June 23, 2003


From Stephen Mayne’s Crikey bulletin today:

There are always a couple of bushfires to put out on returning from a break and Crikey has just discovered that Tim Blair has been ripping into us over the "shallowest hack" series - something which was always going to be highly controversial.

Whilst Crikey was blissfully unaware of the stoush, Tim was letting fly on
his blog which is a good example of how journalists are in a good position
to respond when criticised.

What is he talking about? Anybody is able to publish a blog. Can you sue someone just for being stupid?

Posted by Tim Blair at June 23, 2003 01:24 PM | TrackBack

Nope, I tried. The judge said I was stupid for filing my suit. Go figure.

Posted by: Meryl Yourish at June 23, 2003 01:25 PM

You sure can --- but perhaps it is first worth pondering the old adage :- That those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Posted by: Rojo. at June 23, 2003 01:43 PM

Hmm, I've always thought that a stupidity fine would help. You know, the more stupid the thing you do, the more you get fined. It shouldn't really matter whether the action is illegal or not. Just call it "Bringing the human race into disrepute" or something like that. Of course, then parliamentary question time wouldn't be nearly so interesting. ;)

Posted by: Glenn at June 23, 2003 01:49 PM

Hey, whaddaya know -- I'm a journalist! After all, only journalists can have blogs. If anyone else tries, Orrin Hatch blows up their computer.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 23, 2003 02:05 PM

If you could sue for stupidity I imagine you'd be bankrupt by now.

Posted by: Johnno at June 23, 2003 04:10 PM


Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 23, 2003 05:33 PM

Blogs are journalism. They're a journal, after all. So yes, only journalists may blog; the act of blogging makes you a journalist.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, it's indeed lucky for Tim that you can't be sued for stupidity.

If even a dead rock singer can figure it out...

Posted by: Bon Scott at June 23, 2003 06:20 PM

That comment alone would probably cost you about $250,000 in the World Stupidity Court, Bon.

Posted by: tim at June 23, 2003 06:37 PM

Blogging may be amateur - the journalism here certainly is - but that doesn't make it any less journalistic.

Posted by: Bon Scott at June 23, 2003 07:52 PM

heh...somehow I think if there really was something like the World Stupidity Court, Bon would be in a permanent state of bankruptcy.

Posted by: Richard at June 23, 2003 09:08 PM

i think "pro" journalists are probably outraged that anyone who has their own blog can be called a journalist. Something has to justify the $1.10 per word (or whatever) that is earned.

Not pointing any fingers here (though I am), some writings are so stupid, they are probably sold like old soft-drink cans- by the kilo.

Posted by: jay at June 23, 2003 09:59 PM

eek...I'm a plagiarist...sorry johnno
(does this mean I've got some weird hidden need for Phillip Adams approval?)

Posted by: Richard at June 24, 2003 12:00 AM

What is a journalist qualified to do, anyway? Not many of them are knowledgable on anything other than writing down what they think they might have heard from someone else, eh?

Posted by: Dave Journalist? at June 24, 2003 03:38 AM

I say all this confusion started when some reporters decided to hijack the word journalist because it sounded more prestigious. A journal is more like a personal diary. A reporter can also be a journalist -- he can keep a journal, can write columns from his own viewpoint, and so on -- but that does not mean that all people who keep journals are duty-bound to act as reporters. It's like saying people who drive private cars are also taxi drivers.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 24, 2003 03:54 AM

But is "reporter" a good word for some of these fellows. Seems to me that "reporter" implies some sort of recording of facts rather than wistful thinking and speculation fueled by other "reporters". Perhaps "commentators" is a more apt description.

Posted by: rabidfox at June 24, 2003 07:02 AM

(quote) Not many of them are knowledgable on anything other than writing down what they think they might have heard from someone else (unquote)

I think you've missed the point completely, =)

Posted by: jay at June 24, 2003 01:39 PM

What a tosser. Crikey is nothing more than a glorified blog anyway. The only difference being you never see any blogger saying stupid things about people with an itching to sue somebody and forking over $20,000 for the opportunity.

Posted by: Adam at June 24, 2003 08:27 PM