When I search his name in my search bar at the side of the blog, I see that I have been complaining about the waffle of Stan Grant for many, many years.
His parting shot on Q&A is a spectacular example of his pompously earnest word salad style - and now he adds apparent indigenous spirituality that is as obscure in meaning and consequence as is about half of all commentary he makes.
No doubt he does get purely racist rubbish thrown at him continually on media and social media.
But I still think his style is grating in a way that has nothing to do with his skin colour.
I'm also against Q&A as a format, as many people I follow on Twitter are. I haven't watched more than short bits of it for quite a few years.
3 comments:
He is a lot better than he used to be . I just see him far too often.
i am like that with Karvelas as well.
I almost only watch Q & A if there are no pollies or if a few of the people are interesting so i can FF when they are not talking.
So I guess i am agreeing with you
"I just see him far too often."
Yes: I agree. He's been turning up everywhere the last few years.
As I said in a post some time ago, I find him tedious in a "later Paul Kelly opines on Australian politics" kind of way; but he really is worse, the way he brings himself and his family into all indigenous discussions, a lot.
I think he might be gunning for a position on the Voice. I don't find him grating because I don't listen to him. I stopped watching Q&A a long time ago. He's become more strident about indigenous issues. I guess that is because he spent decades as a ty0ical aspirational white man making a mootza overseas and now needs to retore deep spiritual connection to country.
I'm fed up with the hypocrisy of so many activists. Those are the last people capable of preserving indigenous culture. They live like us, they talk like us, it's almost as if being like us has a lot going for it.
Post a Comment