Prev
Next

Where’s Bob Brown? He’s campaigning, just on the web

Sophie Trevitt

by Sophie Trevitt

10 Aug 05:45am

Must Reads

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it - this is a caption

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

180

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment - this is a caption

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

27

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest - this is a caption

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

3

Filed under: Bob Brown, Election 2010, Greens, Internet, Politics, Social Media, The Greens

45 comments

I sent a rather indignant email to Bob Brown the other day. I followed it up with an equally frustrated voicemail.

And I say to @Australia ... Greens leader Bob Brown

Essentially, I berated him for not being the inspirational and credible figurehead that he has been for the environmental movement for decades. I questioned his lack of visibility in an election that arguably presents one of the most monumental and significant chances the Greens have had of becoming a very powerful political force.

Senator Christine Milne’s media spokesperson Tim Hollo replied to my accusations (charitably also acknowledging that he understood my frustrations) with the simple question: “Why is the media complaining about the fluff and nonsense and policy vacuum of this election campaign, talking about the Greens having the potential to hold balance of power but completely ignoring the Greens’ policy launches?”

Indeed. Why has the mainstream media seemingly developed a united front in ignoring the third party contender this election?

Erin Farley (Brown’s media spokesperson) offered an interesting perspective. She suggested that perhaps what has the media running scared is the public shift away from the limited news we can find in mainstream media and a turn towards online and social media where people can get the news they want, on the issues that they are interested in.

Possibly very true.

According to comscore certainly our Twitter, Facebook and online media consumption has soared since 2008. Similarly, mUmbRELLA concluded from Neilsen data that as of January 2010 Australians are the most prolific users of social-media globally. The Greens have seized this trend and have an active online presence.

There are a number of questions, though, that remain unanswered.

How many of these social media-users are using these forms of media to get information about news and politics?

How is this going to affect election-campaigning in the future if the mainstream media no longer has an iron-fist hold on what types of information we can access?

And, is this shift really as dramatic as perhaps it seems on first glance? Or are these different forms of media merely catering to already established (and politically aligned) audiences?

We know that voters in the 18 – 35 bracket tend to vote more progressively than the older brackets. We also know that they are the biggest users of social media. So perhaps rather than speaking to new audiences, this shift in information-dispersal is merely talking to the same audience in a different form?

It’s hard to know, but if the use of online and social media continues to escalate and permeate other age brackets then under-represented parties and views have a much better chance at reaching their target audience.

And that can only be a good thing.

So I guess I’ll lay off the Greens and let them get back to tweeting and Facebook-stalking their constituents, and hope that one day soon the mainstream media hops on the bandwagon that’s rapidly realising there is a whole lot more information out there than they’re making out.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
223The world puzzles over Australia's Prime Minister

45 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Pelle says:

      06:53am | 10/08/10

      As a practising artist allow me to pass on a colour mixing tip:
      GREEN + RED = BROWN. Try it if you don’t believe me.
      What more could I say, it sums up the Party well.

      Reply

    • the apologist says:

      08:34am | 10/08/10

      ha! nice.

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:07am | 10/08/10

      @ Pelle

      Could somebody please use the watermelon analogy again?  It’s equally original, and twice as insightful!

    • stephen says:

      06:27pm | 10/08/10

      Fer Bob Brown, use the lemon analogy.

    • Russell says:

      07:21am | 10/08/10

      Social media users and bloggers are generally politically engaged. They also (mostly) participate in dialogues with the like-minded. Post a story about the Greens on Punch, and 80% of the comments will be anti-Greens. On Fairfax’s or ABCs sites, the proportion will be reversed. They are not effective in political campaigns, no one will be changing their minds

      However, unengaged and swinging voters do browse through the print media, and often do stop and read. I disagree that The Greens are not getting coverage there. I have read two long and prominent stories about the Greens recently, both in the weekend press. One was “The Watermelon party” in the SMH, the other in Saturday’s Australian, “Greens house extends but threatens to divide”.

      Neither story was critical but both mentioned the Greens “steady state economy” (no growth) model, but neither pursued its (dire) ramifications. But it was enough. Any Greens voter reading and understanding what this means would have changed their minds. In a flash!

      Reply

    • Sophie Trevitt says:

      09:29am | 10/08/10

      Thanks Russell, I guess that’s what I was sort of thinking of towards the end - what audiences consume what forms of media. And you’re very right about the Punch, ABC etc. divisions.

      Also correct that recently the Greens have been getting a bit more coverage, which is excellent, still very clear though that this is a two-horse race and the Greens proportionately aren’t getting the same coverage.

      Thanks for comment and insight.

    • given the colour a bad name says:

      06:05pm | 10/08/10

      The Greens will never make a difference as a political party in their own right,infact the will be lucky to hold what they have this time around,just a spoiler vote with insipid rhetoric,labor vote by default and losing any relevance and simply not important

    • Adam Diver says:

      07:55am | 10/08/10

      I would imagine the greens would not want many of thier policies held to scrutiny by the MSM. I assume the uneducated, the uninterested and the unispired usually lodge a protest vote for the greens for thier distinct lack of visibility.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:09am | 10/08/10

      Adam, the ‘MSM’ don’t talk about Greens policies because nobody wants to call a fight with more than two in the ring.  It’s pure laziness.

