Eddie McGuire, the charming laid back voice that blokes all over Australia can relate to. He is a man that does not subscribe to any of this politically correct nonsense that our society is saturated with and he tells it the way it really is.
Yes, maybe he says things sometimes that he shouldn’t, but people need to realise that he is just joking around and having a bit of a laugh. Those that complain about McGuire’s remarks are just taking life a little too seriously, right?
Wrong.
McGuire is a parody of everything that is wrong with a culture that is saturated with verbose misogyny and racist condescension. He manages to repeatedly satirise himself with comments such as the ones he made about Caroline Wilson.
McGuire was criticised no more than ten days ago after stating that he would offer $50,000 to watch prominent AFL journalist Wilson be drowned at next year’s Freeze MND charity event.
I am one who firmly believes that we should be allowed to laugh at almost anything in this world in the right context. For example, if we watch a comedian, we enter an implicit agreement that what we are seeing and hearing is not at all serious and that anything that is said should not be taken as such.
However, McGuire is in a position of social influence and such an implicit agreement with his audience differs greatly from one that would exist between a comedian and their audience. His verbose comments reek of sexism and condescension and these comments have power.
Eddie McGuire, as he always seems to do, has overstepped the mark.
This follows his 2013 on-air blunder when he compared AFL star Adam Goodes to King Kong and said that the star could be used to promote the musical. McGuire later managed to articulately and masterfully brush this off as “a slip of the tongue”. Genius. These are only two examples of McGuire’s many insensitive and socially dangerous comments.
The problem here is that McGuire’s comments are only criticised. That is all that ever happens. Collingwood have backed him as their president and Triple M, the radio station he made such remarks on, have decided that the public outcry and “censure” of his comments were enough to change his behaviour.
Really? This is not the first time McGuire has received such condemnation and it has done nothing to change his behaviour in the past. Why should we believe that a similar public reaction would stifle his consistently volatile behaviour?
He gets a slap on the wrist and life goes on exactly the same way. All that happens is a few pithy articles are written criticising this man, and the next day he goes on air, apologises and then continues to talk in the same condescending and demeaning manner.
It is not just the way he says these things, but the way he justifies his comments; he manages to brush off his criticism in the same narcissistic vain in which his remarks are made. He says that he was just joking. Or that he had a slip of the tongue. Or even, get this, that he was merely too tired to think straight.
In essence, McGuire is saying that in order for him to not be a bigot, he has to be thinking completely clearly with no lack of sleep, and furthermore, if he deems his comments to be a joke, they do not count as bigoted remarks. When McGuire apologises, he does so while still justifying the comments that he has just made.
The prime example – his recent comments regarding his remarks about Wilson.
“It’s humour,” he said on Monday. “I pick up the paper every day and there’s a cartoon giving it to me. She’s a big figure in the football world. It was solely a joke. Nobody at any stage had any malice or intent in their heart other than joking about a fellow commentator.”
McGuire is not sorry for his damaging words and this means that there is a very high chance that unless he is taken off air, he will make remarks in the same vain in the future.
An even wider problem is that McGuire has an audience that responds positively to these comments. People are tuning in to hear this sort of thing. That’s part of what makes it dangerous; he has a willing audience for this type of discourse and that’s why it consistently slips past with no real consequence.
It’s hard because this rhetoric inflames a misogynist culture, which in turn, inflames the rhetoric. There is a willing audience and culture encouraging McGuire and he mirrors that by encouraging this mindset. It’s a circle and both components need to be addressed readily.
It starts by creating a culture of not accepting this line of thinking across the board, and from that you eliminate an audience. This type of rhetoric will then not be encouraged and when one makes remarks such as these, they will be thought of as an idiot more broadly.
This transition is happening, but it will only continue to happen if we lambast this condescension and ignorance vigorously. Because when we get asked by the next generation if we supported characters like McGuire and their statements, I hope that we can answer such a question with that of my favourite Stephen Fry quote: “The short answer to that is ‘no’. The long answer is ‘f*** no’.”
