The Punch, News Ltd’s attempt to get jiggy with blogging and Huffington Post style news aggregation has been launched into the wilds of the internets.
“There are some great websites … (but) there’s no general opinion sites aimed at a large mainstream audience. We also have no political bent, … no ideological skew,” he says. “The audience will be anyone with a passion for debate about news and current affairs. It’s not going to be some worthy forum of capital I ‘Ideas’, where everything is couched in lofty academic language. Equally, it isn’t going to be a ranting, lowest-common-denominator site, either.
And just like all the other for realz blog sites…
Posts will be 600-800 words and no one will be paid. With no marketing budget, the site will rely on word-of-mouth.
But of course.
I go to the site to check it out.
I read, or skim rather, Rann on bikies.
There are 2 links below so I go to one, which leads to an OO article about Picton, which includes this statement:
“The local heritage fascists who blocked McDonald’s ….
Charming.
Hmm
I reckon that will be the last time I visit Punch, its just a shill for the OO.
@Hannah, well they have linked to LP and I noticed a shout out to Hoyden in their opinion from elsewhere feed.
A key will be seeing if they are really interested in engagement with the indy blogosphere long term (and helping to foster that) and unlike The Monthly, look to bring other largely unheard voices into the media mix.
BTW, the site design is excellent. Highly navigable and readable.
Words words everywhere and not a thing to read.
Penberthy has a post on Mumbrella explaining the rationale.
http://mumbrella.com.au/with-the-punch-we-want-to-celebrate-journalism-6049
Judging by the topics, it looks like regular run of the mill News Ltd-esque stories packaged in a more high-brow format.
I really don’t think it’s anything worth getting excited about.
We also have no political bent, … no ideological skew
Well that’ll make a change from everything else News Ltd has a hand in…
Well, they’ve published a article by Catharine Lumby in which she takes a swipe at Andrew Bolt, so it’s not entirely a defend-the-News-Limited-line-at-all-costs type of publication. Not that anyone should be surprised that a Bolt article is ‘error-riddled’ and distorts the truth, given that that’s his default method for writing about more or less any subject.
If they’re gonna “celebrate journalism” shouldn’t they include some actual journalism as opposed to more coyly provocative op-ed pieces?
Also the words “Punch” and “conversation” do seem to cancel each other out.
Let us see how they perform around election time and if we get an increased presence of links to conservative opinion.
‘We also have no political bent, … no ideological skew,’
News Ltd given their world wide reputation don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. They will have to prove themselves thoroughly, in the midst of a federal election campaign. If they can keep it all neutral then…
I had a look at the first two pages. Two political posts. Both against the Labor government.
“It won’t have a partisan barrow to push” they squeaked before curtain-raising. No-ho-ho. Of course not!
They wouldn’t be trying to bathe in the reflected glory of the British Punch magazine, would they? Like those pathetic schools in Melbourne with names like “Ozford College”? I cringe for my country.
Rx @9, yes it’s all so predictable.
That “do not mention the deficit” story, for instance, is a tired old record of spin about spin that all the media have run with glee. The numerous clumbsy efforts of the opposition to NOT mention how much they would have spent have been drowned out in the mass ‘gotcha’ celebrations.
New format, same concentration on anti-Rudd crap.
It’s not a fancy, la-di-dah site aimed at people with three university degrees…
*cringe*
this new-fangled website …
*cringe*
I can’t read any more, too embarassed for them
I’m most pleasantly surprised, News Limited. Pick it, pack it, fire it up, come along, etc.
Your ounce is in the mail.
On my laptop, all the comments were mangled -overtyped and unreadable. It happened both times I tried to access The Punch. Anyone else have this problem? Anyone know how to fix it?
It appears to me like a rip-off of Comment is Free, the Guardian op-ed place. Except that CiF has no stupid 600-700 word limit.
It’s not a fancy, la-di-dah site aimed at people with three university degrees, nor is it a site for yobbos who want to engage in mindless abuse.
