In short: The Melbourne Symphony Orchestra admits it made an error when it pulled pianist Jayson Gillham from an upcoming performance over comments he made about the killing of journalists in Gaza.
The MSO said it made an “error” in cancelling his performance, but maintains their concert was not an appropriate place to express personal views.
What’s next? The orchestra’s August 15 concert, which was expected to go ahead without Mr Gillham, has now been cancelled due to security issues but the MSO wants to reschedule the performance.
Not really.
Yes they amplified what the guy said, but they also distanced themselves from his views.
Suppose the orchestra has wealthy pro-israel benefactors. The MSO committee might agree with what piano-face said, but as an organisation they may have felt obligated to uphold a non-partisan position.
The Streisand effect is when you try to delete content. In this case they just tried to disclaim it.
And as you said , amplified it. If you think silencing criticism of a genocide to appease donors is not showing your politics, then what is?
I didn’t mean they held the same views. Rather, the opposite. Or at least indifference, which from the perspective of the performed, amounts to the same.
Holding a non partisan pisition would be saying they dont share his views nor think it was an appropriate place for it, but not try to cancel him.
The guy engaged to make pretty noises made an allegation of a war crime.
It’s disingenuous to frame the MSOs response as “silencing criticism of genocide”. Everyone is free to criticise all they like, but if you use someone else’s platform to do so, there will be consequences.
And likewise of someone is offered a platform, and uses it in a way you don’t like, if you then censure them, there will be consequences.
Similar happened to Sydney theater compnay. They lost money but retained dignity. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-sydney-theatre-company-controversy-explained/wht4qwxn5
There’s nothing non-partisan about cancelling someone for stating facts.
It’s an alleged crime yet to be confirmed by a recognised court, therefore they remain “alleged” facts.