September 01, 2003

NON-FINANCIAL REVIEW

Jack Stiglitz, at Henry Thornton.com, asks:

What is with the AFR these days? Most of its Canberra correspondents are so obviously subject to the dictates of a partisan agenda that it is, by construction, impossible for them to objectively report on the political rhythms of the day ... The complexion of the op-ed pages is an absolute disgrace, and dominated by the likes of Barker, Hewson, Harris, Quiggin and Tingle! In fact, so overwhelming is the AFR's venomous verbiage that Jack sometimes feels like he's reading the goddamned Guardian.

I used to buy the AFR every day. I even wrote for it. But I donít think Iíve read a copy in about 18 months. Itís just wrong; a financial newspaper loaded with lefties is like a four-cylinder Corvette, or a diesel Ducati.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 1, 2003 10:07 AM
Comments

I don't buy it that much. I got a copy last year, though, when I was in Sydney with my relatives, which had a lovely, lovely editorial dissecting Green policy. My relatives were shocked. I was heartily amused.
To hear that this paper could have been taken over by a bunch of lunatic lefties is terrible.
Who edits the Fin. Review, anyway?

Posted by: TimT at September 1, 2003 at 10:41 AM

A left-hand drive four-cylinder 'Vette.

Posted by: pooh at September 1, 2003 at 10:57 AM

Or a fish with a bicycle.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at September 1, 2003 at 11:25 AM

I read the Fin Review only for this twice-weekly column.

Anyone who can introduce the 36-hour week, Club Med, the dead French from the heatwave, the Cole report into the building industry, Eminem, Generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, Homer Simpson, the People's Republic of Victoria, the quality of recent Melbourne architecture, Celine Dion, Greenpeace, Bonnie and Clyde, the Dalai Lama and aromatherapy into one item has to be a must-read.

The rest, forget it.

Posted by: ilibcc at September 1, 2003 at 01:03 PM

Your link is to a pay-per-view; I'm assuming it was to an item by Peter Ruehl- he's ok, sort of a P.J. O'Rourke Lite. His sister is a bit of a hornbag for an old bat, though.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at September 1, 2003 at 02:37 PM

Damn that pay-per-view. I paid for the goddam view so I should be able to post the sucker. Typical AFR. They print shit then stop people reading it. (I mean the rest of it, not the Ruehl piece. That's a hoot.)

As for his sister, with a name like Mercedes, how could she not!

Posted by: ilibcc at September 1, 2003 at 02:56 PM

Yeah, but I think her vintage is about that of those big open buggers that Goering used to ponce about in at Luftwaffe parades.
She would have been a bit of a spunk before the Korean war.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at September 1, 2003 at 05:02 PM

Pooh. Vettes are left hand drive as they are made for the US market.

It's right hand drive which are the sacralegious ones.

Posted by: Andy at September 1, 2003 at 07:19 PM

Pay per read at AUD 2.20 is ridiculous. There may be a way to make money from publishing on the Internet, but this isn't it. Who's going to put out that kind of jack for one newspaper column? Sheesh.

Posted by: Bruce Rheinstein at September 2, 2003 at 02:29 AM

Jack Stiglitz would feel even more like he's reading The Guardian with today's AFR piece by academic Amin Saikal. No link because of pay-per-view but here's the conclusion:

'This (losing on all four fronts: Israel-Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror as a whole) would be a very heavy price to pay for allowing a group of neo-conservatives to dominate US foreign policy by exploiting al-Qaeda's extremism to push their own extremist agenda. The sooner this group is marginalised in American politics, the better the prospects for delegitimising Islamic extremism and ending what has developed as a "clash of extremisms" in world politics.'

So there you have it. The war on al-Qaeda is simply a pretext for neo-cons to push their own extremist barrel.

Let's go back to Clinton's renowned foreign policy.

Posted by: ilibcc at September 2, 2003 at 11:19 AM

Bruce

You're right about pay-per-view cost. There's no way you'd pay that for one column. However, readers qualify for online content if they also have the paper delivered - including to a workplace.

Posted by: ilibcc at September 2, 2003 at 11:25 AM