<< COMICAL BUMBLER MISSPEAKS AGAIN ~ MAIN ~ UNDERSTANDING OF THE WHYING >>
WAYNE NO LONGER UNCOMFORTABLE
Occasional correspondent Wayne Sanderson became upset a year or so ago when I described him in unflattering terms:
Blair described me as a “fellow Howard-hater” along with Margo Kingston, Jon Faine, Terry Lane and Phillip Adams. For the record, I do not bear intense political animus towards Prime Minister John Howard and I challenge Blair to point to anything I have written that could justify this statement.
Well, there is his recent line about Howard being a grovelling, obsequious jellyback. Wayne continued:
Further, Blair knows from discussions with me that I am personally uncomfortable with the style of intensely personal and subjective journalism practised by Kingston and that it is not my professional approach ... By any professional standard, to say nothing of common decency, I am owed an apology and retraction by Blair.
Looks like Wayne has gotten over his personal discomfort with Margo, seeing as he’s now lodging at her site (and being paid for it). Wonder if he offered her an apology and retraction. You know, out of common decency.
Only The News That’s Fit To Read
The World’s Best Selected For YouOh, that’s just too precious.
Yes you poor dumb Margolians, you can’t be trusted to gather your own news resources, we will give you the news that is fit for you to read. We will select your reading material - there will be a quiz.
If Margoyle wanted up to date news on her site why doesn’t she link to the major news web sites and/or take a free syndicated feed?
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 10 06 at 04:26 PM • permalinkUgh, Wayne comes from West End (when he wrote that letter to The Bulletin anyway), which is about as hand-wringingly socialist as Brisbane gets. I’ve heard stories of West Enders pissing on bank ATMs as part of some kind of anti-corporate tirade.
At the last federal election, some stupid hippies were also threatening physical violence to Liberal booth workers (to the point where I had refugees coming to the booth where I was working suffering all kinds of mental anguish).
Wayne must love living in a suburb with so much common decency.
#2 Nora, Somebody that pays $30K odd for bolding and thinks a computer monitor is a TV is hardly going to know what a syndicated feed is.
Sando is probably sitting over there at WD hoping Margo doesn’t read your post and start asking questions in fear it will do him out of some easy Margo dosh.Posted by Hank Reardon on 2005 10 06 at 06:50 PM • permalinkOf course he’s no longer uncomfortable. Money makes an excellent lubricant.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 06 at 08:37 PM • permalinkWell this little duck is not very happy or impressed with the so-called “ethics” of Webdiary.
On Sunday I forwarded Margo a very thoroughly researched article, and was told it would be published later in the week. Margo had first asked me to write something and to replace Darlene Taylor. Margo, Hamish, Kerri, and the gang were all very excited about its publication. That is, until they read it.
Once they realised I had trashed the new ABC program “Vulture” and analysed the Catharine Lumby versus George Pell spat, they ran. My article concluded by asking what processes could possibly be at work in Australian media that somebody as syntactically and grammatically-challenged as Lumby is published as an “expert” on art, literature, or the HSC syllabus. I also asked why it was OK for Lumby, Assoc. Prof of “Media Studies” to publish her ill-educated rants, yet Andrew Fraser gets sacked?
Since Sunday, not only have have banned me from contributing to Webdiary but Margo forwarded my article to Catharine Lumby, who took the surely unprecedented step of trashing me in “The Age” the following day.
I was only told about Lumby’s spray on Wednesday morning. To be frank, I am still quite stunned, and shocked, that this sort of behaviour goes on. That a former head of a top-flight broadsheet’s politics desk and a tenured Professor of Media Studies could engage in this sort of carry-on is just incredible, even to this little duck, and I thought ‘d seen a lot!While I am sure that Margo, Catharine and their powerful friends will be able to make even more money out of my work, I don’t have a very favourable view of their idea of “independent” journalism, let alone “ethics!”
