Comments on: Blog bait

By: Shaun

Shaun — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:39:51 +0000

Agreed Amanda. John Thorpe seems to still be living with an ideal of pubs from a few decades back. He probably feels that these sorts of changes are a retrogressive for the pubs.

By: professor rat

professor rat — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:10:59 +0000

To a student of hirstory this is fascinating fun…kinda like listening into the Middle ages.
‘These new printing presses are publishing rubbish…plus they might put us out of a job!’

But then to my deep and lasting shame and embarrassment most anarchists don’t get the web either.

By: gandhi

gandhi — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:59:48 +0000

Mark,

I don’t criticise him for continuing to earn a crust from it, though I would have been happier if he’d felt able to say something about what transpired.

Hmmn. Dare I suggest that perhaps you are personalizing it?

It might look like I am pursuing a personal grudge against Tim, but actually I have consistently acknowledged that he is a good writer and does a great job blogging against Howard. Tim is not the real problem, whatever his personal failings might be. It is Murdoch that is the real problem, and THI$$$$ is how he works.

What frustrates me is that a man with Tim’s obvious intelligence takes the bait, and that so many observers say, “Well, who can blame him?” Obviously he’s gotta feed his starving children, and pay for his Mum’s operation, right?

It’s that damned Gordon Gecko “business is business” mentality, which has done so much damage to our society. I’m sure Dick Cheney’s friends don’t blame him for invading Iraq either – after all, business is business, right?

By: Amanda

Amanda — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:20:29 +0000

Every time John Thorpe opens his trap he says something stupider than the time before.

By: Greg

Greg — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:24:47 +0000

That's only going to work with Melbourne journos. In Sydney, we're all the more outdoorsy, active types, not interested in talking politics over a beer.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:57:29 +0000

Comments crossed!

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:56:49 +0000

Gandhi, the conclusion you’ve come to is fairly obvious – that Tim has found out that the freedom of MSM blogging has its own limits. I don’t criticise him for continuing to earn a crust from it, though I would have been happier if he’d felt able to say something about what transpired. It’s really up to everyone to take that into account when reading his blog, and I said on the thread about this a while back I think it’s unhelpful to personalise commentary on the situation.

zebbidies, I suspect you’d like Peter Martin, having read your explanation.

By: zebbidies spring

zebbidies spring — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:54:43 +0000

But now I’ve followed the link, Peter Martin may tempt me away from The Beard…especially as surfing the SMH website makes me feel like I’m stuck in the doctors waiting room, forced to read endless tripe about overseas celebrities or (worse!) some some arch gossip about the tiresome gaggle of property developers and their banking system enablers which is, apparently, what Sydney Society is composed of.

By: zebbidies spring

zebbidies spring — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:46:05 +0000

Mark

I read Quiggin most days, but he tends to the economic theory end and is rather too wonkish for my understandings. Gittins is better at describing what it means. He also keeps an humanistic eye on what it means to the production units at the pointy end of economic theories.

As to the others, I mean no disrepect to their statuses as economists, but for my purposes, with my (limited) understanding of economics, Gittins fits the bill the best.

By: gandhi

gandhi — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:11:39 +0000

Hmmn…

So it IS just me, then.

Pity.