Make mine a triple cringe with a extra serving of WTF on the top.
It may be your browser, Ozymandias. Are you using IE? That’s what I’m using at the moment. Yes, IE sucks but most people seem able to publish on it.
@Ozymandias, maybe you have your Punch’s confused.
News Ltd is genetically incapable of having no ‘political bent’ as John Howard is of telling the truth.
Nah, it’s new new IE. It’s playing up on my bruiser too.
I took one look and cursed myself for being so curious. The Mike also-Rann article was enough to avoid it forever.
WTF, cringe with 6 steak knives and a money-back guarantee. I would subscribe to have it taken off the internets. Is this Rupert’s fiendish new plan for making money out of the ethersphere?
Tim Dunlop broke new ground for News Ltd with his workmanlike, reasonable and fair template of a modern major blog. I doubt if they learnt much from the gift they were given.
Hi all,
I am part of The Punch team, wanted to declare that upfront!
@Roger Jones: We’ve fixed up the IE 8 wobbles, so if you’d like to curse yourself again for being so curious at least it should display properly for you.
@Helen: I can’t help with cringe-factor but hopefully we’ve sorted your IE issues too, let me know if it’s more or less cringey with new and improved IE formatting goodness.
Enjoy! (…or not.)
It’s not a fancy, la-di-dah site aimed at people with three university degrees
Second comment on Pinch & Punch post: “…I think Im going to loose many hours of my life reading and commenting on this site”. Heh.
It’s not that bad, for a News Ltd site, but if this is the kind of content that Rupe thinks he’s going to charge for, well, good luck with that. Agree with joe2 #21, if they’re as smart as they seem to think, they really should have taken something away from Tim Dunlop’s efforts with Blogocracy and put them to use here.
Well, so far Adam it does seem a bit a bland. Some of the writers look interesting to me, so I may check it out on a regular basis to see what youse are doing. I
But I will add that the video of the first internets news was very cool. Loved the old codger who liked copying
So if I comment and sign it BA, BA (Hons.), M.A. will they publish it?
That’s only two degrees, Paul, so you’re OK, just.
But … but I don’t want to go through all the hassle of getting a Ph.D. just to be more of an outsider.
Will keep an eye on it, though. Though I can’t see anything on it that excites me at the moment.
Well I wanted to comment on the Lumby piece and I rehashed what I wrote over at Hoydens and posted it. And I went straight into moderation. Is that normal practice on News Ltd blogs? Does everything need to be approved before its published? That’s more than enough to stop me from commenting there again.
Im just being moderated everywhere today, is that it?
Paul, you could probably acquire a Grad. Dip. in something with much less effort than a Ph.D.
Would that count?
@David.. No, Grad Dips don’t count. Personally I think a BA in Religion and Philosophy should count as “2″. Maybe then I could go another one in art history. I know I want to….
It far easier to be BO.GAN.(fully) if you want elimination with punch.
Casey @ 29, I just released that one. I’m the neo-Luddite around here, but it’s probably a Wordpress thing where the mod filter can be temperamental. By approving your comments it should learn. It used to catch me regularly, but now although there is a definite trigger on 3 comments it always lets me through no matter how many links I employ.
Hope it gets to like you too, but I don’t know how to persuade it
I think we all knew that eventually Rupert would make a go of the blogosphere. He has once more followed his classic second mover advantage strategy. Sit back while a lot of others experiment, make mistakes, and lose money, before leap-frogging over the whole market.
His big advantage is no costs for the writers. The writers will be begging to contribute anyway due to News Ltd.’s unbeatable distribution. He will also be able to leverage content aggregating skills, and with the scale economies even pay some subeditors.
The bad news is for all those independent blogs that basically caught the wave of the Howard culture war years. Unless they’ve got a niche hook of expertise in something – astronomy, economics, law, etc., blogs like LP are going to die. Even Road To Surdom worked this out a while ago.
Still, it was fun while it lasted.
