Home > Boneheaded stupidity, Media, Metablogging > Irony alerts missing

Irony alerts missing

August 3rd, 2009

From Christian Kerr in the Oz today

BLOGS attack newspapers all the time. It’s rarer for a broadsheet to launch into an ezine.

  1. August 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 | #1

    must be under pressure to prove his loyalty….

  2. Alice
    August 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 | #2

    They wouldnt get attacked so often if they made any real attempt to be unbiased and that wont happen till the ossified deeply conservative owner stops making dancing bears of his staff.

  3. Jim Birch
    August 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 | #3

    Christian’s criticism of the net is often but not always correct, but for some reason he avoids making the direct claim that the Oz is free from woolly-headed tribal thinking. But I’m wondering if we should expect more of the same.

    Newspapers have good reasons to resent the net – apart from swiping a large chunk of their advertising income, the net allows punters to move up the food chain to get closer to primary sources, form their own opinions, and then put them out there. What probably rankles most is the ability of the net to produce critique of newspapers’ content itself. It’s a real challenge to their authority and I’m surprised that slagging the net isn’t more common. A lot of the response to date has been the oxygen model; columnists don’t respond to critiques, they just pretend they don’t exist but maybe this is changing.

    Maybe it’s just my blog-based conspiracy theorising paranoid personality type but I can’t help wondering if this isn’t a counterstrike cooked up in the Oz war room. Christian Kerr’s history as an anonymous Crikey correspondent might be seen as giving him the net cred to set the tone. The Oz Strikes Back, anyone?

  4. August 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 | #4

    Christian Kerr = joke
    Rupert Murdoch = joke

    Seriously discussing either of the above = wasting time

  5. Alice
    August 3rd, 2009 at 13:09 | #5

    @Jim Birch
    Jim says
    “What probably rankles most is the ability of the net to produce critique of newspapers’ content itself. It’s a real challenge to their authority and I’m surprised that slagging the net isn’t more common.”

    Well said Jim. They have had a monopoly over censorship of the letters to the editor for so long its been blatantly obvious they print the most banal letters when there is a heated issue going on…and do they cover local issues of importance??? No – just cheap reuters overnight digital downloads from wherever …

    When did they ever expose JHs excessive use of dogs, cops and helicopters for miniscule peaceful demonstrations in the city and the real objections to our Iraq involvement. When did they cover the removal of our rights tp gather for a meeting anywhere in a public space without paying huge $$$$ of public libaility insurance or hire fees to local councils (the end of democratic rights to dissent peacefully). When did they cover the loss of school fetes, parades and surf lifesaving BBQs due to the same (insurance charges)?.

    When did the broadsheets cover in depth the removal of civil rights from anti terrorism legislation, when did they cover in depth the apalling treatment of refugees in this country under the Coalition? The ABC did that.

    When did the Australian Newspapers ever question their stock standard line that the government was beautiful when it was liberal and dangerous when it was not, Australia is doing fabulously as long as the liberals are in, unemployment IS lower than it ever has been (after underemployment was ignored and workchoices created one hour jobs), and we were all richer than we ever have been(strange how the mortgage and oil and grocery and energy and rates rises are choking us though?)…and you too can make your home beautiful and learn to bash the enemy lefties in unis, public schools and the ABC just by reading our truly obnoxious regular commentators.

    Newspapers are in the minority already in the competitive market for information.

    Thats OK – Rupe is fond of free competitive markets…isnt he? (oh I forgot – only when he owns them).

    Ill be surprised if Christian has a newspaper to work for in ten years time. I doubt the 100% net gen will use them to keep up. They are about 15 now. There is a lot of competition on the net, where they do go and as well, they like it interactive (ask the Japanese – they know it already – look at mobile technologies).

  6. Alice
    August 3rd, 2009 at 13:17 | #6

    Newspapers are yesterdays news.

  7. August 3rd, 2009 at 13:18 | #7

    Alice,
    I was not aware that the AFP (the only police force that JH had any possible say over) was the one out there with “…dogs, cops and helicopters…”. I was always under the impression that these were State matters, with the State Premiers having authority.

  8. Alice
    August 3rd, 2009 at 13:33 | #8

    Andy – you are showing your naivety – you mean to say you dont think the Prime Minister communicates with the Premier on these matters?
    Ok then – lets look at the show of force that JH pulled out for the visit of GWB and the APEC meeting.

  9. may
    August 3rd, 2009 at 14:09 | #9

    Megan :Christian Kerr = jokeRupert Murdoch = joke
    Seriously discussing either of the above = wasting time

    Yair but!

    the consequences of ignoring the effect of their drivel is no joke.

    they are not in the business they are in to be inconsequential.

  10. August 3rd, 2009 at 14:31 | #10

    Quite.
    But, ignoring the CONSEQUENCES of their drivel is a bad thing.
    Ignoring their DRIVEL is not only a good thing but essential to ensuring its deserved irrelevance. Every JQ, Crikey, etc.. link to this rubbish does nothing but enrich these people and allow them to crow that “agree or disagree, everyone talks about us! We are important and relevant and deserve our place in the discussion. We set agendas!”
    They have richly deserved to be treated as inconsequential but everytime they are allowed to ‘own the debate’ on anything, they have already won.

    Damn, now look what you did. You made me enter a serious discussion about these wasters.

  11. Alice
    August 3rd, 2009 at 15:31 | #11

    Megan – dont worry about them.

    John Howard cruelled all their platforms for exposing the underlying bullying cruelty of the narrow view espoused by these crappy unintelligent Aussie media rags.

