But there is value, in a commercial sense. The likes of Albrechtsen, Bolt, Akerman, the late McGuinness, etc., cater to deeply loyal audiences who prefer not to have their prejudices challenged, and who have money to spend on newspapers.

Absolutely. This is one of the most profitable avenues for a writer, particularly an American writer, the composition of partisan tomes. It’s associated with that other phenomena: the professional controversialist.
>
The technique is simple. You write (or broadcast) something that makes no bones about being partisan. You deliberately compose it in such a way that it appeals to the basest elements of your own side and thus offends the opposition.
>
Andrew Bolt, as a blogger, is quite brilliant at this. His skill is that, to those who agree with him, he seems reasonable. He is in fact a lot more sophisticated than Alan Jones. But a cursory look at his polemic re. AGW will show that he’s a propagandist. His take on global warming is similar to Ann Coulter’s ‘critique’ of the theory of evolution in Godless.
>
She scans the theory, finds the gaps of evidence in them and exaggerates them all out of proportion. She also adds out and out lies. One would think that this would be completely innefective but it isn’t. She’s speaking to the religious Right who are already quite willing to ignore evidence in favour of doctrinal proscription. It’s less a debate she’s invoking and more of a cheerleading competition. It’s political debate as a team sport (not something the Right have a monopoly on).
>
This is designed to curdle the blood of ‘liberals’ :).
>
About a year ago Bolt posted three articles on Pinochet designed to do just that. Meticulously crafted to precipitate a hail of irrational invective. It worked very well. Besides the obligatory historical revisionism, the point was to make ‘lefties’ look like rabid dogs. Generally he succeeded.
>
Incidentally Michael Moore is basically doing the exact same thing.

I would have loved to have seen him take Buckley apart, btw.

It was a Rumble in the Jungle.

(Funny, I was under the impression that the interview took place in the US.)

(Imagine having access to that fine detail level of information. Aren’t the intertubes remarkable?)

As long as you make all employees more expensive, and not just trade union members, you will not reduce the number of employed persons (ie. at the margins where the low-skilled workers are). Is that the intellectual force you’re talking about Katz? It’s difficult to envisage a more facile comment. Hawke was so much better than that extract suggests. Still looking for the entire transcript.

BBB

http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView.php?programID=780

I can’t seem to get a transcript, but I don’t have much time to dig for one just now.

I think all sorts of people tended to forget, if they ever knew, that Hawke was a Rhodes Scholar.

Americans get quite disappointed when they find out not only do they only have about 10 cities larger than ours, but that we can also produce world-class intellectual and cultural figures as opposed to cuddly fauna, swimmers and professional Ockers like Hogan and Irwin.

It was a bravura performance by Hawke, liberated from his ocker persona, speaking to an educated and foreign audience.

Buckley was quite taken aback by the sheer intellectual force of Hawke.

I think all sorts of people tended to forget, if they ever knew, that Hawke was a Rhodes Scholar.

It was a bravura performance by Hawke, liberated from his ocker persona, speaking to an educated and foreign audience.

Buckley was quite taken aback by the sheer intellectual force of Hawke.

I have in mind the late middle-aged, traditional middle-class/small businessy-looking little man ahead of me in the queue at the local newsagent one day, who had purchased the Brisbane Courier-Mail and the Sydney Daily Telegraph and the Gold Coast Bulletin, and who insisted on being given a plastic bag to take them home in.

The Wollstonecraft Hermit?

Meanwhile in other news:
William Buckley dies

If all else fails
The Grim Reaper prevails

“Conservative intellectual”…an oxymoron?…discuss.

One day even the editors of The Australian are going to realise that there is no value in obsessive and tedious bile, masquerading as journalism.

But there is value, in a commercial sense. The likes of Albrechtsen, Bolt, Akerman, the late McGuinness, etc., cater to deeply loyal audiences who prefer not to have their prejudices challenged, and who have money to spend on newspapers. I have in mind the late middle-aged, traditional middle-class/small businessy-looking little man ahead of me in the queue at the local newsagent one day, who had purchased the Brisbane Courier-Mail and the Sydney Daily Telegraph and the Gold Coast Bulletin, and who insisted on being given a plastic bag to take them home in.

One day even the editors of The Australian are going to realise that there is no value in obsessive and tedious bile, masquerading as journalism.
At which point they’ll have to remove the greatest foriegn affairs commentator the world has ever known from their pages as well.

… falling victim to Godwin’s Law

“Godwin’s Law”, as the creator has himself admitted, is merely an experiment in memetics, hence not immutable.

So Keating is not wrong. He might be drawing a bow somewhat but it ain’t all that long. (sorcerer’s Law ™)

Top notch Keating rant.

A pity PK began by saying he hadn’t previously responded to “her provocations”. Anyone may comment on the PK government, Paul. That includes Janet. And it includes criticism.

It’s not (just) about you, PK.

cheerio

I miss PJK so much.