August 10, 2004


Journalists are worthless scum. Meanwhile, in other media news:

• Marian Wilkinson’s selectivity is explored by the resourceful Professor Bunyip.

• Guzzle pundit Bob Ellis rails against "greedy Texas Christo-fascists" and considers offering $400 to anybody who can supply him with "one statement of John Howard's that over time proved wholly true." What’s the going rate for a truthful Ellis statement, Bob?

• And a discrimination case brought by disgruntled Age employee Aileen Keenan has heard several interesting claims about the way that strange newspaper operates. Hopefully we'll hear from Antony Catalano as the case continues.

Posted by Tim Blair at August 10, 2004 12:27 PM

Via NRO's Kerry Spot, we learn that, apparently, journalists are "one of the most influential 'swing votes' in the upcoming election". Given that incident at the Unity conference, I guess they're swinging somewhere between Nader, Kerry, and whatever candidate the Socialist Workers Party might field.

Posted by: PW at August 10, 2004 at 12:59 PM

"I love Ellis for both his piercing insights and his mad flights of fancy and, so far, he is not disappointing."

- Mike Carlton

Posted by: Tex at August 10, 2004 at 02:24 PM

Bob Ellis is one of those left-wingers who really do feel that the US (particularly a Republican US) or an Australian Liberal (ie Howard) government really is worse to its own people, and a greater danger to others, than all of the Islamic terrorists put together.

There is absolutely no reasoning with these people. Don't even try.

They start from a viewpoint that is so far removed from what the sane would regard as reality, it is nothing but a task akin to nailing jelly to a wall.

Posted by: Andrew at August 10, 2004 at 02:34 PM

Marian Wilkinson is quite selective in what she reproduces of the goat-hearders letter isn't she?

Posted by: Lofty at August 10, 2004 at 02:50 PM

I can't speak for the rest of the state, but I for one am among the ranks of greedy Texas Christo-conservo-libertarians.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at August 10, 2004 at 03:38 PM

What about

"Murali is a chucker" - John Howard.

Posted by: Quentin George at August 10, 2004 at 05:39 PM

Worthless scum? Well, I agree, but it's an unusually candid admission from you, Tim. What do you normally write next to "Occupation" on your tax return? Strolling minstrel, perhaps?

Posted by: tim g at August 10, 2004 at 06:05 PM

It's not "Occupation" tim g, it's "Liberation" -- get your talking points in order.

Posted by: Michael at August 10, 2004 at 06:13 PM

Now Mr. Blair, don't be so self critical. There are many journalists who are quite worthy scum.

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 10, 2004 at 06:20 PM

"Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities,"

How should a journalist respond to this pearl of wisdom, assuming that the journalist in question was hypothetically not worthless scum?

Posted by: Michael at August 10, 2004 at 06:31 PM



I read the words 'journalist' and 'worthless scum', so naturally I thought "Hmm. What HAS Margo been up to now?" So I clicked on the link to Inner Margolia.


Margo has a new picture of herself there. She is ... smiling... It is a deeply, DEEPLY disturbing photo.

And my eyes are still bleeding.

Posted by: MarkL at August 10, 2004 at 08:24 PM

Bravo to secrt squirrel for her knowledge of Henry James/Benji Britten.

Posted by: stuart at August 10, 2004 at 09:05 PM

Slimy, snake-in-the-grass, forked-tongue Bob Ellis, Australia's answer to Gollum.

I thought he disappeared down some crack of doom years ago.

Obviously not.

Posted by: ilibcc at August 10, 2004 at 11:10 PM

How should a journalist respond to this pearl of wisdom...?

It was a worthless scum journalist who prompted this statement, with a question like, "What does tribal sovereignty mean in the 21st century?"

Bush's response does suck. What he should have said was, "More casinos."

Posted by: Angie Schultz at August 11, 2004 at 01:13 AM


Re 'tribal sovereignty meaning just that', to paraphrase Bush's salient point to a roomful of hostile journos:

Bush was asked what tribal sovereignty is and not which issues specifically would be impacted by it. Bush may look dumb to some for giving a simple answer, but maybe he was pointing out how inanely the question was worded by a "professional" wordsmith. You see, that's the diabolical master of the universe side of Bush we may have had a glimpse of.

Could be. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Posted by: c at August 11, 2004 at 01:37 AM

OK, Angie's version is better. She actually looked up the question! And she should be a script writer for our wonderful but beleaguered Bush. Great answer!

Posted by: c at August 11, 2004 at 01:40 AM

Nailing jelly to the wall doesn't work, but sometimes if you use a big enough hammer it's fun to watch the splashes... or what is Margo for?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 11, 2004 at 01:49 AM

I've done the same thing myself (given a "duh!" Mr. Obvious type of answer to one of those questions.) We had a meeting last week about this website we're supposed to use run orders and track jobs instead of the old-fashioned phone/dead-tree method. To an explanation of how this system was "based on the internet," we were asked, "So what does that mean?" I couldn't help it, and piped up: "it means everything is on the internet."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 11, 2004 at 03:09 AM

"...and I'd just like to how much we admire you people for you god-given ability to survive in whatever worthless hell-hole we put you in!"

Posted by: mojo at August 11, 2004 at 03:53 AM

I just want to say that I highly admire the phrase

'the "blokey" culture of mateship'

in The Age item. It's just fun to say!

Posted by: Ted at August 11, 2004 at 09:51 AM