And they’re surprised that newspaper subscriptions are plummeting?

Bob Ellis wrote a steaming pile of excrement on The Drum yesterday. I’m not going to link to it because I don’t want my blog to catch whatever disgusting brain-disease Mr. Ellis seems to suffer from. You can google it if you must. (I wouldn’t recommend reading it if you’ve just eaten. Or if you do, at least cover your computer and keyboard with a layer of protective plastic to ward off your gag reflex).

Two good things, however, have come of this:

1)  It’s finally cinched my decision to stop wasting time with the Sydney Morning Herald. Can someone recommend for me a good source of Australian/international news? (Apart from The Conversation, naturally!)

[Edit – in my sleep-addled state I somehow managed to conflate the ABC with the SMH?? Um. Sheepish. But the SMH also use trollumnists, so I guess my question generally stands.]

2) I have picked up the word ‘trollumnist’ from The News With Nipples (I definitely recommend reading this for a summary of the nauseating Ellis piece – spare yourself the pain of the original). I shall now gleefully incorporate it into everyday conversation. Where has this piece of terminology been all my life?!

3) I foresee copious uses of the ‘Fail’ category in my wee little blog’s future.


5 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Nick Vaccari
    Jul 18, 2011 @ 22:53:50

    Putting aside the fact that a piece published by the ABC has ‘clinched’ your decision to part ways with the SMH (which incidentally is my pick for news)…

    Let me first quote one of the comments that I think best sums it up:
    “Given that all our laws against inappropriate sexual contact have [failed to prevent it], perhaps it would be fairer to say that our laws are not yet strong enough.”
    said with a mild hint of understatement…

    That’s to let you know which side I come down on so you hopefully don’t kill me as I go on to point out one of Ellis’s key points that I happen to agree with…

    The attention and focus given to incidents like many of those mentioned in the the article is unjustifiable. He is asking us to consider the scale of the crime compared to the attention/punishment it receives. When a woman is raped it is a serious crime that deserves the full weight of the law and every penalty that entails. But when a misogynistic comment or an affair draws the same media attention, time in court and public outrage then the system is clearly failing.


  2. Jen
    Jul 18, 2011 @ 23:11:26

    The problem is that he is lumping rape and paedophilia together with misogynistic comments and affairs, and suggesting that we should ignore all of these problems if the man involved is ‘important’ enough. Nowhere in the article did he suggest that the attention and focus should be proportionate to the crime. His key point seemed to be only that the outrage should be proportionate to the ‘importance’ of the man. (Although it’s been a while since I’ve read the article, and since I don’t feel like developing nausea tonight I’m not going to put myself through reading it again…)

    From the very title of his piece, he’s asking “Has Feminism Gone Too Far?”

    Feminism has nothing at all to do with anything that he writes about, and yet he seems to be trying to attack it. It is baffling and strange and I’m pretty sure the author is suffering from senility. O_o


  3. Nick Vaccari
    Jul 22, 2011 @ 21:36:12

    Your quote:
    “Nowhere in the article did he suggest that the attention and focus should be proportionate to the crime”

    His quotes:
    “Are men too harshly treated for what men have always done, trying it on, attempting foreplay, rolling bedroom eyes and murmuring lewdly”

    “But, in the new world, Strauss-Kahn and Mark McInnes, who was faced a $37 million law suit, for unconsensual groping, are ruined……And it is not fair”

    So I disagree with you, I think it’s a significant and valid point.

    Understandably, the attention and focus is much higher when the individuals involved hold prominent positions (are ‘important’) within society, thus why these examples are used. Obviously his point is that the attention and focus ruins the careers of those involved and that this should not be the case.

    (He arguably blames feminism for the increased persecution of these crimes, correctly or otherwise is I think largely unimportant. ‘Cleverly provocative’ perhaps?)

    Several of the individuals named are involved or alleged to be involved in rape and pederasty and I completely agree with you that they should not be mentioned in the same article and they confuse the issue. However I think its worth noting that those alleged of such crimes should not receive career destroying attention prior to their guilt being established (though I only agree with this point in principle since in reality the court system is pathetically slow and delaying repercussions indefinitely is not a better solution. But I won’t go on to bore you with my impressions of the woefully cumbersome legal system).


  4. Jen
    Jul 23, 2011 @ 19:59:32

    Please tell me you’re just commenting to get a rise out of me and you don’t honestly believe that Bob Ellis was being “cleverly provocative” with that article…


  5. Nick Vaccari
    Jul 27, 2011 @ 19:34:34

    The article has already provoked more than enough reaction all by itself, I’m just trying to draw out some constructive discussion from it by focusing on a point I agree with rather than what I disagree with.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s