    Not to mention the outlandish sense of superiority of the liberal party …ie

    “Weeeeeeee up here (as in air hair lair thair) know whats best for you creatures down thair…we have a nice model to prove it………and its most definitely not the same as whats best for us up hair, the chosen ones….So you down thair, will all work harder, faster and longer for less and you will pay more of the taxes of us up hair, and we will carry the stick to make sure you are sufficiently efficient. And we will advise you… when efficiency is reached at some point in the long run. We have not yet reached that point so there is a long long long way to go. Pass me the stick!!”

  12. Jill Rush
    August 3rd, 2009 at 22:56 | #12

    There is an element of truth in this. There are more bloggers than newspapers and the Australian does attract a lot of criticism. It is however a lack of insight to make a comment like this without examining whether it is deserved or not. Newspapers are in a tight spot because people read their material less and less. It does appear that the main function a newspaper serves these days is to highlight faults, fraud and floosies. The shock element is growing and the insight is decreasing. Opinion pieces are invariably written by someone without expertise or with bias and predictable viewpoints. Readers have a great deal of choice and they are making it. Blogs wouldn’t work if there wasn’t some element which appeals to readers. No wonder the newspaper men are annoyed even if they have tried to create their own blogs whilst criticising other blogs.

  13. August 4th, 2009 at 00:04 | #13

    They could go totally whacky and try doing something really radical: Journalism.

    After all, it’s the one area they have all the fire-power. With all those ‘journalists’ spending all that time spinning, re-spinning and pushing an editorially/proprietorially predetermined angle on everything it’s no wonder they can’t do real journalism anymore. Shame really. Thousands of over-paid and terrified hacks threatened by a few score of citizen writers. That’s their real problem – any halfwit with an opinion and a keyboard can do opinion.

    Even a few citizens can do ‘journalism’, but imagine if all the journalists did journalism!! Maybe we wouldn’t need 21 Murdoch owned titles in a town with zero competing paper alternatives! They are racing themselves to the bottom. And still losing.

  14. Donald Oats
    August 4th, 2009 at 10:14 | #14

    Here is why the Australian News Paper is dangerous.

  15. Alice
    August 4th, 2009 at 22:42 | #15

    @Jill Rush
    Jill – the newspapers have tried to create their own blogs but if you read the short stream of very short comments to most of them….they die after a few posts. Thats because they dont have intelligent moderators and they dont have a managed blog where the host posts some opinons…basically its “comment on this newspaper article” and end of story. The news moves on but its not particularly interesting. They dont have the benefits of JQs IQ or is that JQIQ in their newspaper staff. What is JQIQ? Quite a lot higher than the average news journo running a blog in his spare few minutes I think. you get what you pay for and their blogs are mostly very uninteresting as a result (with few repeat visitors – hell – as much as I dont like it – even the catallyx bloggers are in here). The newspapers probably make the junior run the blog or no one at all – it would all be automated.
    Maybe they should ask JQ to be a consultant on how to fix their boring blogs.

  16. August 4th, 2009 at 23:15 | #16

    The John Quiggin blog pays it’s workers below the minimum wage. How can legitimate newspapers compete with that sort of unethical competition. ;-)

  17. August 4th, 2009 at 23:17 | #17

    p.s. I also have reason to suspect that the John Quiggin blog has engaged in some untaxed bartering for technical web services. This outfit is very dodgy indeed.

  18. reginald
    August 5th, 2009 at 00:42 | #18

    Lets face it, the Australian is full of useless Murdoch glove puppets, and their little propaganda rag is going down the plughole. I can’t wait to see the spineless morons who work there lose their jobs.

  19. Donald Oats
    August 5th, 2009 at 03:18 | #19

    The Australian does have some good journalists but then squanders that talent by serving up such biased muck in between. As a side issue, the newspapers can really only be affected by bloggers if they aren’t engaging in high quality journalism. Most papers have begun the death spiral of working from the wire for news stories, and ever more desperately trying to give their target market what they think they want, without understanding that is costing them other would-be readers.

    The Australian far too often is an advocate for the Liberal party in the editorials, in the opinion pieces, in the Letters To Editor section, and most annoyingly, in plain news stories where neutrality was once the standard. Rather than getting the news from the wire, they should crank up the investigative part of the journalist’s job and get them out there without pushing an editorial line.

  20. Alice
    August 5th, 2009 at 11:36 | #20

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Terje says
    “The John Quiggin blog pays it’s workers below the minimum wage. How can legitimate newspapers compete with that sort of unethical competition.”

    I thoought you liked free markets Terje!

  21. Donald Oats
    August 5th, 2009 at 15:45 | #21

    Hang on, @TerjeP (say tay-a) I’ve been working for free all along; nobody told me that JQ pays a wage. The bl**dy cheek of it 8)

  22. Alice
    August 5th, 2009 at 22:07 | #22

    Jeez Terje – you left yourself wide open on this one. Don and I definitely scored a point on you! Whooopeee!
    Winners are grinners Terje!

  23. August 6th, 2009 at 20:40 | #23

    Alice – yes you failed to detect sarcasm and irony. A huge achievement.

    For the slow people. I have nothing against the John Quiggin blog obtaining a competitive advantage by paying it’s star commentator below the minimum wage. When I refer to this as unethical I’m being sarcastic. If some people want to work for nothing I believe they should be allowed to. Just as I believe people should be allowed to work for $5 per hour if they wish to. Ironically the local commentator here that works for $0 per hour uses his energy promoting the prohibition of other people working for $5 per hour.

  24. Alice
    August 9th, 2009 at 22:28 | #24

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    I didnt fail to detect it Terje….I just couldnt resist the irony of quoting you maybe out of context BUT directly using your own words…dont get much of a chance to do that Terje P!
    I thought Id grab it while it lasted (winners are still grinners Terje – come on… a points a point Terje – admit defeat – total defeat – your words!).

Comments are closed.