I let my subscription lapse and haven't been keeping up with him lately. They seemed to be moving in different directions for a while – I wonder what the final straw was.
Edit: This was it:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/ ... ult-ntwnfb
He's not fundamentally wrong – one of the big problems with assessing apparent statistical increases in crimes like sexual assault is indeed that the definition has expanded, and any journalist who doesn't acknowledge that in discussion (instead merely taking for granted that we're in the midst of a sexual assault epidemic) is failing in their basic duties. The problem here of course is that Rundle's comment is being interpreted as implying that groping
shouldn't be considered sexual assault – and, whether or not that's what he meant, unfortunately having some form in this area in terms of how he's written on these subjects probably doesn't help his cause.
Anyhow, as much as the editors at
Crikey won't miss the headaches he gave them, they're also ensuring that they'll now be in charge of a much more boring and less insightful publication. Hopefully Rundle lands somewhere that more fully appreciates his iconoclastic approach.
On a broader note: this might be a somewhat old-fashioned view, but isn't it possible to publish a columnist who holds some opinions you don't approve of? As an editor, you get final say in what gets published, and if you want to set up certain no-go zones ahead of time and the columnist is willing to agree to that, then what's the problem? Publication doesn't equate endorsement of every single thing a person believes; it's merely signalling that you think they have something interesting to say on a given subject – as, indeed, most people do. Unfortunately, it seems like a judgement of personal virtue has once again triumphed over a commitment to exploring ideas.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange