Commentary On The Article 'Hottest 100' By Celeste Liddle

1097 Words5 Pages

In the wake of the fervent discourse around the role of the change of date for the ‘Hottest 100’, Celeste Liddle, a noted activist and freelance writer published an article “It shouldn’t have taken a survey to move the Hottest 100 from Invasion Day” in The Guardian (28/11/2017). In this opinion piece Liddle argues that the radio station Triple J should have taken a unilateral stand in regards to shifting its “Hottest 100” from Australia Day and believes believes Australians should feel ‘guilty’ for celebrating this occasion and to support awareness of Invasion Day for the Aboriginals. In similarity Nayuka Gorrie, a Yorta Yorta Freelance writer, opinion piece for The Guardian, “Triple M’s plan to run ‘Ozzest 100’ is an embarrassing plea for …show more content…

Liddle expresses that the need to hold a survey itself displays the radio station’s lack of support for the Aboriginal community and informs the audience that “60% of the people who responded to the Triple J survey supported a change of date for the countdown”, suggesting “… as far as younger generations are concerned society is becoming more aware”, however juxtaposes this with Triple J’s inadequacy and disappointment at the fact that “there’s still a way to go before the message permeates its ranks”. The audience is able to view the prevalent support throughout Australia as a nation with Liddle’s use of statistical information, regarding the change of date and how this smaller issue supports the move of changing the date of Australia Day as a whole. Likewise, Liddle positions the individual who linger around the issue and remain unaware and unsupportive, as the minority as “now being majority support for a date change”. This furthermore conveys criticism of Triple J, “who do not mention that the major reason 26 January has become contentious is due to what the date means to Indigenous groups”, however in order to escape adopting a supportive stance, provide an excuse of “new programming”. The author continues to expose Triple J’s motives to the readers who have been misinformed and displaying their lack of acknowledgement as to what this day means to the Aboriginals, insinuating that fact that it was purely implemented as a commercial change. This complete deconstruction as to way the decision came about, discredits and spoils the image of Triple J in the thoughts of the

Open Document