<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Dear All, </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I've very much enjoyed this discussion
(despite my tendency towards idealism and sarcasm - apologies) and it occurs
to me that the issues we've been talking about deserve a wider audience
(as others have suggested). </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">My former employer, the University of
Warwick, set up a number of public debates ('The Warwick Debates' or something)
in collaboration - if I remember rightly - with The Times and The Economist,
where either two well-known figures or a panel clashed on a topical issue
of the day. I'm not exactly suggesting that, but I think we could organise
a travelling series of debates organised by the CSAA and hosted by interested
universities across the country (and if we can do it in collaboration with
a newspaper that would be great), along the lines of 'Academics and Journalism:
Truth, Value and Funding'. I imagine a panel of 4-5 speakers at each. It
would bring kudos to the hosting institution and would get these matters
out in the open where they belong. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Of course this may well be Xmas idealism
gone wild. </font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">BTW: Frank Furedi (I know, I know -
but for the few that may be interested!) has just written a related piece
on academics and the media which can be found here: </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA818.htm</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Jason<br>
<br>
Dr Jason Jacobs<br>
Senior Lecturer<br>
School of Arts, Media and Culture<br>
Griffith University<br>
Nathan Campus<br>
Queensland 4111<br>
Australia<br>
Phone: (07) 3875 5164<br>
Fax: (07) 3875 7730<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Danny Butt <db@dannybutt.net></b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: csaa-forum-bounces@lists.cdu.edu.au</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">16/12/2004 02:27 AM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to CSAA discussion list</font>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To:
csaa-forum <csaa-forum@lists.cdu.edu.au></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc:
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject:
Re: [csaa-forum] Bolt and the Ideologues</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>On 12/15/04 7:37 PM, "stephen crofts" <crofts5@hotmail.com>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> I strongly agree with Christian McCrea about the importance of challenging<br>
> Andrew Bolt, about his specious logic, and that we do best not to
just<br>
> demonise him. For that is to play his anti-intellectual game.
\<br>
<br>
<br>
I also think Graeme's piece is excellent, and a most appropriate response<br>
from the Academy. However, I also think that neither Bolt nor his audience<br>
will care about it, and I wonder whether, when we say "we won't stoop
to<br>
Bolt's level", we're actually saying, I would rather remain in the
logic of<br>
reasoned argument (that we in the academy invented :7) than the logic of<br>
mediated populist politics that operates more or less independently of<br>
anything Cultural Studies might do (I think for Bolt, Elspeth's work or
CS<br>
in general is just an example that is regularly substituted for some other<br>
complaint in his columns).<br>
<br>
I don't think my suggestions about questioning Bolt's credibility within
the<br>
language of the tabloid press are designed to make the academy look good.<br>
Obviously Bolt's sex life (BTW, I don't think it matters whether Bolt is<br>
*actually* any good in bed, any more than whether the Labor party could<br>
*actually* run the economy), rich friends, or random acts of real or<br>
invented hate do not contribute to a discussion about the role of the<br>
academy. They are simply wedge issues that I think have the potential to<br>
split his constituency and expose his contradictions *within the logic
of<br>
tabloid politics*, which is where this game is being played out.<br>
<br>
So I'm suggesting a US Republican party style strategy where there are
the<br>
official responses from our esteemed CS figureheads (Graeme, Elspeth,<br>
Catharine, etc.) that operate in what passes for public culture in the<br>
press, and are appropriately above Bolt's rhetoric. This could be<br>
supplemented by a collaborative and psuedonymous campaign (Australians<br>
Against Dickheads, perhaps? Or the more think-tanky Centre for Truth in<br>
Journalism?), one that recognises that there's no arguing with Bolt, he's<br>
not going to meet us on our turf of rational debate, so we may as well
use<br>
our media skills to make him sorry he ever messed with a few hundred smart<br>
and well-connected people who care more than he does. It's a perfect student<br>
project for an informal graduate journalism class.<br>
<br>
Or we can hope he goes away by himself.<br>
<br>
x.d<br>
<br>
--<br>
http://www.dannybutt.net<br>
<br>
#place: location, cultural politics, and social technologies:<br>
http://www.place.net.nz<br>
<br>
[ Lilith] laughed bitterly. "I suppose I could think of this as fieldwork
-<br>
but how the hell do I get out of the field ?" (Octavia E. Butler,
_Dawn_)<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________<br>
<br>
csaa-forum<br>
discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia<br>
<br>
www.csaa.asn.au<br>
</tt></font>
<br>