SBS news reporter gets the boot for tweeting inappropriate tweets about Anzac Day - Polidicks

[IMG]http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/1/m/t/d/b/h/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.1mtbx8.png/1430039734251.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]SBS presenter Scott McIntyre has been sacked from the broadcaster after posting a series of comments about Anzac Day on Twitter that were described as "inappropriate and disrespectful". McIntyre, a soccer reporter and presenter, referred to some Australians marking Anzac Day as "poorly-read, largely white, nationalist drinkers and gamblers" on his officially verified Twitter account on Saturday night. "Remembering the summary execution, widespread rape and theft committed by these 'brave' Anzacs in Egypt, Palestine and Japan," he wrote to his 30,000 followers. "Not forgetting that the largest single-day terrorist attacks in history were committed by this nation & their allies in Hiroshima & Nagasaki." Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull took the unusual step of criticising the presenter on Twitter. "Difficult to think of more offensive or inappropriate comments," Mr Turnbull tweeted. "Despicable remarks which deserve to be condemned." But some commentators defended McIntyre's right to free speech. Ten News' Hugh Riminton tweeted that the presenter's comments were "untimely, immature and in one case offensively wrong. But lest we forget, Our Diggers also died for free speech." Riminton is on the board of charity organisation Soldier On Australia, which supports Australian servicemen and women who have been physically and psychologically wounded in conflicts. In a statement on Sunday, SBS managing director Michael Ebeid and director of sport Ken Shipp said the "inappropriate and disrespectful" comments had caused Mr McIntyre's "on-air position at SBS to become untenable". "Mr McIntyre's actions have breached the SBS Code of Conduct and social media policy and as a result, SBS has taken decisive action to terminate Mr McIntyre's position at SBS, with immediate effect," the statement said.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Remembering the summary execution, widespread rape and theft committed by these ‘brave’ Anzacs in Egypt, Palestine and Japan.— Scott McIntyre (@mcintinhos) April 25, 2015 Wonder if the poorly-read, largely white, nationalist drinkers and gamblers pause today to consider the horror that all mankind suffered. — Scott McIntyre (@mcintinhos) April 25, 2015 The cultification of an imperialist invasion of a foreign nation that Australia had no quarrel with is against all ideals of modern society. — Scott McIntyre (@mcintinhos) April 25, 2015 Not forgetting that the largest single-day terrorist attacks in history were committed by this nation & their allies in Hiroshima & Nagasaki — Scott McIntyre (@mcintinhos) April 25, 2015 Difficult to think of more offensive or inappropriate comments than those by @mcintinhos. Despicable remarks which deserve to be condemned. — Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) April 25, 2015 Here’s my statement regarding unfortunate comments made by Scott McIntyre last night [url]http://t.co/QuqAb83daJ[/url] — Michael Ebeid (@michaelebeid) April 26, 2015 #ScottMcIntyre's tweets were untimely, immature and in one case offensively wrong. But lest we forget, Our Diggers also died for free speech — Hugh Riminton (@hughriminton) April 26, 2015[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.smh.com.au/national/sbs-presenter-scott-mcintyre-sacked-over-inappropriate-anzac-day-tweets-20150426-1mtbx8.html[/url] [editline]26th April 2015[/editline] Clarification: he isn't a news reporter, just a presenter

I adore that the last stop on his train of thought was "Well, Hiroshima I guess"

[QUOTE]The cultification of an imperialist invasion of a foreign nation that Australia had no quarrel with is against all ideals of modern society.[/QUOTE] What is he even talking about here? Japan tossed around the ball with ideas to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II"]invade Australia[/URL], and they [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Australia,_1942%E2%80%9343"]performed at least 97 air raids[/URL] on mainland Australia.

A miss-informed idiot spouting vitriol, and got exactly what he deserved.

what a fucking idiot ANZAC day is one of the most important days of the year for Australians and New Zealanders and he shat all over it

[QUOTE=Riller;47603164]What is he even talking about here? Japan tossed around the ball with ideas to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II"]invade Australia[/URL], and they [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Australia,_1942%E2%80%9343"]performed at least 97 air raids[/URL] on mainland Australia.[/QUOTE] Um I'm pretty sure in that tweet he was talking about the Ottoman Empire. You know, where the battle of Gallipoli happened which Anzac Day is commemorated for. As much as his comments are untimely and inappropriate, he isn't wrong. We were never under any threat from the Ottoman Empire, and WW1 in general was pretty much a pointless war (unlike say, WW2). But I think that's why we commemorate Anzac Day. We recognise the people who gave their lives even if they did so in a pointless conflict. It's about those people.

I'm not too flash hot about some of the ways people celebrate ANZAC day myself, but this is the worst way to go about expressing that. What on earth was he thinking?

