Comment

Comment on Bondi library removes book How to Sell a Genocide from shelves after complaint

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

The article isn’t much of an opinion piece. It’s pretty straight down the line reporting, they’ve gone to a broad range of sources for comment. Although not all of those sources contacted for comment responded, which has left a gap by absence. This could be a trick by the reporter by not allowing enough time/clear notification to respond, Murdoch media are famous for this practice, or it could simply be the organisations felt it better not to comment, the Sydney Swans Captain is a good example of ‘no comment’ yesterday.

Maybe what you mean is the language the Guardian chose to use communicates a bias in favour of the ‘book remaining on shelf’ advocates. I’d agree, whether it’s the voice of the author coming through or the stance of the publication this is something that is common and useful in journalism.

As to opinion pieces, the Guardian are usually quite good at clearly labelling an opinion piece of theirs. As per below,

Image

source

Sort:hotnew top

Gladaed@feddit.org ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I mean the title of the book is asking for controversy. Not of the article.

And reasoning for book removals from libraries can be pretty shallow in the US according to my perception, though that’s more of a school and minor library thing.

I didn’t mean the article.

source
- Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Woah, woah, woah. Your original comment was about the book? I wondered which you meaned between the two, and dismissed the comment being about the book as it didn’t make sense alongside the comment.
  
  So let me get this right,
  
  Your saying ‘How to Sell a Genocide’ as the books “title does leave a bad taste and doesn’t communicate scientific rigor”?
  
  If so, fair enough, everybody’s got an opinion on things. It’s a racy title for sure.
  
  But then the last part of the comment, if we’re talking about the title of the book still, makes no sense,
  
  but it being a opinion piece with little value that should not be read
  
  This indicates you’ve read the book? But, have you? If yes, then don’t mind me I assumed wrong. But if no, then how do you know it’s an opinion piece with little value if you haven’t read the book?
  
  And who describes a whole book as an opinion piece? Especially considering most books have gone through referencing and fact checking processes. And doubly in cases like this where legal teams for news/media companies will inevitably be sniffing about.
  
  I’m confused by your comment.
  
  I just want to clear up any possible confusion about the location of this library below,
  
  And reasoning for book removals from libraries can be pretty shallow in the US according to my perception, though that’s more of a school and minor library thing.
  
  This is a library in Sydney, Australia. Near where two terrorists shot and murdered more than 10 people at a Jewish party at Bondi beach late last year.
  
  source
  - Gladaed@feddit.org ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Til the bondi library isn’t some luxury splurge pam bondi bought but some backwater library(well, to be fair Sydney isn’t, but rethorics.). That’s my bad. That majorly changes the story.
    
    I haven’t read the book, but that’s what I expect seeing the title and not having heard of it or its author otherwise. Also getting your book banned by conservatives is great publicity so I am suspicious of them.
    
    source