After reading your latest News Ltd article "Frightened 13-year-old hunted by a pack of wolves" on the Adam Goodes racial slur matter, and listening to you and your mate, Andrew Bolt, over the airwaves the past few days I'm convinced that you hold the intelligence of your readers in utter contempt.
Do you really believe your 'poor beset battlers vs the big bad adult world' sob story is in any way relevant to the issue at hand? Only a lazy minority who like being spoon-fed their thoughts would find it convincing. This type of issue is not an opportunity to wax lyrical on the socio-economic circumstances of mother and daughter just to garner sympathy votes, it's about racial remarks against minorities, period!
A few points I'd like to raise:
(1) You and Andrew Bolt have persistently taken Adam Goodes' words out of context by only quoting less than half of a full sentence:
"Racism had a face - and it was a 13-year-old girl”.
Those words in isolation make it look as though he's the catalyst of some kind of politically correct victimisation of the girl in question. Now let's read the entire sentence as stated in his press conference:
"... racism has a face last night, and it was a 13 year old girl, but it's not her fault .. she's 13, she's still so innocent .. I don't put any blame on her. Unfortunately it's what she hears and what the environment she's grown up in.."
When read in context it's not quite so media-sexy is it Miranda? In fact during that press conference (watch it unedited) Goodes emphasised time and again his concern for the girl and his hope that the media will show some restraint. Not much chance of that when a big fat juicy news story may help bring in the advertising dollars. And guess who showed the least restraint - the populist channel 7 and yes, you guessed it, News Ltd tabloids, like the one you work for.
(2) You have spent virtually your entire research time interviewing the girl and her family while criticising the AFL, the police, and to a lesser extent, Adam Goodes. Have you spoken to the police or Goodes or the AFL to get their perspectives? Obviously not. Let's be honest: research has never been your strong point.
(3) Even if we give "Samantha" the benefit of the doubt that she's telling the truth, she would nevertheless have known that calling a black man an ape was a cruel and offensive thing to do. Kids don't live in a bubble, they know what racism is and they've heard all the words. I can recall when I was her age the kids at my school using words like abo, boong, coon, wog, chow etc etc with abandon. One boy who wasn't aboriginal but had dark skin earned the nickname, Bogwash. He got that name in form one (year 7) when we were all about 11 years old. We all knew what it meant!
Even a 13 year old girl who may not understand the significance of racism in society has to be held responsible so that she and others can learn the lesson. That lesson was given by Goodes in the most sensitive way he could under the circumstances. If the issue has been blown up out of all proportion as some of your cohorts are saying it is due to the media who have been out to milk it for all it's worth.
We are not fools, Miranda. Your specific "concern" for the girl masks the real reason why you and people like Andrew Bolt are on your soap boxes - it's all about the politics. You think the actions of the AFL, sections of the media, and the general public outrage over the ape slur is part of a wider leftist agenda to quash free speech, advance the cause of bureaucratic government and socially engineer the nation in its own image. In other words you have used the girl, her family and the whole issue as a political tool to preach your ideologically driven opposition to an imaginary agenda.
May I suggest that you think twice in future before you start pointing the finger because there is always three pointing back.