Wooley: Bombs and bullets couldn’t break Stan Grant but ironically words have

There is plenty of damage that can be done by cowardly creatures in the world of ‘unsocial media’ and sadly highly respected journalist and broadcaster Stan Grant is one of its latest victims.

Journalist Stan Grant bids an emotional farewell on his final show as host of ABC’s Q+A on May 22, before taking indefinite leave. Picture: Courtesy ABC TV

Stan Grant’s emotional sign-off from the ABC’s Q+A program this week was dramatic television and, to my mind at least, deeply moving and completely uncontrived.

Stan’s hands were shaking.

But immediately the mean-spirited, embittered and cowardly creatures who hide in the foul swamp which we dignify with the term ‘social media’ suggested otherwise.

I won’t pass on their illiterate rantings here.

In the show’s closer, those were the people to whom Stan spoke directly, explaining straight down the lens, how their hateful messages and their threats had taken a toll on him and his family.

“To those who have abused me and my family, I would just say – if your aim was to hurt me, well, you’ve succeeded.”

Then he turned the other cheek to his enemies:

“I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I must have given you so much cause to hate me.”

Journalist Stan Grant bids an emotional farewell on his final show as host of ABC’s Q+A on May 22, before taking indefinite leave. Picture: Courtesy ABC TV

The ignorant dopes on unsociable media wouldn’t have understood that. Their total lack of comprehension is always on par with their grammar and their spelling.

But thinking Australia got it.

There wasn’t a dry eye in the studio nor on the nation’s sofas.

Here was a distinguished Australian broadcaster with an impressive international career, brought low by the worthless vitriol of scumbags.

My old mum would’ve counselled: “Sticks and stones might break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”

But the awful truth is that the contrary has proven true for Stan Grant.

Back in my ABC days I was often on the road covering politics with Stan. He went on to CNN International working in Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong and Beijing. He covered many trouble spots in Asia. Bombs and bullets didn’t break him but now it seems ironically that words have.

ABC journalist and host of Insiders, David Spears, registers his support of Stan Grant. Picture: Twitter.

Poisonous and hateful words, to which I think he should never have listened. An increasing number of Australian journalists have nothing to do with social media. I’m one of them. It has no value, and I learn nothing beyond how depressing are the usually ill spelt and vapid opinions of the kind of people you would never speak to in real life.

The problem for journalists is that until now it has been hard to avoid the poison. Some TV programs like Q+A actually solicit opinions through social media. Newspapers have encouraged the same as if it is some indication of readership.

The comments displayed at the bottom of the Q+A screen are often annoyingly banal and asinine. And because they are heavily filtered, they only demonstrate the opinions of the fiercely politically correct. Which isn’t as bad as hate but isn’t very helpful in a mature discussion.

Meanwhile, while I avoid the swamp, I am happy that the Mercury will print fully identified letters to the editor slagging off at their columnists.

“If you prick me, do I not bleed?”

Staff at the ABC’s Ultimo studios walk out in protest over Stan Grant’s departure. Picture: Twitter.

Well not much anymore. Over the years I’ve developed the hide of a rhino. But a well-written letter of reasoned criticism might give me reason to revise an opinion.

After all this is only an opinion column and opinions can change.

Protected on air from the worst, Stan must have privately waded so much deeper into the swamp to find the vindictive cruelty that drove him into (hopefully temporary) exile.

Q+A is at its best when questions are fielded from the audience. I don’t need to agree with people’s opinions. As a television journo I like to get a good argument going. Vigorous debate is both entertaining and the stuff of democracy. Just spare me the anonymous abusive dickheads who have nothing to contribute. Before social media those were bog dwellers whose hateful voices were never heard.

I remember a time when all the Australian media companies were making their reporters get on social media. It seemed like a good idea to boost ratings and circulation, until the journalists ended up having intemperate arguments with what were presumed to be the audience.

The ABC's panel during King Charles III's coronation including co-chair of the Australian Republic Movement Craig Foster, Liberal MP Julian Lesser, presenters Jeremy Fernandez and Julia Baird and Q+A host Stan Grant on May 6, 2023. Picture: ABC

Then it got worse at the ABC with on-air talent, in their own time, slagging off at members of the government.

There have been posts from ABC stars on social media which have caused reputational damage to the taxpayer-funded organisation.

You might remember Laura Tingle referring to the “ideological bastardry” of the Morrison government. You could well agree with that comment but if Laura, a very good political journalist, isn’t brave enough to say it on air, she should never have said it in the swamp.

We are now fortunately getting to the stage where media proprietors are having second thoughts, as lawmakers consider whether the publishers and the carriage services of online abuse should be legally responsible for the slander and libel they spread.

These are huge multinational corporations with much more dedication to profit than they have to freedom of speech.

It is time they can be sued for publishing slander and libel in the same way that this newspaper might be prosecuted if I overstepped the boundaries of fair comment and criticism. Ahem.

The social media giants have good lawyers and deep pockets. But there is no point pursuing the little people, the idiot authors of the hate post, because in most cases they couldn’t pay the fines.

It’s time to go after Mr Big.

Stan’s criticism of the English monarchy, made on the ABC’s over-the-top celebration of the coronation was certainly discordant. I was amazed how, apart from Stan, most of the other ABC commentators fawned over the arcane affair.

But then the month of May is a lovely time to be in London at taxpayers’ expense.

I once worked there. I know that the ABC is usually a leftist/progressive agency and that they are solidly pro the Voice and strongly republican.

Yet, bizarrely they collectively bowed and scraped to a remote and discredited English institution, which admittedly has much to do with our past (good and bad) but nothing to do with our future.

Stan’s crime was, bravely, to draw attention to that.

Good on him for raining on the ABC’s obsequious parade.

May he return soon. And stay off social media.

Charles Wooley is a Tasmanian-based journalist.