The way that place manipulates the flow of posts is appalling. Any post that criticises any of the Green-lefty Howard-haters will either not be published, or published with a warning about “Webdiary’s ethics.” And trust me, I had quite a few criticisms about some of the inner-sanctum who are treated like Philosopher Kings/Queens!But whenever somebody wanted to have a go at me, they were given open slather. Is this behaviour typical? Am I getting all worked up over nothing?
Not Happy Margo!
Quote from WD on the “launch” of Daily Briefing on WD, notably, now rebranded as “WebDiary’s Daily Briefing”“
Love this idea of The Daily Briefing. I don’t know why anyone worries about so-called “left wing bias” on this site. Everyone gets something you never get on other newspapers including the excellent and reasonably balanced Guardian and Washington Post - as our Ed points to - and that is the right of reply. No-one who has a perceived “right-wing” voice ever gets silenced on here and that’s how it should be.
How more democratic can we get? MK’s Webdiary is the on-line newspaper of the future where everyone gets to participate.
Posted by: Michael de Angelos | 06/10/2005 5:45:01 PM
Now, there are only several dozen things wrong with this piece of masturbatory drivel from Mr de Angelos.
“the excellent and reasonably balanced Guardian”. LOL! de Angelos’ post is a put on right?
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 10 07 at 01:55 AM • permalinkIt has been published daily for almost 12 months now, and changes daily.
Wayne Sanderson, defending The Daily Briefing in Webdiary’s comments section, and showing why he and Margo are made for each other.
Yes, the conversion of Wayne to the MargO cult is complete - this from his “response”, as already referenced
<objective model of journalism is bunk</i></blockquote>
Wonder how long it will take before he loses all ability to spell, or write a grammatically correct sentence.
I noted, too, that his burning interests and mine have uncanny timing, as he also wrote:
and I think that global warming is THE great issue facing the planet (and that anyone who denies this simply has not been reading the respected literature and following the debate).
I was worrying about THAT great issue today as well and hope that Wayne picks up my contribution for his next daily, updated daily, daily brief that is the WD daily daily brief:
C K Hart
Are you ALSO a refugee from Margostan? I recognise your name from somewhere. :) I have now worked out that Margo is quite obviously a very unhinged person with a real Napoleon complex. How on earth can people such herself and Lumby constantly go on and on and ON about “ethics?” And then they cross-pollinate each others high “ethical” standards in various media across the country.
They sound like characters out of 1984! I suppose it’s not very surprising that both of them come from corporate law backgrounds.
What will be their next career move? Real estate agents? :))
#17 - Noelenet - I only came across the MargO cult in May this year, and started off by pointing out the them that their “guidelines” represented some of the worst most convoluted writing I had seen in a long time.
Other than that, I did contribute to a range of threads on WD, if the topic took my fancy (eg, NOT refugees, or cut & paste commission findings, etc, etc… yawn), or if people were being total dick-brains and I felt compelled to say something. However, after about three months of observation and participation it was horrifyingly clear that I would lose my mind if I kept reading WD. I don’t understand how any person could have participated for the entire five years that WD has been around – very scary stuff; must feel much like doggy years.
My objective assessment was that I was not learning anything, other than how repugnant the left can be, and how very unattractive was this public spectacle of MargO and her minions and sycophants, nor was I entertained, amused, edified, or changed, other than in a negative sense, by repeated exposure to the content and contributors to WD. When the “independence” move occurred, and the circumstances under which it was executed, my disgust was complete, with the redemptive door slammed closed.
“Refugee”? No, that would require me to have been resident for at least a year, or to have at least gone to the trouble of applying for a WD long term visitor visa. I didn’t hang around long enough to require either. FYI.
I am quite fond of some of the local blogs, discovered via the Blair forum, and make comments on some of them.
With educated filters engaged, the merger of TDB and Webdiary is a significant addition to my, and thinking Australian’s, essential OnLine information sources.
WTF? Dr Marky Mark Hayes doesn’t have a doctorate in English it would appear.
I don’t know what he means by ‘With educated filters engaged’ and that would be ‘thinking Australians’.
And speaking of which, thinking Australians are right here.