Casey, there is always a delay at News Ltd blogs while they decide whether your comment is line with Bolt Standard Ideological Time. Your comment should come up quickly at The Punch, though, as they are trying to estabish a new monkey base.
Well Im interested in Lumby. I find her quite maddening at times. So I got through quickly enough, but looking around at some of the comments, I feel like Im commenting on Blair’s site. Ick. Someone has posted a hypothetical wanting to know if Matthew Johns had group sex with a group of women – would that make Matthew Johns sexually objectified? – and so now Im wondering how to get my comment back natch…
Well, Casey, my mistake on “The Punch” was to call for a balanced discussion on the spin around the deficit figures when the author of the article is actually named “Tory”.
Casey, my dear, what you don’t seem to understand about offering criticism of Dr Lumby is that you’re supposed to use words like ’sapphosphere’, ‘luvvie’ and ‘bint’. I hope this helps.
You’re totally unqualified in the relevant areas of physics, mathematics and economics to comment on Lumby’s work with the NRL.
I had another one under the name ‘El Pulgón’, but I think it looked too much like the real thing and some well-meaning LPer has binned it.
I don’t think they’d dare compare themselves with Punch magaizine; it’s witty. Perhaps “The Punch” is “The King Hit” adapted for republicans?
Yes I agree with all of you. Tory, El Pugon. Heh.
For my part, I’m glad that somebody is publicly questioning Lumby in an intelligent way. I think there are some important questions still to be asked about her involvement and commentary on this, (and also on porn, though that’s a somewhat separate issue) but they’re never asked by her more vocal public critics, who always seem to miss the mark.
Let’s not have any talk of Matthew Johns being sexually objectified. Or sexually subjectified. Objective?, subjective?, it’s just a matter of personal preference isn’t it?
And let’s eschew pugilistic quips. Rupert is NOT “punching above his weight”, OK?
klaus k
It always puzzled me that the NRL saw fit to call on a Professor to instruct its players in everyday decency.
Without consent it’s sexual assault and/or rape, chaps! You shouldn’t need a Professor to tell you.
A policeperson or a lawyer might add some intelloectual or legal force to the telling…. Why did the NRL think a Professor was apt? Do they so admire her credentials and academic status?
Ambi, I think that’s a simplification, though you’re not totally off-track in asking those questions. Lumby was involved in a research project part-funded by the ARC, and part-funded by the NRL (ie along the lines of the ‘linked’ style of research promoted by the last several federal governments). As she says, she was not and is not an educator with the NRL, though presumably some of that research has been used in the resulting education programs. So it’s not that she’s there to tell the lads how to act, but rather is there firstly as a researcher, and now as an unpaid consultant, into gender and sexuality issues around the NRL and its players. At least that’s my understanding.
Casey’s question was about the way that the organisation itself – that is, not just the players – produces a gendered, even sexist, discourse, and about how much of Lumby’s time is spent deflecting to ‘broader’ social problems in her commentary and not reflecting on the NRL itself.
I don’t think Lumby is deflecting at all mentioning that what has happened in the NRL is part of a broader, social problem. If anyone thinks that the issues involved are solely the province of the NRL, they need to have a look around.
One thing the Four Corners program showed is that players come into the NRL with certain notions already in mind. For example, the young group of players and their very different attitudes towards a woman sexually assaulted when drunk and a bloke sexually assaulted when drunk.
I agree with Lumby that there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed.
Ambi, you may be enlightened but a lot of the discussion concerning the 2002 incident (and the 2004 one) is about when consent is withdrawn. It may seem clear cut to some but there are plenty who reckon they can do what they want just because a woman agrees initially. Note that Karen Willis also works with educating NRL players and believes the work worthwhile.
I think it’s a fine line, at times, Shaun, because Lumby doesn’t just ‘mention’ it. She uses it all the time in a calculated way, and as accurate as it is to note that it’s a broad social problem, I think that it can be another way of implying that nothing can or should be done at an institutional level. Surely it’s just revaluing the terms of an already false distinction, rather than overcoming the distinction? Is that really adequate?
