What our readers are saying about New Matilda

Last week’s editorial talked about New Matilda’s approaching first birthday and what we have achieved so far.

‘NM does give voice to new voices, and I would like to thank NM for doing so. As the OP-ed pages of the dailies are increasingly filled with big-name imports, it’s good to know there is a place to read local commentary that speaks to our own situation. Keep at it.’ (Michael)

‘Congratulations John and the NM team … I think the intelligent comments and virtual lack of extended tit-for-tat exchanges adds greatly to considered reflection on the issues being addressed. I, for one, feel much better informed as a result of my subscription.’ (Terry)

‘I believe the professional directions NM has taken have been important and encouraging. To achieve 3000 online subscribers in one Australian year is amazing …’ (Barry)

‘Congratulations to all at NM We need an independent voice such as NM Please keep up the good work. (Jj)

Trevor asked:’ if a substantial benefactor turned up, and offered to underwrite NM to the standard you want to achieve, how would that be disclosed.’

John Menadue replied:
‘If a ‘substantial benefactor’ turned up, we would certainly disclose it to all of our subscribers. It would also be included in our annual report. In further explanation, no shareholder can vote more than one share, and all share transfers have to be approved by the board. This is designed to prevent aggregation.’

Andrew’s West article on the cult of self-esteem:

‘Oh, how one might long for those happy days of yore when we were thick as mince, illiterate and knew when, how and to whom to bow in the presence of our betters.’ (Douglas)

‘Yes, let’s put a cap on aspirations, otherwise there will be no one to take out the potty after our night time shit in the executive lounge. Who will mend our socks and clean our homes.’ (Michael)

‘Andrew, you seem to have either forgotten or never known the most important lesson of all – if a thing is worth doing, it’s worth doing badly. If you want to be a crooner, be a crooner, but be a crooner for your own satisfaction.’ (Andrew K)

‘If no human being had ever thought to go beyond their limits we would still be a nomadic hunter/gatherer society.’ (Terry)

‘Wasn’t it Nelson Mandela who said something about how people hold themselves back because they feel they haven’t the right to shine, to show others up, whereas his point of view was what right do you have not to shine?’ (Jane)

‘Indulgence is bad, but encouraging self-esteem with a sense of responsibility and reality testing… what’s wrong with that? A lot of kids who don’t have the cultural capital of a middle-class family do need extra dollops of encouragement.’ (Liz)

Jocelyn Scutt’s article on shooting to kill:

‘Refuse to kill. Have no part in killing. Either enemy or criminal or aged or disabled or the unborn. Everything depends on this. Daniel Berrigan.’ (Graham)

‘Same old stuff – so if we, the intelligent, caring people of the world – make the choice never to kill (or more likely, never to condone someone doing it for us no matter what the threat might be) all the nasty people in the world will go away and let us live our lives in peace and harmony. Give me a break.’ (William)

‘Intelligent, caring people expect our elected Governments to adopt policies at home and abroad that don’t breed retaliatory terrorism instead of descending to the Law of the Jungle.’ (Brian)

‘Oh! I hear you say, Australia is a mature democracy, that sort of thing could not happen here. The anti terrorist legislation in Uganda is very similar to the legislation passed by the Australian parliament.’ (Willy)

‘Has New Matilda got no “bias” quotient or credibility on balance? The website is predicated on “thinking” and “unearthing the whole story”.
Why aren’t there any articles in this vain from different view points other than the ultra-“l”iberal one or premised upon existing prejudices picked up from Orwell.’ (Corin)

‘If the press are not asking why Jean de Menezes (suspected of carrying a bomb) was allowed to walk down the street from his flat, wait for and then board a bus without being checked by the police then there is something seriously wrong with the system.’ (John)

In Eva Cox’s policy piece she poses questions about the limits of state intervention:

‘ research from overseas demonstrates that trust is not an easy concept and needs careful definition. Trust is affected by the context in which we define it so that specific trust is higher than general trust; for example, we are more inclined to trust ‘our GP’ then to trust a centralised health service. We are more inclined to trust our local member than ‘politicians’ generally.’ (John C)

‘There are many who believe that step one in a radical reform of this nature would be to replace as many taxes as possible with the opportunity of persons and firms to save instead being taxed.’ (John G)

‘Howard as the “biggest taxer of all time” is worth some discussion in these columns and whether Australia should have more state or less state.’ (Corin)

‘The increasing power accruing to the federal government through their growing tax take (which was supposed to decrease with the imposition of the GST) and the way in which is being used to micro-manage state affairs is a worrying trend and worthy of addition to the debate that Eva Cox is wisely urging us to have.’ (Anna)

Human Rights Act

There’s an interesting discussion on the pros and cons of having human rights legislation in the policy section.

Launched in 2004, New Matilda is one of Australia's oldest online independent publications. It's focus is on investigative journalism and analysis, with occasional smart arsery thrown in for reasons of sanity. New Matilda is owned and edited by Walkley Award and Human Rights Award winning journalist Chris Graham.