Rinse and repeat?
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:
Christian Kerr
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.
Who is Christian Kerr? Is this “Mainstream Media”?
How mainstream is The Awestralian, Pedro?
Ok. I’ve googled the name and see he is an ex-Crikey writer.
I’m still wondering why an obscure, sometimes-columnist’s blog notes are considered “mainsrream media” and worthy of scrutiny here.
I’ve brought this up about Bolt, and was satisfied with the answer that his blog really has to be considerd “mainstream”. But this guy?
The Australian isn’t part of the mainstream media? Give us a break.
You might have had a point, Monkeywrench, had there actually been a column in The Australian.
Geez, I hate long delays in publishing comments.
Fred and Monkey.
Toby’s post has nothing to do with a mainstream-published article OR a mainstream “personality”.
Until today, I doubt anyone had even even heard of Christian Kerr.
But I am sure you both will sit on tenterhooks to find out if Toby gets a reply to That Email.
General tone of his opinion looks the same to me. Don’t even know why he bothered changing the wording.
I think the earlier negative comments are because the froot loop patronage at the Australians blog’s is highest early in the morning, with the professional agitators (Asianplumb, Mulga Mumblesomething, Marilyn etc) getting in early to compare every and all topics with Israel. The adults tend to come out later in the day.
I’ve noticed a similar early morning “froot loop” patronage here, Baldrick.
(hi confessions!)
Until today, I doubt anyone had even even heard of Christian Kerr.
Actually…
Turnbull’s done a bit of Stephen Bradbury in that many of those in front of him have toppled.
But that probably does say a lot of his ability to choose wise investments.
Christian Kerr’s blog in on The Australian web site – that makes it mainstream media.
Erm, Kerr’s pretty high-profile, Pedro. You may have backed a loser with your line here.
[snark]How dare you hold the The Australian to account for what it’s federal paliamentary sketch writer puts into a blogpost.
Fuck me dead, how much trawling do you guys do through stuff that’s in no way worthy of putting into Pure Poison?[/snark]
But seriously, Pedro, you need to re-calibrate the auto-comment facility attached to your fingers.
(On topic: I look at the original Kerr piece above and think, ‘unserious writer who is probably taking the piss out of Turnbull. Probably doesn’t like Malcolm very much.’ Regardless of what he replaced that post with, regardless of what his commenters said, might it be that Kerr was being negative to begin with?)
Until today, I doubt anyone had even even heard of Christian Kerr.
Actually…
…and most around my circles.
…but when you’re an ostrich?
Pedro has a worryingly narrow frame of reference when it comes to ‘mainstream media’. I suppose we must now submit a list of media commentators to him to see if we’re allowed to read them.
I’ve read Kerr a bit lately, as well as many others as I scan through all the blogs at the Oz and other sites. I also read commentators at the Guardian, Salon.com, the Telegraph as well as the News.Ltd bloggers.I suggest you do the same, Pedro….or are you happy with Laurie Oaks?
Btw, ‘fruit loops’ simply betrays your real agenda: just in here to have a slap at Pure Poison, no real interest in the issues….like Joel B1.
I’ve heard of Christian Kerr.
And yes, I will await his reply. Tenterhooks not included.
Monkeywrench, don’t know if your comment is at my comment but if it was, have you actually read what some of the posters on the Australian’s blog say? You get the full spectrum from right wing death beasts to a talkback radio host’s pure definition of a raving loony leftist. The fact that the latter happens to appear earlier in the morning is a trend that I have noticed.
Oh, and are you afraid of people raising legitimate counter-points to your argument? You have come out with some pretty strong criticism of how you are treated at Bolts (a site I only found out about through your comments). I found this site through links in other blogs and found it an interesting concept. However if it is just a left-wing version of Bolts blog, what really has it achieved? Lets see if the abuse and ad hominem attacks continue here?
P.S. so this site is doing a much more admirable and commendable job than bolts blog….but I have seen the cracks, and the oversights….. (think long time listener, recent contributor). cheers…
ref my last….I’ll try to stay on topic in future and use forums for this type of stuff.
My apologies allmighty moderators.
Pedro, it looks like you shouldn’t assume everyone is as ignorant as you are. It also looks like you have a pretty antiquated notion of the media. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but not so many people are buying the print edition of the newspaper these days, which is why News, Fairfax et al. are having their staff produce online content and there’s a lot of discussion about how to blend journalism with blogging.
Baldrick, the title and final sentence have certainly undergone a radical shift – from what looks like an explicit endorsement to a suggestion that the Liberals might “try subliminally spinning” it that way. And that first post was published at 2:43pm, with comments starting around 3pm – not quite early morning. Also, none of the names you mentioned seem to be the ones commenting on Christian’s post.
Nickws, that’s an interesting take on it. I didn’t read it as a piss-take and it seems a fair few others didn’t, but you never know. I’d be interested in whether others read it the same way.
Tobias: acknowledged, missed the title change – my bad. Final sentence looks like going from a jocular (where have I heard that before?) endorsement to a suggestion. Allright, slight change in meaning there, but not a hanging offence.
My comment on the commentators was an ‘Australian online’ generalisation of a pattern that I have noticed over a protracted period of time. But hell, it has given me so much mirth that I don’t want it to stop!
Agreed about the general tone of the comments at The Oz’s blogs – and to their credit, they seem happy to publish comments (both rational and irrational) criticising their writing and their arguments.
I thought most people would fit a talkback radio host’s pure definition of a raving loony leftist.
Ref my comment at 16: ignore the ‘so’……I meant that I have found this site to actually be superior in terms of debate. The ‘so’ indicates that someone else stated this, which was not my intention.
For my two cents, the first post was read a lot more like Christian when he was writing for Crikey – when he was occasionally quite insightful but mostly came across as a snarkier version of Matt Price – and felt rushed, too.
The second feels a lot more like his regular column for the print version of the paper.
I don’t think it’s just the Oz that has mad commenters. I’ve seen surprisingly crazy commenters at the ABC.net.au forums. The whole gambit from loony Left to lunar Right—and in response to sensible, non-inflammatory comment and journalism.
Garden variety nutcases prefer to have their opinions heard on the MSM sites. The independent blogs just don’t do it for ‘em.
Wot oddly short memories have of the time when Kerr was Crikey’s resident raving anti green, not to say anti Krudd. Wot can one exspect from an ex tory staffer? The only wonder was why he was ever offered the Crikey shilling -not why he took it. That type are not noted for scruples.