—NoraPosted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 10 07 at 05:35 AM • permalinkNoelenet,
You won’t be last to be chewed up and spat out by the Margonauts. My experience with WD only really came about as a result of being entertained by Tim Blairs links. The thing with WD is that you go there and witness the stupidity but then find a thread that on the face of it appears a great topic for blog debate.
What Margo and her “comments management” team do however is simply moderate the contributions to come to Margo’s general desired outcome. So her captive audience feel better because by and large throughout the thread, in their minds, they came out on top. Whenever you really nail an argument in favour of a right leaning perspective, it doesn’t get published despite the fact that not one of my unpublished contributions would have contravened the webdiary ethics.
I look upon Webdiary as a house of cards held together by sticky tape. It won’t last as Margo’s “webdiary ethics” are just one big croc to keep her disciples feeling committed and to make them feel they have some high and mighty purpose. I think Margo is being conned when I see she is paying people like Sanderson for that daily drivel but she deserves it because she is conning her readership with unbalanced censorship.Posted by Hank Reardon on 2005 10 07 at 06:17 AM • permalinkIn fairness, I found WD to be excellent for the abs and saved me having to do any crunches or leg lunges.
Seriously, on any day that I was fool-hardy enough to read WD, and worse still, whenever I plunged in with contributions, I would find myself so infuriated and anxious about what I was reading on the site that I would spend the entire day with my stomach muscles clenched.
So, for a good abs work-out, I suppose WD could be recommended. On the other hand, the most compelling reason that eventually led to me no longer reading & contributing to WD was because I was becoming worn out from having my muscles so tightly clenched all the time; plus, I felt that having an overwhelming urge to punch things was not an attractive quality to be developing at my age.
I used to particpate on webdairy in the first year of operation. It seemed a bit of an advance on usenet. But I would have to say that it rapidly spiralled in line with margo’s increasingly strange interpertation on the issues. By the time of September 11 2001 the ting had become a travesty/tragedy/take your pick. Then came MV Tampa piloted by a spineless Norwegian. Oh me oh my.
I probably have webdiary to thank for pushing me to the right….
#10 - Noelenet - don’t know how I missed this post. Only became aware of it because Mr EP linked to it at Darlene’s site. Holy cow Batman, that’s outrageous, by ANY standards!!! I am flummoxed, to say the least. Was The Age piece available online - do you have a URL?
Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word, now they have turned into nasty little clods of doggy-doo.
CK Hart
It’s so horribly true. It actually scared me a little bit. What I gave Margo is the first time I have ever submitted something for publication. The URL for Cathatrine Lumby’s piece is below. Sorry, but I’m not savvy enough yet to know how to make it a link. I am the “regular flaming” that Lumby refers to.
Take note of how Lumby develops her “argument.” The politics, ideology, and ethical chicanery are so blatant. I don’t know how she gets away with it!
Noelenet – I’m a bit slow sometimes; realized who you are, and recall that I did, on a couple of occasions jump in to support your opinions (can’t remember details). You were one of the handful of regulars in WD who were the recipients of steam-of-conscious abuse, all published, with no chiding from “eds” about ethics or abuse. I used to think you had extraordinary fortitude, given the way you were treated, especially given that the attacks were invariably personal, not argument driven. (I notice that Stuart Lord seems to be one of the few still hanging about for WD contributors to freely and vigorously denigrate. Many, many, others seem to have come to their senses and abandoned ship, following the independence move.)
The Lumby piece is an obscene misuse of her privileged position as someone with verbiage space in a major MSM newspaper. This does have a significant hallo effect, and raises the question of how often she (and other journalists) uses her allotted space for personal spite and vengeance, thinly dressed up in the guise of objective and intelligent social observation and commentary. Fucking hum bug!
Knowing the impetus for her piece, it exposes both her and Margo as deceitful, self-righteous, supercilious, immature selfish little brats, with nothing to offer the public. They can dress it up however they want, and rationalize it in whatever highfalutin manner they can muster, but it doesn’t change the fact that it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and smells like a duck – it’s a fucking duck.
If The Age had any morality they would decline to publish further submissions from Lumby, including letters to their editor.
