Old teacher of mine, Charlie Barnett, used to emblazon the word ‘thimk’ in large letters across the blackboard of his biology class.

This was when people prided themselves for their open minds, for a keenness to explore new ideas. A product of the the turbulent 1960s and ‘70s social upheaval, it fitted relatively neatly with the Aussie tradition of the fair go.

It aligned with political, social and institutional change, much led by E.G. Whitlam and his band of star-crossed reformers. The idea of broader thinking was deemed a virtue, and was driven not only by politicians but academics, musicians, social and sexual reformers, anti-war campaigners, hippies, even a drug culture.

Half a century later, we seem in similar territory, exculpating the past and firing engines of rectification. But it’s not driven by the peace-seeking, flower power, make love-not-war ethics.

Pondering the new 2026 year, public opinion seems filtered by a different mechanism – a lens of hatred, despair, confected conviction that won’t countenance alternative opinion, of self-righteous zealotry, of ‘if you’re not with me, you’re against me’.

I’m struggling to think when Australians were more divided. When so many people were sitting on their hands, biting their tongues, deflecting, keeping shtum or refusing to engage as their friends raged and fulminated over affairs from Bondi, Palestine, law and order, machetes and bail laws to immigration, energy costs, net zero and plenty more.

Strikes me many people are wallowing in First World luxury of moralising and hectoring, guided by information gleaned all too often from sources lacking independence, accuracy or fairness.

Mainstream journalism happily extols itself as the bedrock of democracy yet elements regularly cannibalise themselves, railing against their own confreres as right-wing/left wing/fascist/socialist failures of their craft. These misgivings appear led by ideology, corporatism or dumb jealousies, demeaning the many hard-working practitioners in their ranks.

With mainstream media access expensive to the point of prohibitive, even these problematic offerings are ever thinner of the ground. Eager news followers are instead open to podcasts and platforms of every colour from spurious, campaigning, hateful, entertaining, comedic, political and anarchist to outright and deliberately false. Places where opinion rules over dispassionate reporting.

Groucho Marx’s Rufus T. Firefly said: “If I want your opinion, I’ll thrash it out of you.” No need to try so hard these days. Not when it’s all coming direct to your device, courtesy of entrenched bias-confirmation marketing algorithms.

The scope for grotesque opinion dressed as fact is on par with full-blown propaganda. The fact it’s free might seem a bonus to some. The prospect of being monstrously conned should not.

Checks and balances, the bedrock of proper journalism, don’t apply in such media platforms. Deliberately. It’s a business model.

When we can be so bombarded with so much information and opinion from vested interests that seems incisive and important, but in reality is anything but, questions of validity must be asked. Questions about the intention and agendas of our new-breed of news’ creators.

About the bots, algorithms and AI farces fashioning group-think. About free speech that’s morphed into some bizarre right to lie, manufacture, deceive, and foment hate and violence.

My new year’s resolution is read more of people I disagree with, but chiefly to ‘thimk’ more often.

I’m hoping a few others might, too.

This article appeared in the Geelong Advertiser  6 January 2026.

https://todayspaper.geelongadvertiser.com.au/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=0fb32761-b57e-4df3-9d92-09c7435fbd30&share=true