Is it the job of corporate media to amplify divisive and offensive commentators?
The vitriolic and inflammatory Senator Pauline Hanson was dropped by Channel Nine last week – when they announced she would no longer be a regular commentator on the Today Show.
Hanson had made divisive, offensive and racist comments on the show – in reference to the residents of Melbourne’s nine public housing towers – who were under COVID-19 lockdown – labeling tenants ‘drug addicts’ and ‘alcoholics’.
Senator Hanson, who had regularly appeared as a contributor in a news chat segment on the show, made comments regarding residents inside public housing towers under COVID-19 lockdown in Melbourne.
In a statement, Channel Nine said: “We don’t shy away from diverse opinions and robust debate on the Today Show. But … accusations from Pauline Hanson were ill-informed and divisive” – and said – Hanson “will no longer be appearing on our program as a regular contributor”.
When voices such as Hanson’s are amplified – is the safety of the public put at risk? Is the job of the mainstream media to give a platform for public figures who will probably make racist remarks?
I caught up with Journalism expert Dr Denis Muller – Senior Research Fellow with the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne to discuss the effects of the language of Pauline Hanson in the media.
Dr Muller’s article in the Conversation can be found here: “When The Today Show gave Pauline Hanson a megaphone, it diminished Australia’s social capital”.
I asked Denis: how does Hanson continue to vent her opinions on the public? This has been happening for decades – Why do media organisations continue to support her offensive ranting? Is it about ratings? What’s going on?