McGuire gets away with this rhetoric because of ‘how much he does for sport’. Well, it is time we forgo this illogical excuse. No matter how much someone does for anything in their life, they have to be held accountable for their actions that cause harm.
If we let McGuire’s casual misogyny, racism and condescension off with no consequence merely because of the fact that his actions have had positive implications for Australian sport, then a denigration of the way we expect human beings to be treated is occurring.
We cannot put up with such mind-numbingly ignorant lines of thought from people of influence. All that happens if we do is that ignorance is spread as a common thought process and rhetoric; it insults the intelligence of a nation.
I urge sponsors of Collingwood, such as Holden, to take action that affirms the way we want to treat others in this world. Let us not continue to allow casual racism and sexism flow from voices that stream through radio and television sets all over the world; let us reject it.
You can either choose to be on the wrong side of history, or the right side. Casting Eddie McGuire’s voice aside is a step towards being on the right side of history.
mdso
Guest
Caro's ethics are as questionable as some of her male colleagues in the media. Loving the limelight, Eddie has played right into her hands. She could have actually made a lot of money in donations for MND. A very worthy charity but she declined. Unfortunately, she has no sense of humour either unless it is about someone else.
mdso
Guest
Eddie is a better man than caro ever will be and that's just an opinion, nothing more.
me too
Guest
I am quite baffled at the 'outrage' the media are able to manufacture from such insignificant little incidents. A public figure who had just helped support a charity had a dig at another who had again refused to partake. he used humour, which in most cases contains elements of cruelty. the person may have been offended prior to it somehow gaining legs a week later. if so she could have said so to eddie and if genuine he would have apologised. instead a furor was created, insinuating all kinds of hidden meanings and social outcomes - all of them without basis in fact, just in the 'feel'. social agendas are being pushed over a crude gaffe. social commentators are bullying mcguire far more than his joke warranted. the agenda of tolderance and inclusivity seems to exclude those things you don't like - such as blokey humour. you are hypocrites and puppets of social and mainstream media, picking and choosing based on the individual or group involved rather than an actual consistent philosophy. calling gillard a 'witch' is mysoginistic bullying, but 'glassing' tony abbot is funny? and next week we move on to the next clickbait. week after week after week.
Stiripes
Guest
Sorry but no, Public outcry in itself is no reason for Eddie to be fired. Although does give self serving corporations license to do so in the act of looking to take a moral high ground. It would be akin to a trial by media/ creating a witch hunt. You are literally giving into a lynch mob mentality. We have an obligation to take these things a lot more rationally and holding ourselves to a higher standard. Ask yourself, Is there any reason to believe that Eddie would not have made similar comments against journalist who shared the same history with Eddie, and was in the same position, but was male? Did he make any reference to the fact he said what he did because she is a woman? Is there anything in what he said to suggest he is undermining the seriousness of domestic abuse? Men who are guilty of domestic violence don't do it because they think society endorses it, it is a very serious crime, we have all been told so since birth and we know right from wrong. Comments like these are not the cause of these issues, and to think you are helping by trying to crucify someone for saying what he did is irrational, emotional, illogical - stupid. This isn't to say that no issue could be taken with Eddie's comments. Give Caro some credit that she has ruffled Eddie enough with her hard hitting work, not because she's a woman. This verges a lot closer to bullying by public humiliation when she could not respond. There is a lot more rationality in that. There is the obvious underlying truth in what Eddie said that he wants Carro to 'go away' because she causes him a lot of head aches. But don't make this a gendered issue, domestic violence is incredibly serious and linking these comments with that problem I think is undermines where the real focus should lie on that issue.
Liam
Guest
That made me smile; I suppose it is somewhat gauche to bring up a logical fallacy in an internet forum.
Paul D
Roar Guru
“Ad hominem – that will sure show him. I deem him guilty of playing the man, not the ball. Take that sir!” Am I supposed to repel from that sort of flurry and say, wow, what a telling blow? It’s like being flogged with Hewson’s wet lettuce.
