Would a boycott put an end to racist programming?

Yesterday, lawyer and activist Maker Mayek responded to Sunday Night‘s widely criticised “African gangs” coverage, and Crikey readers were quick to offer next steps. Is a Channel 7 boycott the answer? Elsewhere, no one was surprised to see Boris Johnson slink away from Brexit. Was that his plan from the start?

On Channel 7’s “African gangs” narrative

Marcus Hicks writes: In every decade, the racist media has sought to drum up fear of the “ethnic gang de jour”. In the ’60s and ’70s it was Greeks and Italians. In the ’80s and ’90s it was Asians. In the ’00s and ’10s it’s Muslims and Africans. Of course each such beat-up was based on zero facts, massive misrepresentation, massive hysteria and blatant racism.

Meanwhile, we have senior members of the Liberal Party consorting with people that have links to organised crime. Oh, and how can we forget the acts of violence against women and children, recently, that have been committed by Caucasians.

Penny writes: Channel 7 is a disgrace. They have no respect for the truth and sensationalise all the time, for ratings. They just don’t seem to care what damage they do. I don’t watch Channel 7 but will be asking anyone I know who does to consider changing channels, and boycotting. The advertisers will only be there when the viewers are, so a boycott has power.

Irfan Yusuf writes: You’re angry and you have every right to be. I think the time has come to boycott those companies that choose to advertise with racist media outlets. Find out who advertised during that show and spread the word that these businesses are now subject to a boycott. These people have no sense of morality. They imagine themselves to be above the law. But they do understand their hip pocket.

On Boris’ Brexit mess

Nudiefish writes: The thing is, any idiot could have predicted (and mostly did) that Brexit would be a dead cat from the very first moment it was suggested. That the UK could ignore the flipping obvious and take it to a vote was the shock — and every day since has been a genuine popcorn series.

This thing will end badly, and will the Brexiters accept responsibility for having polled the entire edifice upon the country’s head? Unlikely.

Ian G writes: These people (Davis and Johnson etc) are only spoilers. Resigning now means they can snipe and spoil from outside cabinet. When the wildly exaggerated benefits they promoted to win the Brexit vote do not materialise (because they were never going to) they will simply now claim it was not their fault.

Klewso writes: I still wonder if Johnson didn’t come out in support of Brexit thinking it would fail at the ballot, but enhancing his image as some sort of “loveable, affable, harmless, bumbling dreamer” — outside establishment politics.

And finally: a comment on a comment

David Leyonhjelm writes: Crikey published a letter to the editor (Dog’s Breakfast,  July 10) where the correspondent doesn’t see any interest from me in libertarian issues like the criminalisation of drug-taking or government spying on our internet chat. Yet I am the only politician in the country who has prepared and introduced legislation to legalise cannabis.

I also opposed the government’s data retention laws and moved amendments to limit their impact, including by better protecting the data of journalists, limiting the agencies that can get access to data, limiting the period of time that data is retained, and imposing a sunset clause. These efforts against the war on drugs and the encroaching police state reflect long-standing policies of the Liberal Democrats. It seems some people just want to hate and won’t let the facts get in the way.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.