Not surprised he works for SBS of all places.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47603314]Um I'm pretty sure in that tweet he was talking about the Ottoman Empire. You know, where the battle of Gallipoli happened which Anzac Day is commemorated for.[/QUOTE] Ah, I didn't know, I took the references to WWII he dropped as base for my assumption.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;47603304]How do you even mix up Anzacs with events from WW2?[/QUOTE] Mmm, and for that matter how do you blame Austrailia for the atomic bombings? I'm thinking pretty hard and I'm not coming up with any Aussie involvement in those two raids. Maybe one of the men on the crews of Enola Gay or Bock's Car were Aussie or New Zealander? It certainly wasn't planned or ordered by Austrailia, the aircraft wasn't built there, the bomb wasn't researched there...how the hell does he think the ANZACs had a significant hand in it?

Australian Uranium from Radium Hill in SA was used to make them. There were no Aussie or Kiwi crewmembers however.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47603314] As much as his comments are untimely and inappropriate, he isn't wrong. We were never under any threat from the Ottoman Empire, and WW1 in general was pretty much a pointless war (unlike say, WW2). But I think that's why we commemorate Anzac Day. We recognise the people who gave their lives even if they did so in a pointless conflict. It's about those people.[/QUOTE] I'll counter this idea: WWI was not pointless. There was a study that looked at how Australian Children were taught about the war, starting with about 1920. The narrative at first was that it was necessary, and that everyone who perished did so doing their bit and for a good cause. It wasn't until the late 1930s, into the 1950s when that narrative started to change to one where they had fought in a pointless war. While yes, to someone 100 years removed from the war - and with an even larger conflict in between, I can understand why such a narrative would now exist. But the soldiers that fought the war? To them, it was a necessary war. Same deal with the Politicians. Personally, I feel sorta halfway about it; that it was both necessary and unnecessary Also about the Ottomans: While Australia was under no direct threat from the Ottomans, the Ottomans were supplying Germany with critical supplies. Had the Gallipoli Invasion succeeded, the plan would have been to attack Austria-Hungry and Germany from their new position. As well, taking the Ottoman forces out would have allowed Russia to fully concentrate its offensives against Austria-Hungry and Germany, instead of also fighting the Ottomans on an extremely large front.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;47603304]How do you even mix up Anzacs with events from WW2?[/QUOTE] Because ANZAC was a term used both in WWI, WWII, Vietnam and East Timor.

[QUOTE=Riller;47603808]Because ANZAC was a term used both in WWI, WWII, Vietnam and East Timor.[/QUOTE] Which in turn is because it's a general term: Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.

He isn't wrong to a degree, but it's pretty much social suicide to say the shit he said. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surafend_affair[/url]

[QUOTE=kobalt;47608104]He isn't wrong to a degree, but it's pretty much social suicide to say the shit he said. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surafend_affair[/url][/QUOTE] Regardless of if it's true, it's not the time. It's a day of remembrance, not a day of condemnation.

he definitely shows a lack of understanding the political climate of the time and just how important defense treaties were and, in many ways, still are.

[QUOTE=bdd458;47603751]I'll counter this idea: WWI was not pointless. There was a study that looked at how Australian Children were taught about the war, starting with about 1920. The narrative at first was that it was necessary, and that everyone who perished did so doing their bit and for a good cause. It wasn't until the late 1930s, into the 1950s when that narrative started to change to one where they had fought in a pointless war. While yes, to someone 100 years removed from the war - and with an even larger conflict in between, I can understand why such a narrative would now exist. But the soldiers that fought the war? To them, it was a necessary war. Same deal with the Politicians. Personally, I feel sorta halfway about it; that it was both necessary and unnecessary Also about the Ottomans: While Australia was under no direct threat from the Ottomans, the Ottomans were supplying Germany with critical supplies. Had the Gallipoli Invasion succeeded, the plan would have been to attack Austria-Hungry and Germany from their new position. As well, taking the Ottoman forces out would have allowed Russia to fully concentrate its offensives against Austria-Hungry and Germany, instead of also fighting the Ottomans on an extremely large front.[/QUOTE] WWI was a harsh necessity that was bound to happen. Secret alliances, not to mention the prevailing theory that trenchs > everything else, needed to be proven to be a bad idea. It's why basically everyone stopped making those all-binding secret alliances, and why all militaries revised their tactics universally to remove that awful attrition-based warfare from the battlefield. Given the global situation, the one true purpose that WWI had was to show nations how retarded some of the "great" ideas they came up with truly were.

Ugh. This whole business is appalling. Yeah he was quite insensitive and aggressive about it but ANZAC day is already used by A LOT of Australians to do far more inappropriate things than these tweets. Social media was full of "go back to your country" ANZAC day tweets from Australians. It's a foundation now for over zealous patriotism. The kind of stuff that makes "bad guys" go from citizens of their country to picking up arms and shooting whoever they're told to. Most Australians don't even know half of the minorities we have, for 100 years, failed to remember on ANZAC day. The battles that are hardly discussed that more arguably led to the freedoms we have today. Meanwhile someone accurately, if offensively, points out the hypocrisy of it all and we get exactly the vitriol in response that indicates there is a problem. Don't believe me? Someone thought #freshinourmemories was a good idea. In fact, lots of someones. That didn't just happen overnight. That kind of thing has to be built over years and years. ANZAC day is about ego stroking now and that fun patriotic chill down your spine. There is little actual reflection of the damage of war and there is no reflection that the day instills any kind of real change in society. There is still overwhelmingly underwhelming support for veterans and those affected by war, we still forget to examine and address the nations overseas that our peacekeeping forces have and still could be helping but we aren't because we keep cutting the foreign aid budget. So sure, fire the guy for being innappropriate. But his few tweets aren't ruining ANZAC day. We already did that.

