April 21, 2004


A recent edition of The Reader includes a list of Ten Top Blogs -- not available online; The Reader is determinedly print-only -- featuring LoobyLu (“this charming site was showered with accolades in the 2004 Australian Blog Awards”), John Howard (“this satirical blog imagines our PM talking like a ten-year-old schoolboy”), The Spin Starts Here (“based in Melbourne, this merry band of PR monkeys, News Ltd hacks, computer geeks and finance employees mouth off in a deliciously un-PC manner”) and Mark Latham (“This is no media-friendly ‘Latham Lite,’ but a rambunctious serve of ... colourful language and unashamed parochialism”). This site is also mentioned:

Dubbed the “shock jock” of blogging by The Sydney Morning Herald, journalist and Bulletin columnist Tim Blair has a history of stoushing with ABC TV’s Media Watch. More recently, he exposed a plagiarised story about the Redfern riots from the Chicago Tribune, resulting in the journalist’s sacking. Whether or not you agree with Blair’s often irrational diatribes, he’s arguably the most widely-read Australian blogger.

The piece isn’t bylined, so I’ll draw this to the attention of The Reader editor Eric Beecher: it was the Australian Financial Review, not the SMH, that used “shock jock”; and Uli Schmetzer was fired not for plagiarism but for inventing a source. The Reader says about itself:

If someone you trust offered to scour the media on your behalf to find the really interesting stuff, would you read it?

Well, yes. If someone I trust offered that, I would.

Posted by Tim Blair at April 21, 2004 12:13 PM

So you're 'irrational' now? What's that supposed to mean? Loony? Incoherent? Emotional?

Guess they chose it deliberately because it's simultaneously vicious and ambiguous. They can always back down if challenged, 'We only meant emotionally charged'...yeah right.

Evidence sirs! We want to see the evidence on which these serious charges are based!

Posted by: otherbrian at April 21, 2004 at 12:35 PM

No mention of the 'daily diatribe', probably the most honest and funniest of all the Aussie blogs. Satts deserves a mention as well.

Posted by: nic at April 21, 2004 at 12:40 PM

The other "best bloggers?" Let me guess -- the usual crew of lefty whiners: Margo, Dunlop, Sour Tompson, Buster. Right?

Posted by: superboot at April 21, 2004 at 12:41 PM

I've never heard of any of those "delightfully un-PC","charming" or "satirical" blogs. I checked them and they're all crap. Tex has twice the savagry as that crappy "spin starts here" site, Bovination is three times more sly, insightful and sarcastic, "john Howard" is a lame joke that gets old in the first paragraph befor going on for 400 extra pages and I'm not sure what the fuck is up with "Loobyloo".

My supision is that your blog gets twenty times the traffic of those sites combined and thus even the Reader was forced to grudgingly include you even while carefully qualifying this unfortunate admission by characterising your promanence as crude 'shock-jock' populism. Be assured, if a lefty blogger had your traffic it'd be infallible proof of his genius, with you it's infallible proof of the tragic stupidity of the non-journalist segment of humanity.

Fuck the Reader. Spins starts here my ass.

Posted by: Amos at April 21, 2004 at 01:04 PM

Amos, you gotta admit the Mark Latham site is pretty funny -nigga with an attitude. Agree with you about the others.

Posted by: freddyboy at April 21, 2004 at 01:07 PM

Speaking of plagiarism. According to The Reader's website, it carries a regular column entitled Low Life.

Or is Jeffrey Bernard still writing from the other side?

Posted by: ilibcc at April 21, 2004 at 01:13 PM

None of the other sites have Plastic Turkey Consciousness.

Posted by: ForNow at April 21, 2004 at 01:38 PM

"Whether or not you agree with Blair’s often irrational diatribes, he’s arguably the most widely-read Australian blogger."

Irrational diatribes?!?!?!?!?

That just makes no sense at all. One of the many great things about Tim's blog is that it's the pithy puns and his ability to summarise something amazingly complex into a humorous sentense.

Tim is a master of word economy, something any half decent journalist would recognise in an instant. So to have his writing labelled as "irrational diatribes" is both incorrect, and just plain stupid.

In fact, properly translated, "irrational diatribes" means "marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgement, a bitter abusive denunciation".

Typical leftist attitude, anyone that doesn't agree with them _must_ fit the above definition. Such a narrow world view, it must be like living your life inside a letter box.

