I think it’s a pity if the discussion gets personalized around Luke or anyone else. Luke seems to prefer the idea of a ‘janitorial’ role anyway, with the idea of ‘moderator’ removed from the job description, and that is fine. But it would still leave questions about what good ‘moderation’ looks like unanswered.

Assume that the current moderators are ‘janitors’ (and I don’t know if that is a good idea or not, but let’s say it is).

We can then still ask, ‘What is a good moderator?’

What does being a janitor have to do with being a moderator?

In my mind a football analogy is more helpful:

You can’t be both the referee and a player. You end up confusing the roles and have other players accusing you of being biased/unfair in your decisions.

i think that’s what happened in a number of recent cases.

So should SA journalists, moderators or janitors be allowed journalistic independence as they are in secular organisations or not?

hmmm journalistic independence… like all those exposes I’ve read in New Ltd publications about Rupert Murdoch…

I’m not aware of any (commercial) secular media organisation that allows employees free-for-all criticism of the organisation that employs them.

The ABC is a little different - as it has a very strict charter that governs the way it operates.

Jeremy Halcrow - 27 May 2008 11:17 PM

What does being a janitor have to do with being a moderator?

Well, sure, that’s my question!

I was just observing that Luke was suggesting that his role was more that of a janitor than a moderator, especially when he said:

Being a moderator is more of a janitorial role than anything - you tidy up here and there, and beyond that it is peoples behavior - not their views - that may be of concern.

And that is fine. It just means that we need to come back to this question of what good moderation actually looks like. I don’t mind if Luke is left out of that question entirely, especially if he finds the discussion personally upsetting.

One of the things that I would hope is that good moderation would include not just vaguely assenting to the diocesan mission, but being enthusiastic about it.

I mean, if people then want to come on and argue that the whole idea of a diocesan mission is bogus and a waste of space, well that is fine too. I just would expect that the person arguing that line would not themselves be a forum moderator.

The exposes merely illustrate the importance of the ethical issue in that people do not accept a lack of independence as a good ethical starting poing, they write an expose when that independence is compromised.  SOme members of this forum seem to want to write an expose, or is it more like a witchhunt when somebody expresses journalistic freedom.

Anyhoo Jeremy, you didn’t answer the question, should SA journalists, moderators or janitors be allowed journalistic independence as they are in secular organisations or not?

1. My point is that ‘total’ journalistic independence is an ideal that does not exist anywhere in reality.

2. I would assume Melinda that you would expect journalists working for the Anglican Church to operate under some sort of guidelines… if they started proslytising for Calathumpianism there might be a problem?

3. Assuming that you agree with me at point 2, what would you think should be appropriate guidelines?

I would expect that SA journos are active and communicant members of an Anglican Church.

Gordo said:

I mean, if people then want to come on and argue that the whole idea of a diocesan mission is bogus and a waste of space, well that is fine too. I just would expect that the person arguing that line would not themselves be a forum moderator.

Yes exactly. I think we are 100% in agreement.

mean, if people then want to come on and argue that the whole idea of a diocesan mission is bogus and a waste of space, well that is fine too. I just would expect that the person arguing that line would not themselves be a forum moderator

Gordon if we had a new Abp in 5 years who declared that his mission was to have 20% of Sydney worshipping in prayer book services (including RC ones) by 2015 what would you do?

With your moderator status?
With your contribuor satus to the various Anglican publications that you write for?
Your ordained miinster status?

I would expect that SA journos are active and communicant members of an Anglican Church.

On the one hand that is too restrictive and the other too vague to be at all helpful in the real world.

1. We have employees who do not currently attend Anglican churches (though they did previously)

2. Surely you would agree Melinda, that if said communicant Anglican employees of Sc began espousing ‘Spongism’ contradicting the resolutions of their funding body (Synod) that their financial lifeline is going to be cut off quick smart.

Could I ask what “diocesan mission” means, please?

Melinda.