Angry lady redux

There's been a small wave of commentary on Catherine Deveny's removal from The Age.

It turns out that the decision to terminate Deveny's column came after The Age had run a top of the webpage story -- effectively publicizing the Logies commentary.  Of course, many readers were incensed and commented in that vein.  This led to what has been characterized as a summary sacking.

On Crikey, Bernard Keane argues that Deveny is just the first media commentator to get caught in a new-age paradox created by twitter.

On Pure Poison, Jeremy Sear recounts the story over The Age's initial coverage of the comments.

A personal defence of Deveny has been made by Ben Pobjie.  It's worth a read.

Daniel Burt wonders what the world is coming to.  At least a couple of his readers have a fair idea.

Sophie Cunningham wonders why Deveny got the sack for making the sort of risible comments one might hear from Andrew Bolt (who remains -- much to many a reasonable person's chagrin -- firmly ensconced at the Herald-Sun).

Amoir raises some interesting points.  If you want a clear explanation of the Andrew Bolt Paradox alluded to above, this is where you'll find it.

Finally, at least so far, Jonathon Green argues that The Age's editor might have overreacted.

A common thread in defence of Deveny is that her Twitter comments are independent from her columns for The Age.  I would tend to disagree, because Twitter has formed an acknowledged part of Deveny's writing process.  This is a new development; while Twitter has certainly been a platform for breaking news, it remains much more than a pad for landing scoops.  People think out loud on Twitter -- in much the same way that people have always thought out loud in public bars, in some cases leading to hotel brawls.  More pertinently, Deveny has been indelibly associated with The Age for some years now.  Yes, The Age was clearly in the wrong to bring attention to Deveny's Logies commentary in the first place; it is yet another example of an editorial decision someone will regret for some time to come (or remember fondly as the stroke that brought Deveny down).  It is a little casuistic to argue that The Age cannot claim some sort of interest in Deveny's Twittering when it is her association with the broadsheet that has given her an authoritative platform in the first place.  No-one would have had the remotest interest in her ramblings otherwise.