Frances Whiting, in Brisbane’s Sunday Mail, has critiqued One Nation’s cartoon featuring Robert Irwin, arguing it's a matter of 'consent' and that permission should have been obtained. However, Whiting’s stance is misplaced. Her interpretation stretches 'consent' beyond its appropriate context, which is not comparable to using a public figure’s image in satire.

Whiting’s false equivalence cannot rest unchecked.

Interestingly, Whiting works for a publication that frequently uses satirical images of figures like Pauline Hanson without consent. Yet, she has not expressed concerns about this practice when it involves other public figures. This inconsistency undermines her argument.

It’s a fundamental misunderstanding to equate the legal and societal norms of 'consent' for physical interactions with those for satirical depictions. Throughout history, from ancient stories to modern satire like Monty Python and The Simpsons, creators have not sought permission for their humorous representations. It’s legally supported not to do so, and it's impractical to imagine such a requirement.

Moreover, Whiting's broader narrative seems to suggest a victim mentality that only applies if it aligns with certain political ideologies. This selective outrage is hypocritical and contributes to her arguments being less credible.

Perhaps Whiting is worried about her failing column readership, and wants to hitch her wagon, and Google searches, to the rising star of One Nation’s news feed, and this website? Most of our readers would rightly say, ‘who really cares’.

In essence, the critique of Whiting is not just about the misuse of the very important term 'consent' but also about highlighting what is viewed as a decline in journalistic integrity and an overemphasis on ideological victimhood. We question Whiting’s motivations and say they stem from an outdated and politically biased viewpoint.

Robert Irwin is a public figure who took the government’s money. That means he’s fair game for satire, irrespective of who satires him.