I was banned because I poked fun at the resident moon pies on my own website- I attempted reasoned debate with the loons in a supposedly free forum, and because of witty japes and mild criticism made in an unrelated and mainly gag site, was banished to the gulag for not posting in good faith. Don’t know about real estate, but if Eric Honeker was still around they’d fit right in at the Stassi.
Margo talks a lot about ‘ethical standards’, but I suspect she uses them very much as a convenient way of filtering out comments she disagrees with. The most blatant example of this was the three-way between Margo, Imre Salusinzky, and Antonia Feitz (did I get her name right?)
I experienced it myself, when I entered a discussion about the Howard government’s proposed industrial relations changes. My first comment got through fine, but the other two comments were never published. Why? Well, they were not abusive, and did attacked no one, but (shock! horror!) I think I used my shortened blog name (TimT) instead of the full one (Tim Train) ...
I was arguing on Webdiary (mostly with the clearly deranged Marilyn Shepherd about migration law, something I was reasonably familiar with; the mouth-breathers were losing the argument, and used the heinous evidence of me mocking said site and its regulars on my own site as clear and obvious proof that I was only putting up a case at Margoritaville to cause trouble.
Partially true, but I was never rude, abusive or derogatory (even though such vitriol is well deserved), unlike the replies to my posts by the resident chorus of fruitcups.
I’d be concerned if anyone with an IQ bigger than their hat size took them seriously.Habib - you poor darling, haven’t kicked the habit of boldering names. And you know that Andrea has run out of tags, hence why some kind soul offered-up the use of some off-the-back-of-a-truck French accents.
I think the difficulty is that idiots can do a lot of damage. Your comment immediately bought to mind the quote: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men [and women] do nothing.” The same applies, I believe, to the triumph of stupidity.
Here’s the thread on which I was sent to the low-sodium salt mines.
See if you can find any villification or off-topic trolling by me- I was right as well.Hey, Habib, you’re important on that thread:
Bickford is part of an ‘alliance’ of bloggers that are targeting Webdiary. This stuff will be written about in the history books my grandchildren will read.
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 10 08 at 07:49 AM • permalink#18 and #23,
I agree, CK. After a (very short) while, posting at WD ceases to be stimulating or enjoyable, and just becomes irritating.
This is a complete random guess - but I swear most of them must be bloody depressed or something. Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying that to be cruel or callous about people, and I’m certainly not making light of it.
But it’s just they are just so damn negative, humourless and gloomy. The place seems to be overflowing with a kind of grim, bitter anger.
I think there’s only a certain amount of time a sensible person will expose themself to that.
Cripes Habib, you will be a dashing romantic figure in the history books fighting the forces of, well, whatever.
Who will you get to play you in the movie?
Don’t get that Bickford bloke, he’s too pretty and would distract attention from the importance of the story.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 10 08 at 06:06 PM • permalinkBy the way, I made a statement saying how I liked Paul’s blog and didn’t agree with his banning when it happened, but it was edited out when the statement appeared on the site.
It’s Margo’s site, but others committed greater sins than Paul and they were left to go on their merry way.
“We loves ya Paul, although we have reservations about Carl.”
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 10 08 at 06:13 PM • permalinkekb87 - I actually don’t think they are collectively or individually depressed. I have struggled with depression, among other things, since my teeanage years (too long ago to own up to, so we won’t count the years!), but I don’t think I’m humourless or a lunatic. (Well, okay, maybe the latter, sometimes, when it’s a full moon.)
ekb87 - did not take any offence, none at all.
Was really just pointing out that I didn’t believe all the medication and psycotheraphy in the world would help them, as the root cause seems far more to do with envy (of people with power, influence, intelligence, good looks, Prada handbags, and so on, and so forth) and a particularly invidious hatred of their own country, their own society, and their own way of life. A bit fucked up, but not generally symptoms of depression.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Might I also ask in the “interest of transparency” what business model Margo is using? With her full time paid journalist AND paying yet another Howard hater, Sanderson, where is the revenue? Soon we’ll have to report Margo to the public trustee to avoid her becoming (somewhat inevitably) destitute.