment for Barclay to solicit listener comments for his show's ABC web page. Here are his exact words:

To express your views head to our website ... we welcome your views on all Big Ideas programmes, but a reminder: please be civil and refrain from offensive comments. Difference of opinion is fine. Abuse is not.

So far, some three hours after the broadcast's conclusion, not one comment has been posted. From this absence we can conclude one of two things.

1/ Radio National listeners are ordure-flinging trolls, none of whose comments are deemed worthy of seeing the light of day.


or

2/ Anita Heiss is a protected species who must be kept safe from exposure to criticism of all kinds, even if this means suppressing remarks by even her most ardent admirers.