"Being Caught Between 'Too Left' and 'Too Right' - When a Newspaper's Culture Section Breaks Down"

"Being Caught Between 'Too Left' and 'Too Right' - When a Newspaper's Culture Section Breaks Down"

"Culture" is inherently a "breather" and a "rescue." It is a place where readers tired of political news can engage with movies, books, theater, and music to slightly update their worldview. However, now it is this very "culture" that has become a spark revealing internal conflicts within the media—a dynamic strongly illustrated by an event reported in a major Australian newspaper.


According to reports, the newspaper launched a dazzling campaign a few months ago to promote a new culture section. However, the critic and editor who was the face of this initiative was soon removed, causing ripples both inside and outside the company. The revamp of the culture section is a major project aimed at expanding the readership, changing the tone of the paper, and redefining the brand. Therefore, the symbolic personnel change being overturned in a short period is not just a personnel issue. Underlying this is a clash of values over "how to handle culture," "whose perspective to speak from," and "whether to maintain distance from politics."


Can the Culture Section Remain "Neutral"?

The culture section may seem less overtly partisan than political articles. However, in reality, the choice of works, the vocabulary of criticism, the attributes of the creators featured, and the stance on historical recognition and social issues all reflect editorial policies. Moreover, in recent years, social media has made these "nuances" instantly visible and quickly labeled. "That's too progressive," "That's too conservative," "It's not considerate enough," "It's censorship"—the culture section easily becomes a venue for proxy wars in politics.


The reason this incident is discussed as a "culture war" lies precisely there. The expansion of the culture section is not just about making the paper more interesting. It becomes a declaration of "how this media perceives contemporary culture." As a declaration, it invites opposition both internally and externally. If the declaration wavers, it is attacked as "ultimately indecisive" or "just a facade."


Reactions on Social Media: Three Typical Patterns

Reactions on social media tend to fall into three categories.


① "Diversity and Progressiveness Invited 'Infighting'" Group
This group sees the revamp of the culture section as leaning too much towards "awareness," clashing with the traditional editorial culture within the company. On social media, phrases like "The culture section is becoming a bulletin board for political movements" and "When correctness takes precedence over the work, the field can't sustain itself" are prominent. The "concern" here is not so much the ideology itself but rather that the editorial field prioritizes "avoiding backlash," transforming criticism into safe recommendations.


② "The Self-Contradiction of a Conservative Media Exploded" Group
On the other hand, some interpret the turmoil as "a media known for its conservative tone trying to modernize only its culture section, leading to self-poisoning." On social media, sarcastic comments like "While inciting cultural wars outwardly, the same thing is happening inside" and "Being stabbed by its own supporters" are common. Here, the revamp of the culture section is seen as a "change of course," and the backlash from existing readers is often considered "inevitable."


③ "It's Not About Who's Right, but Poor Management" Group
Additionally, some voices focus on "the way it was handled" rather than the rightness of the values. If a symbolic personnel change is prominently announced and then retracted in a short period, it lowers morale internally and trust externally. On social media, reactions like "branding failure," "lack of explanation," and "only exhausting the field" are common. The culture section is a delicate area, and changes in editorial policy need to be accompanied by a "careful narrative" to avoid being perceived as betrayal.


Is the "Politicization of the Culture Section" Bad?

The difficulty here is that the "politicization of the culture section" cannot be simply equated with being bad. Movies, literature, and theater are originally mirrors reflecting society, depicting power and discrimination. It is natural for criticism to touch on social issues. The problem is not in addressing political themes themselves but in how much "plurality" the editorial team allows and whether they can design criticism not to be reduced to "winning or losing" for factions.


For the culture section to be healthy, at least two conditions are necessary.
One is that the editorial team does not gather only those who reach the same conclusions. Diversity is not just about attributes but also about diversity of perspectives.
The other is that when a controversy arises, instead of "silently retracting," they should articulate the principles of policy and editorial judgment. Silence is seen as "running away" by any faction.


The Culture Section Bears the "Future of the Media"

Why does the culture section bear such a heavy burden? The reason is simple: as media enters the era of subscriptions and social media, it can no longer differentiate itself with political news alone. Culture and lifestyle extend reader engagement time and create the "atmosphere" of the brand. On the other hand, because culture is directly connected to values, changes in editorial policy are directly translated into "whose side are you on." In other words, the culture section stands at the intersection of revenue strategy and value conflict.


This incident can be seen as an example where these contradictions erupted all at once. The revamp was necessary. However, the way it was executed was torn apart from three directions: existing readers, internal culture, and social media expectations. As a result, the culture section seems to have been consumed as a tool for "adjusting the organization's stance" rather than for "the sake of culture."


So, What Should Have Been Done?

While outsiders can speak freely, lessons can be extracted.

  • Do Not Make Symbolic Personnel Too Symbolic: When an individual is made a "flag," the moment the flag falls, everything collapses.

  • Present Editorial Principles First: In any value debate, if "what we value" is not declared first, explanations become reactive and lead to backlash.

  • Design the Culture Section as a "Forum for Dialogue": For themes that divide opinions, a structure that addresses them from multiple angles over several instances, rather than a single judgment, is needed.


Culture is originally not for deciding a single correct answer but for enhancing the resolution of the world. Whether the culture section can reclaim that role is also the very strength of the media to survive in an era of division. This uproar may not just be internal turmoil but a sign that the difficulty of maintaining a place to discuss culture is nearing a critical point.


Source URL

Related Articles