I have however no argument to "...he’s arguably the most widely-read Australian blogger" though. :)

Posted by: Pokey Oats at April 21, 2004 at 02:05 PM

What kind of "rambunctious" site has a "colourful language" warning? What are we, seven? I got your colourful language right heeeeere, you shit-encrusted socialist cat-fucker!

Posted by: Amos at April 21, 2004 at 02:10 PM

Tell us more about "stoushing" with Media Watch. Were weird drugs and strange sexual devices involved ?

And do you have pictures ?

Posted by: Carl in N.H. at April 21, 2004 at 02:17 PM

Aw, they're just jealous of Tim and and all the attention he gets. Not to mention all of the thoughtful, humorous, and exciting discourse we see here.

(PSSST! Sortelli, remember, I want cash, not a check!)

Plus Tim has an amazing and dedicated support team from the Left Side!

What other conservative blog has a designated mascot like Blogparrot Miranda Divide? Then there is our resident paranoid schizophrenic, IXLNXS, subject matter expect on logic and debate fatfingers, and not to mention our sit down comedian rhactive.

Of course Tim hit Top Ten!

Posted by: JeffS at April 21, 2004 at 02:23 PM

Of course it's one of the most widely read blogs in Australia (if not the world). Where else are you gonna get your lunch news?

Posted by: Melissa at April 21, 2004 at 02:53 PM

I read all sorts of blogs and this is one of my consistent favorites.

I'm a Yank so I don't know the "Reader" but I imagine it's the typical lefty lib rag. But the statement, "Whether or not you agree with his often irrational diatribes" takes the cake for smarmy, supercilious, lefty condescension in the form of an erroneous syllogism. You are basically given the choice of heads I win, tails you lose. How can one rationally agree with “irrational diatribes”? Ergo, unless one disagrees one is not rational.

It’s actually kind of spooky how far left the mainstream media has gone and their absolute conviction that they hold the middle of the road default positions on all issues.

Posted by: JohnPV at April 21, 2004 at 03:22 PM

It's a disturbing fact that there is on-one more illiberal than a liberal! These are the people who are supposed to support and value free speech and diversity, yet if anyone proposes an alternative point of view, so-called liberals are the first to attempt to marginalise that view with ridicule, and accusations of either immorality or ignorance.
In Tim's case irrationality. They can't simply label a different view as contentious or controversial, or just put up with it like they're supposed to, they have to go in for the full-on attack.
That's basically the principal of political correctness. Some views are acceptable, some aren't. So much for diversity.
Right now you can vilify and demonise Americans and Israelis to you heart's content, but God help you if you make generalisations about Moslems.
Ask a breast-feeding woman to cover her exposed breasts in a family restaurant and just wait for all hell to break loose, but ask a woman to cover her ungodly female head and that's just fine!!! The Left are the one's who claim the moral high-ground with all their incredible righteousness, righteousness which they're supposed to derive from their endless tolerance...yeah right!

Posted by: Brian. at April 21, 2004 at 03:34 PM

"often irrational diatribes"

As a glass is half full kind of guy, I am gratified that there is recognition that Tim is sometimes rational.

Posted by: Greg at April 21, 2004 at 03:53 PM

For irrational diatribes, I usually stick to the "straight news" reporting of major media outlets on selected topics. I come here for plastic turkeys, Tim's pithy humor, good commenters, and updates I can't really follow on Australian subjects that are a complete mystery to me. If a NYT "news analysis" piece (unintentionally) produces only mild chuckles I check in here or at allahpundit.com to have a heartier laugh ...

Posted by: IceCold at April 21, 2004 at 04:05 PM

Pshaw, Jeff. Why pay when you've praised me for free already? ;)

Posted by: Sortelli at April 21, 2004 at 04:33 PM


Posted by: JeffS at April 21, 2004 at 04:50 PM


If you are the "shock jock", we are your "morning zoo"!

"2:49 in the A. M. in the North East of America! How are the lunch lines there?"

"Lunch is running smooth here from the BlairCopter Eye in the sky! Back to you, Tim, in the studio."

Posted by: JDB at April 21, 2004 at 05:51 PM

Irrational diatribes? The people at the Reader think Tim sounds like an irrational ranter? Goodness me, they must have some delicate sensibilities. Maybe Tim should lower his voice and remember what his mother said about sarcasm.

Posted by: Ann at April 22, 2004 at 02:35 AM