There’s an interesting pair of posts at Christian Kerr’s blog, House Rules. The first was posted yesterday afternoon and is titled “Just the man to run the country in tough times”. Here’s how it starts and finishes:
EMBARGOED copies of the BRW Rich List have been drifting around Parliament House all day.
Malcolm Turnbull is back on board after an absence of four years.
Indeed, Turnbull seems to be the sort of leader we want in an economic downturn.
“For the first time in almost a decade, the rich got poorer this year,” BRW’s media release says. Rich Listers “lost more than $25 billion in combined wealth as the economic downturn hit hard.”
Yet Turnbull has prospered. Clearly a man for tough times!
The post attracted a fairly consistent – and negative – reaction. You can form your own opinion, but a lot of the commenters at Kerr’s blog appeared to view the post as rather shallow and blatant cheerleading for Turnbull, and they told the author as much. Christian copped a bagging – and gave a little back with his own comments:
Wed 27 May 09 (05:38pm)
I get the very strong impressed quite a few people have forgotten to take their medication today.
But the last comment came at 12:11 am today, and none have appeared since. Eleven minutes earlier, a new post had been published to House Rules. This one was titled “Turnbull cries poor”, and here is how it starts and finishes:
EMBARGOED copies of the BRW Rich List started drifting around Parliament House early yesterday – along with the news it included Malcolm Turnbull.
But the media release accompanying the Rich List claimed: “For the first time in almost a decade the rich got poorer this year.” Rich Listers “lost more than $25 billion in combined wealth as the economic downturn hit hard”.
Yet Turnbull has defied the trend. He has prospered. He seems to be the sort of leader we want in an economic downturn.
The Liberals might even try subliminally spinning Turnbull is the man for tough times.
It’s peculiar that Kerr suggested the Liberals might try subliminally doing exactly what he had explicitly done a few hours earlier. The remainder of the new post was similar in content to the earlier one, although extended and with greater detail. I originally wondered whether the updated post was a copy of a column that had gone through some editing and been published in today’s print edition, but once I bought a copy I found no sign of Kerr’s work.
So, it looks like Kerr made two consecutive blog posts on the same topic, although with a marked change in tone and strength of his argument. The commenters on the new version seem to be less harsh on the author than the earlier ones, and there is a bit more discussion of the issues rather than rubbishing of the content.
Was that the intention? It’s not clear to me why the second post was made – but I have sent Kerr an email, and I will update this post with any response I get.