Over the past couple of weeks the subject of morals has risen on more than one occasion. It was a hot topic in relation to the Matthew Johns NRL ‘scandal’ and has now been bought up again with recent discussion in the media on gay marriage.
Time and time again we heard that what Matthew Johns did was ‘morally wrong’ and no crime was committed. I personally agree that group sex and other bits and pieces of the scandal yes were morally wrong, but they are my morals.
In a way a person’s morals are just like their opinion, well actually they are their opinion. Morals are not a legal thing that we must abide by in the eyes of the law, they are different from person to person and as a persons opinion will differ so will their morals.
So on the ever debated gay marriage subject it is no different here. Someone may believe, based on their morals, that being gay is wrong. Some will believe in freedom of choice, based on their morals. I personally believe in freedom and choice and if someone is gay then so be it. I’m in a heterosexual relationship. It is no different, and that’s my opinion/choice.
So once again for all those people who are way up there on their high horse, maybe take a minute to take a step back. How would you feel if someone imposed their moral thinking/opinions on your life and how you live it. I guarantee you wouldn’t enjoy it at all. I’m not for one minute saying that we should all have the same morals/opinions, my what a boring world that would be, but a little bit of respect and a little of let’s agree to disagree would certainly go a long way.
It’s about time marriage was available to everybody. It should be an act to show 2 people’s love for each other whoever those 2 people happen to be.
As I was writing this piece I came across a story on morals in the media. While I don’t want to keep going back to the NRL story it’s envitably going to hang around for a while so here’s the story. Do you agree? Should the ‘media’ be allowed to push what they perceive to be the ‘morals’ of everyone or should it be left entirely up to the viewer?
Footy scandal throws spotlight on media
May 18, 2009
There are some important questions that need to be asked of Four Corners, not least its moralising, writes Michael Idato.
A week in television is a long time. Last week, however, felt like a year. The upshot of Four Corners’ excoriation of the NRL and Channel Nine’s decision to stand down Matthew Johns, the high-profile former footballer and Footy Show presenter at the centre of the resulting media storm, is that one of Australia’s oldest sporting codes faces some serious questions about its culture and future.
At the same time it might be prudent to turn the spotlight on television journalism, which played a huge part in the story as it unfolded. Sarah Ferguson’s report on Four Corners was a scathing indictment on the NRL’s treatment of women the “sledgehammer” the game needed, according to a deeply emotional Phil Gould, speaking on The Footy Show four days later.
But there are some important questions that need to be asked of Four Corners: why its focus on Johns, who is, by most accounts, the least worst of the league’s misbehavers; why no mention of Greg Bird or the accusations of sexual assault made against players from the Wests Tigers or the Brisbane Broncos; and why such a superficial examination of the culture of women who vigorously pursue footballers?
Even more curiously, why did Ferguson include moral editorialising in the Four Corners story by referring to group sex, an admittedly unconventional practice, as “depraved”? Such judgements should be left to the viewer; they are not the privilege of objective journalism.
It was commercial television that delivered the trump card the compelling interview with an obviously shell-shocked Matthew and Trish Johns on Nine’s A Current Affair. His interrogator, ACA host Tracy Grimshaw, was eloquent and brutally direct, confirming her place among television’s finest journalists and delivering, even if unintentionally, a reminder to the commercial television world that serious journalism has a place in the 6.30pm weekday timeslot.
If the debate about sporting culture is to be of any use, the coming weeks and months will need a great deal of honest and frank self-examination. If the media is to survive as a useful and necessary platform for public debate, it needs to assess the part it plays in such stories with equal scrutiny.