[QUOTE=ossumsauce;47608553]WWI was a harsh necessity that was bound to happen. Secret alliances, not to mention the prevailing theory that trenchs > everything else, needed to be proven to be a bad idea.[/QUOTE] No one thought trenches were the way to go when WWI started. It was a technological gap in defensive and offensive weapons that proved trenches to be a necessity. Everybody had the technology to defend a position: Effective machine guns, barbed wire, heavy artillery. Nobody had anything of offensive use that could match that, and as such, they were all forced to just dig in and defend across from each other. At the start of the war, everyone was certain that the advances in technology would have allowed for a mobile war of maneuvers and the first couple months were just this, but it turned out that defenders just always won due to arty and volume of fire.

[QUOTE=download;47603572]Australian Uranium from Radium Hill in SA was used to make them. There were no Aussie or Kiwi crewmembers however.[/QUOTE] I was interested so went to read up on it, but I couldn't find any information to confirm this.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47603314]Um I'm pretty sure in that tweet he was talking about the Ottoman Empire. You know, where the battle of Gallipoli happened which Anzac Day is commemorated for. As much as his comments are untimely and inappropriate, he isn't wrong. [b]We were never under any threat from the Ottoman Empire,[/b] and WW1 in general was pretty much a pointless war (unlike say, WW2). But I think that's why we commemorate Anzac Day. We recognise the people who gave their lives even if they did so in a pointless conflict. It's about those people.[/QUOTE] That's a ridiculous comment. Britain also wasn't under threat from Germany either. Strategic decisions aren't made in light of how much of a direct threat something is to you. Eliminating the Turks from the war would have been a massive victory. It would have freed up millions of Russians to fight the Germans and Austrians in the east, as well as relieving Greece and the Balkan allies.

[QUOTE=Superwafflez;47608805]I was interested so went to read up on it, but I couldn't find any information to confirm this.[/QUOTE] Apparently it was Mt Painter, not Radium Hill. My mistake. There is also some controversy if the deal actually happened or not. [url]http://www.pirep.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=565&sid=0aa6f3e8e04ade7da1ed0ddbd9a38a20[/url]

[QUOTE=Explosions;47608864]That's a ridiculous comment. Britain also wasn't under threat from Germany either. Strategic decisions aren't made in light of how much of a direct threat something is to you. Eliminating the Turks from the war would have been a massive victory. It would have freed up millions of Russians to fight the Germans and Austrians in the east, as well as relieving Greece and the Balkan allies.[/QUOTE] the point is that the UK was in alliances with other nations like France and Russia and had obligations to assist them. However we, and New Zealand, were on the other side of the world and we only really joined the war effort for 'muh motherland'. Circumstances for the United Kingdom and Australia+New Zealand were completely different. Australia could have sat out WW1 and even if the triple alliance had won it wouldn't have made as much of a difference to us compared to European nations.

[url]https://newmatilda.com/2015/04/27/12-times-conservative-commentators-were-more-outrageous-scott-mcintyre-and-kept-their[/url] Very interesting. [editline]27th April 2015[/editline] [url]https://medium.com/@Jenkinel/lest-we-remember-8b6b8c3b47d7[/url] A lot more interesting.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;47609224][url]https://newmatilda.com/2015/04/27/12-times-conservative-commentators-were-more-outrageous-scott-mcintyre-and-kept-their[/url] Very interesting. [/QUOTE] that expert level deflection lmao "b-b-b-but other people said stupid things!!!!!11!!" he wasn't fired for having a controversial opinion, he was fired because he violated his contract and was bringing his employer into disrepute

[QUOTE=stealth_camo;47609592]that expert level deflection lmao "b-b-b-but other people said stupid things!!!!!11!!" he wasn't fired for having a controversial opinion, he was fired because he violated his contract and was bringing his employer into disrepute[/QUOTE] The point of the article is to indicate the hypocrisy of most of the commentators who called for his termination who were not citing broken contract but "disrespect" and "disgusting" behaviour. Despite all also being guilty of the same thing (Bolt, Alan Jones, Tim Wilson etc). Additionally, it remains to be seen as to whether he has actually violated his contract, he's taking legal action. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz. While I am here, another interesting article from a former Australian soldier: [url]https://thenickilic.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/are-we-even-able-to-debate-the-ideas-behind-anzac-day/[/url] [editline]28th April 2015[/editline] Also the breach of his contract was due to the controversial opinion bringing his employer into disrepute. Which again, all of these people they listed had done before (unless they argue that you can't disrepute the people who employ them any further).