By Graham Greenwood
IT was about 1977 when a reporter from The Border Watch was sitting in a ministerial car travelling from the Mount Gambier Airport to the CBD and alongside was Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.
Mr Fraser had just arrived in his RAAF aircraft from Canberra and was heading home to his farm near Coleraine and the 10-minute drive from the airport to the city was the only time he would provide for an interview.
As they sat there he turned and said, “You know, (he always started a sentence with “you know”) your newspaper is a disgrace”.
And then he continued on with a barrage of abuse about what had been written by a colleague on a certain issue during the previous weeks.
As the reporter sat and listened, the prime minister became more and more animated demanding his message be passed onto the editor.
At that point the reporter excused himself and said, “Pardon me for interrupting Mr Prime Minister but that is ‘my newspaper’ you are criticising.
“With great respect I believe it is inappropriate for you to speak to me on this subject. I am not your messenger and if you have a problem you should address it to the editor.”
There was no interview or story.
When this story was related to editor Hedley Hancock OAM, he was furious and rang Mr Fraser to inform him of his lack of courtesy and that he had no right to take up his frustration with an innocent reporter.
Later, Hedley addressed his editorial staff telling them no matter what station in life someone might hold there is a right and wrong way to go about things and “you should never lower your standards to those of others”.
I listened intently to an editor who was held in the highest esteem and from that day onwards I learnt, no matter what public office people held, we all deserve the same respect and courtesy – we are all equal.
Much later, there were many times when I wrote about controversial issues criticising premiers, politicians, NFF presidents, mayors and councils but one of the disappointing things that has emerged in the past decade or so is that often politicians, councillors and people in general, particularly those on social media, have lost the art of debating.
Instead, they use personal abuse to attack the person with a different view, and do not debate the issue or answer questions that are often asked.
It happens often, but it is becoming more and more prevalent.
If someone puts an argument about cutting back immigration, instead of debating the issue, opponents find it is much easier to simply call them racist.
It is a tag which has nothing to do with the issue and why is it that anyone putting a different view is said to be “negative”?
Recently, Cr Steve Perryman (and basketball league board member) berated me, in what some claimed was a personal attack, over my questioning of the basketball league and council about who was responsible for allowing the stadium to fall into $6m of disrepair.
I had many telephone calls and emails following his letter to the editor (Dec 5) with many expressing outrage at such a personal attack, particularly from those in stone homes with one bathroom, lino floors and wallpapered walls, which Cr Perryman used as an example of me living in the past.
What Cr Perryman may have failed to realise that in trying to belittle me, his comments incensed and ridiculed many people who live in limestone homes and have only one bathroom and a lino floor.
For me, I understand if I offer criticism, I have to expect it in return.
But for Mr Perryman to call the stadium an “old tin shed” is offensive to all those who worked tirelessly, without ratepayers’ money, to build it.
It is also an insult to Bern Bruning, after whom the stadium was named.
All I asked for was answers to my question on the stadium’s $6m repair bill – I am still waiting.
It is, after all a public asset, owned by ratepayers.
Merry Christmas everyone.