Liam
Guest
I do love me some Ad Hominem, PaulD. The final refuge of the beaten. And, in case you weren't paying attention, I quoted Andyl12 about a threat to criminalise McGuire's actions; I'm commenting on an article concerning the dismissal from work for a person who said something in jest. This is serious, and if you think this is the 'storm in a teacup' sort of a thing, why exactly are you railing against me? And, when I say disproportionate retribution, I'm not talking about how people treat me. I'm talking about the subjects of this kind of outrage, who will bear the brunt of the penalties should free speech die. But I suspect you knew that; all the better to attack, no? And, last I looked, I'm allowed to talk about free speech or its protections wherever I choose; why is it for you to decide if I'm doing it in a sporting comments section or Reddit or the UN? All I want is a sense of proportion. Is that so unreasonable? I dislike binaries, because the are an excessive simplification of what can be a very complex problem. Sexism is a complex problem, so why on EARTH would you allow others to state where the boundaries of your 'side' is?
Paul D
Roar Guru
Seriously mate, what a giant load of twaddle. You’re accusing us of bringing hyperbole and outrage into this conversation, and yet you’re trotting out lines like “if I didn’t fear disproportionate retribution” – for chrissake, you’re participating in an anonymous discussion about a flog media personality over the internet. What sort of retribution can you expect? Someone calling you a tosser? Get over yourself and grow a pair. As I said above I disagree with the lynch mob mentality around McGuire, but I also disagree with Boltites like you who want to turn this into some sort of Trojan horse to rail against 18C. As I said above this is totally the wrong case to advance if you want to have a serious discussion about free speech, McGuire has a long and rich history of making remarks worthy of condemnation and this was no different.
Liam
Guest
PaulD, I quoted myself, from the comment above, if that's what you were referring to. If you still think it's devoid of context/misused etc, then I would return to what I said before; I really, REALLY dislike the degree to which outrage supplants conversations, enforces positions into black and whites, and altogether creates appalling results. If this conversation or issue were discussed without the hyperbole, without the positions like the one I quoted Andyl12, then I wouldn't have to argue with you.
Liam
Guest
Paul D, I wasn't actually aware that I was quoting anyone, so if my comment is free of context then you are perhaps implying more than I intended, for which I apologise. Secondly, I'm not asking for comprehensive free speech rights with regards to this situation, nor do I disagree with either of you when you say that what McGuire did was awful. I feel tremendously wary when individuals and groups suggest punishment for what was, though awful, intended in jest, and should not be taken to indicate serious intent. Reservoir Animal, if you feel that McGuire shouldn't be convicted for conspiracy to murder, them you disagree with Andyl12. It is responses like his which lead to responses like mine; if I didn't fear disproportionate retribution, then I would not be saying anything, because as I seem to need to keep saying, I agree with you. And finally, since you asked, yes, society should allow the comments to stand, in terms of whether or not you should be punished for what you have said; he should be attacked, reviled and labelled in the media, in the cafes and the bars, but all the retribution should be done verbally. And, seeing as you need me to repeat myself again, this is not for McGuire, but for the rights to free speech. Just because it is limited here does not mean is should be limited, and it is here, I think, that is the bone of contention beyond this particular event; I don't think that free speech rights should be limited, while you two/three clearly do.
Reservoir Animal
Guest
Liam, I agree with andyl12. Free speech has never meant you can say anything you want. No he shouldn't be charged with murder. More to the point, should society have tolerated what he said simply because he didn't carry the threat out?
