… and there you’ve hit the nail on the head … if some unscrupulous person had not published her name we would find out on Tuesday what she had received and why … all the rest is speculation and personal opinion … that’s why journalism is in such a bad way at the moment because the people who call themselves journalists don’t think … they’re just after the next clickbait headline to put their selfish byline on …
But it’s been established the journalist received the information by other means. Not by an embargoed release.
I don’t really get too involved in the Australian day honours anyway. But if she has received the award for her contributions to tennis I am unsure why she would receive it for her work as a pastor. The only real contributions she has made is for the hate she has contributed to the LGBT+ community. In 2013 she penned a letter expression her discomfort of the birth of a child in a same sex marriage. Saying it was sad they would never receive a father. Then in 2017 saying she would boycott flights with Qantas as they supported marriage equality.
So giving an award for being a pastor when she shows such hate to me doesn’t show Australian values.
The information was widely known. There was chatter going around about someone who would raise eyebrows being on the list. It isn’t an absolute embargo by any means. Lots of people associated with the winners know well in advance. So it wouldn’t be hard for the information to leak.
Not detracting from the awards, but getting someone on the honours list is a bit like writing your employment CV - except that usually a group of friends, colleagues or family do the work and submit a hopefully glowing list of your achievements and offer themselves as references or referees in support.
For every person who gets an award you could usually find many people with similar achievements who don’t. It’s just that no one has gone to the trouble of doing all the work and nominating them. The selection committee doesn’t actively seek out people to award.
Would be interesting to know who nominated Margaret Court this time as she has already been made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) in 2007
for service to tennis as a player, as a mentor to junior female elite competitors and through professional development programs; and to the communities of Australia and Sri Lanka as the initiator of a range of pastoral care, social support and emergency accommodation projects.
Check out last year’s list of media personal who received awards.
I should clarify - it isn’t like a typical media embargo as all the people involved in nominating the winners and the winners themselves know. So lots of people outside the media have information on the winners.
er actually yes they are … irrespective of where it’s sourced, if the media organisation has received information under embargo they are obliged to maintain that embargo … all that’s going to happen as a result of this is that the panel will no longer send out the information in advance to any media organisiation that has shown disregard for the agreement …
… true to a point … but those people only know about themselves or the person they have nominated so you would have to be suggesting that the “leak” came from Court herself (or one of the people who nominated her) … unlikely I would have thought …
Embargos are not legal documents, Justin had every right to break it, seeing as it wasn’t even given to him by the organisation, he got it from a source.
It’s in the public interest that a bigoted personality, best known for her anti-gay views is being given an award, based only on culture wars, not because of her tennis achievements as she’s already been awarded for those, it’s not like she’s won any other titles recently.
It also gives other recipients of awards some clean air so have their honours recognised and celebrated on the day without the focus on Court’s questionable upgrade to an AC.
Agreed. To the best of my knowledge, the embargo hasn’t been broken for any recipients expected to receive their honours (or at least media coverage) on January 26 other than Margaret Court.
Either way…
*There were people far more worthy of recognition in the Australia Day honours last year than the highly divisive Bettina Arndt.
*There will be people far more worthy of recognition in the Australia Day honours this year than the highly divisive Margaret Court.
*There’ll probably be people far more worthy of recognition in the Australia Day honours next year than another questionable, highly divisive choice.
They are released early to allow media to prepare coverage and the like. But the fact is, way more people know about the contents during the internet age than would have in previous eras.
I didn’t realise that the bar for a public interest test was so low that a thought the discourse post the 26th being “pointless and tedious” clears it.
That’s not to suggest that it shouldn’t get coverage - this will be the third honour to be awarded to Court (one under the imperial system) the last two basically “levelling up” to a higher honour, for what? Her sports performances were decades ago and her divisive beliefs certainly don’t deserve coverage let alone honouring
There are issues with how we issue honours - especially those at the higher end of the scale and it doesn’t help that in the recent past they’ve been awarded a lot more to forward some political motive or agenda