140 characters not the full story

OUR contributors’ opinions are not necessarily our opinions.

ALAS, we were finally “outed’’ this week — as fiscal eugenicists, fundamentalist creationists and climate change deniers. In the Twittersphere (where else?), University of Queensland economist John Quiggin denounced a thought-provoking piece we published from The Wall Street Journal. The article by Eric Metaxas, headlined “Is science showing there really is a God?’’, questioned why science couldn’t explain the universe. It was Metaxas’s view, not ours, and drew a vigorous response from readers. For the past week it has been one of the best-read stories on our website and that of the WSJ. The oft-erudite Quiggin, however, jumped to the wrong conclusion; this newspaper was “now pushing creationism as well as climate denial’’. We can only hope he expects better logic and research from students.

Others tweeted about our “peak hateful idiocy’’ for running an article by Gary Johns, who argued contraception should be compulsory for those wholly dependent on taxpayers. We do not necessarily agree with Johns. But the response from our readers and elsewhere showed the column had sparked an uncomfortable but worthwhile debate.

METAXAS: Is science showing there really is a God?

JOHNS: No contraception, no dole

Those who misinterpreted both articles as The Australian’s position seem to have forgotten that a serious newspaper should present a variety of opinions. Of course, as is the way in the social media universe, some had not even read the pieces but simply wanted to amplify the faux outrage. Their apparent dictum: I share therefore I am.

A few even mistakenly assumed the views of Johns — a former Labor MP — were official Abbott government policy. For goodness sake. Then again, mistaking columnists’ opinions for those of the newspaper is perhaps an easy error for those who only want their own views reinforced rather than challenged. If that’s what you expect from your journalism, you’ve come to the wrong place. Perhaps it’s better you stay in the dark Twitter echo chamber.

This may come as a surprise to @JohnQuiggin but we love a contest of ideas. And we’d love to see the same ethos alive at other media outlets. We’d take great delight if controversial, unorthodox views were to be found on a regular basis on, say, Fairfax websites or the ABC. Sadly, with few exceptions, the editorial policy appears to be more about co-opting readers into groupthink, the enemy of rigorous, informative and productive public debate. Memo to the ABC’s Mark Scott and Greg Hywood at Fairfax Media: Journalism is not sociology.

Here, for the record, are a few thoughts about us to share around.

We’re not climate deniers because we publish a couple of contributors who dare to scrutinise the scientific consensus. (For two decades we have accepted the probability of man-made climate change.) We’re not creationists because we run a writer making the case for a higher power. (Do we really have to defend this? Must we declare our belief in evolution?) And we’re not campaigning against the Coalition government because Graham Richardson uses his regular position in our pages to criticise an unfair and badly sold budget (his words). Surely even Quiggin would accept that.

Professor, if you ever want to know what the paper thinks or where it stands on any issue, there is only one place you’ll find out. Right here in these editorial columns.