Lumby and Willis still seem to think that there time with the NRL is worthwhile. Given the the NRL did invite her to assist shows that at least some in the institution recognise the need for change. Yes, there will be hold outs and the comments by the Knights CEO suggests that notions of masculinity need to be addressed. But it is not fair to dismiss it all based on comments by some.
Sometimes a bottom up approach is what will work and if the younger players coming through come into the game with a better perspective, then that will flow through when they are senior players.
It is not an easy task. And I think Lumby and Willis and the others supporting their efforts realise that. But outside the NRL, there are societal attitudes that if improved will make their work easier.
Especially, I think blokes need to start talking among each other about attitudes towards women and well as confronting notion of masculinity. That is what the NRL is trying to do and is starting to show up discussions on footy which is a great thing.
I tend to think that their time there has been worthwhile also, and most certainly better than doing nothing at all about these issues. That’s one reason why I am troubled by Lumby’s rhetoric, and would like to see it intelligently, and not dismissively, questioned, as I’ve suggested.
What matters, ultimately, is not whether Prof Lumby and Karen Willis may opine about their efforts, but whether or not the behaviour and attitudes of the players improve.
Yes, it’s a problem in the wider society and many efforts are being made to reduce sexual violence and family violence. It may well be that (somehow) ensuring changes in men’s attitudes will make the largest contribution. And it may just be that widespread discussion of the most flagrant cases with “star” perpetrators, could make some blokes sit up and take notice, then take action.
I’m not excusing the responsibility of the NRL in this, nor the AFL, nor any organisation that turns out to include more than it’s fair share – how could any share except zero be fair? – of perpetrators, to make a contribution to fixing this blight.
Prof Lumby has had so much publicity out of this: she would need to be a very strong and focussed researcher not to relish the opportunity to push related barrows.
Thanks for the point of detail Shaun. As far as I’m concerned, when “consent is withdrawn” then consent no longer exists. And regardless of the impetus and rhythm of events, action must cease. Simplistic, but it’s the only way. That’s worth the cogitation of blokes, too.
Gee, this has really gone OT.
Klaus @34
Maybe, but it’s not lost on me that the Catherine Lumby discussion appears to have migrated to this post/blog. Why is that?
The mistake you’re making is in thinking its an either or when in reality its both. Different audiences and different markets different conversations.
Remember too that it’s News joining the conversation, extending on what they have done in their online dailies, the barbarians won, comprehensively, that’s why they are here in this space and will attempt to monetise it.
Good luck to them too on that score, but my bet is that attempts to monetise opinion as opposed to journalism will fail. Opinion resides totally in the realm of the gift economy.
It’s the quality information niches that will pay, witness the WSJ, so yes, News may be better off establishing that Astronomy journal now.
wasn’t that Emile?
Definitely not me. Anyways, will no longer dwell on off-topic topics…
Blurb on one of the columnists today: “…a senior journalist and beer columnist on Queensland’s Courier-Mail:!
Beer columnist! How do I get a gig like that?!
Of course, people are allowed to change their minds, but given Catharine Lumby’s general attitude to blogging as expressed in this http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/how-the-online-world-has-redrawn-the-rules/2005/10/02/1128191605844.html I’m sort of surprised to see her joining what also looks to me like a copy of CiF, with extra Rupes thrown in for good measure.
The only possible response to such places – which inevitably attract the worst sort of commenting dregs, because there is no peer pressure on people to think before they post and be accountable for their comments – is spEak You’re bRanes http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/
My take:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/06/02/punched-out-ii/
“I’m guessing she’s a junior lecturer or perhaps a PhD student at La Trobe university.” and so forth and so on and you’ve got to be joking right?
Nifty. Never addresses the substantive issues but deflects deflects deflects with side swipes straight back at ya, all the while talking about standards in the blogosphere. Give me a hissy fit passive agressive little break.
Yes, yes, OT, Im going now.