GoGWS
Roar Guru
the 'bullying' or 'intimidation' claims also breaks down under a bit of basic scrutiny. Some commentators are saying words to the effect that whilst Eddie's comments can't fairly be described as sexist or somehow 'promoting violence against women' they were nevertheless bullying because you have a pack of journalists singling out and picking on another journalist. That's surely bullying isn't it, the story goes. No it's not bullying at all, not when you look at whole picture. The alleged victim here is a seasoned journalist who herself has a forum to respond, and who has form in taking on difficult issues and difficult personalities. I don't see Carro as a bullying victim. If this was some pimply-faced cadet journalist then OK you could claim that Eddie and his mob were bullying. Carro might be miffed but she's no victim here. Carro probably should have just replied to Eddie publicly and leave it at that. Just call Eddie an idiot and be done with it. Issue over. What should have been a narrow spat between two journalists has taken on a life of its own like the blob.
Paul D
Roar Guru
To take Omar Bradley out of context, fighting a free speech war to defend Eddie McGuire, based on his history, is the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, for the wrong person.
Liam
Guest
Hello Andy12, funny you're here, commenting on this. I would like to draw to your attention a comment you made to Josh Elliot's article a few days ago, which comes from the complete opposite position I'm coming from. "“Why haven’t the police made arrests and laid charges against the individuals involved?” Because we don’t have strong enough laws against threatening behaviour. The police cannot act on threats and often don’t even have the powers to act on assaults. And that is because too many people are like you and don’t take stands against any of it.” Given that you've commented well after my first one in this chain, you should, by now, know my position; that McGuire's comments, while awful, were just words, made in an exceptionally poor jest. Do you still feel he should be convicted of conspiracy to murder?
andyl12
Guest
Like I said, there have always been limitations on freedom-of-speech rights. Threats of violence against women should come under those limitations, regardless of who the perpetrator is.
Doug Graves
Guest
"The ‘boning’ reference to McGuire was attributed to him by a third party. It’s not a term that Eddie has ever used. That was a stitch up." Turn it up Perry Bridge. It was sworn evidence in an affidavit written by a channel 9 executive that channel 9 then attempted to and failed to have suppressed (why try to suppress something that isn't true?) and which, dammingly, McGuire has never denied. Stop defending this dinosaur.
Liam
Guest
I find it interesting that you use a select quote, pulled from my comment, to back your statements. Perhaps you should try this one, as long as we're cherry picking: "It isn’t for McGuire that I defend his right to say what he said, regardless of the fact that I find what he said distasteful; it is to preserve the right itself, because we never know when we might need it."
Reservoir Animal
Guest
"The defense of freedom of speech isn’t for McGuire; it is for the disadvantaged, those who lack the voice or capacity to defend themselves." But this incident isn't about defending the common man from excessive gag philosophies. It is about Eddie using his privileged status to say something that intimidate in a manner that should be unacceptable to the common man. Long gone are the days when Eddie was the voice of the battler. Don't think otherwise.
Liam
Guest
I'm a bit confused; where exactly did I say I was defending McGuire? I'm well aware how times have changed from the 50's, and I am not defending McGuire in any way. I simply harbour significant fears about how, as Australia moves ever closer to the American ideal of outrage and public shaming, we lose both what makes Australia unique and certain aspects of our rights along our identity. I'll say exactly what I said again. You are perfectly free to disagree with McGuire, just as you are to agree/have no problem with what he said. However, there should not be penalties for saying something that you disagree with; not everyone who needs defending is capable of doing so. The defense of freedom of speech isn't for McGuire; it is for the disadvantaged, those who lack the voice or capacity to defend themselves, whether through an incapacity or an inability to make their voice heard. It isn't for McGuire that I defend his right to say what he said, regardless of the fact that I find what he said distasteful; it is to preserve the right itself, because we never know when we might need it.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Sorry I didn't see this post - I quoted the same Fry quote to you. Surely this is squarely about people being offended, whether you are personally offended or not is irrelevant. Your response to me was, in part, that Eddie should be sacked due to the "public outcry" that his comments have caused. Why is there a public outcry? Could it be that people were offended? I think so. It's all about people being offended. Whether people actually know all the facts, or have thought it through rationally, is another question altogether. By the way, I actually think many people were/are NOT offended but those that are offended sure are making plenty of noise.