    • Andrew says:

      11:59am | 10/08/10

      Adam I’d love to know what policies you think COULDN’T be held to scrutiny. The Greens policies have all been fully costed and detailed, as opposed to the coalition’s policies. If you don’t want public transport, better infrastructure and better access to public health and public schools, fine, but don’t accuse them of having policies they don’t want scrutinised by the media. And learn how to spell “their”.

    • Jason CR says:

      01:19pm | 10/08/10

      Agree Adam

      It’s also easy to vote Greens when you are at university, live at home without a mortgage or fail to understand the costs of living.
      Send an idiot to uni, you get an educated idiot.

    • DocBud says:

      01:29pm | 10/08/10

      Could you provide a link to these fully costed policies, Andrew?

      Policies like:

      “abolish fees for educational services at public universities for Australian students and forgive HECS debts and FEE-HELP debt incurred at public universities.”

      “simplify the system of targeted pensions and allowances into a universal guaranteed adequate income (GAI) scheme.”

      “ensure that renewable electricity provides 30% of national demand by 2020 by increasing the renewable energy target (RET) and by introducing measures such as feed-in tariffs and regulations to support a range of prospective new renewable energy technologies.”

      “raise the rail network to a standard which enables the operation of fast freight and passenger trains, including between mainland capital cities.”

      “develop a national housing plan and significantly increase funding to public and community housing.”

      ‘And learn how to spell “their”.’ Bit unnecessary, maybe you should learn how to punctuate the vocative case and about possessive apostrophes.

    • Andrew says:

      05:18pm | 10/08/10

      where did I mispronounce??? Good one, DocBud. If you want policy details, checking the website might be a start. And the libs have refused to provide details on how the bulk of their policies are to be costed, funded or detailed. They are not fit to govern.

    • DocBud says:

      11:16pm | 11/08/10

      Where did I say you mispronounced, Andrew? I pointed out that you can’t punctuate the vocative case (try Adam, I’d love) and your lack of a possessive apostrophe (Greens’ policies). You could also try starting sentences with a capital letter. You started throwing the stones at Adam, I was just pointing out that you live in a glasshouse.

      Quite clearly I have tried the website, hence my direct quotes of Greens’ policies, but what I cannot find is the costings that you claimed have been carried out, so please, provide the link. The libs are irrelevent to this discussion, I’m just asking you to justify your assertions.

    • Paddy says:

      08:26am | 10/08/10

      So caring for our environment (this also means a population policy) - the very thing that actually makes Australia unique is akin to being a communist? Hmm back to school with those that think that.
      The day will come very soon when Green politics takes its rightful place. How can the Greens get their views heard in a Murdoch run Liberal Party machine? A machine that preys on the fear of fools and panders to the money hungry greedy elite.
      The Greens will be a political force very soon. The only Party which truly represents what is unique about this nation.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:17am | 10/08/10

      @ Paddy

      To some extent the Greens have been successful in getting policies out there - but through the ALP (usually) picking up the issues when the Greens start getting traction.  Ten years ago the major parties were laughing at the notion that climate change could be a top ten election issue!  I’m not saying the Greens alone are responsible for pushing it to the forefront, but they played a significant part in keeping the issue in the public consciousness in this country. 

      The Greens will never form a government in Australia (except as a minority partner in a coalition) because their popular policies - and then votes - will be nabbed by the majors.

    • iansand says:

      04:09pm | 10/08/10

      Steely Dan - That is exactly why I sometimes voted Green before they had any chance of getting elected.  Sending a message tpo the majors that environmental issues could win votes.  I stopped voting for them when they had a show of winning a seat.  That would have been irresponsible.

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      08:33am | 10/08/10

      ‘the inspirational and credible figurehead ‘!!!  I’m sorry I did laugh out loud when I read that line.  Seriously, no made up ‘lol’ in internet speak, a real belly laugh.  Bob Brown is a sleeping pill who gets elected only by having the smallest Senate quota in Australia and I predict that the Greens will not form the government in Australia in my lifetime.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      10:27am | 10/08/10

      Some of us, Nigel, prefer a leader to be a leader, a grown-up human being, as opposed to a clown or entertainer like the numpties we see about us in the major parties - including but not limited to Abbott, Costello, Tuckey, Pyne, Downer, Shrek, Bishop (“You’re a nordy boy!”, Latham and the list goes on.
      I’m sorry Brown doesn’t do card tricks or a dog act but then again many of us would prefer to vote on policies rather than entertainment value. You are a victim of the tabloid and commercial TV dumbing-down of discourse.

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      11:00am | 10/08/10

      Sorry Helen, I’m not a ‘victim of the tabloid and commercial TV dumbing-down of discourse’, sadly I’m one of those political tragics who is well versed in party policy including that of The Greens with their socialist utopian view of the world.

      I admit I had a little tongue in cheek when I suggested that Bob Brown is a sleeping pill - I don’t expect card tricks - but I do expect policy settings that will benefit Australia and Australians, not those that will send us into a spiral towards the stone age.  The Greens will never form a Government in Australia in my lifetime, and if they ever get close I guarantee their policies will start to adopt the tinge of consensus that colours both Labor and Liberal policies in order to govern.

    • the apologist says:

      08:48am | 10/08/10

      the thing that really annoys me about media coverage (whether online, mainstream, whatever) is the fact that the perspectives and positions informing the coverage - which are always there, generally unstated and unrecognised - are rarely questioned and probed meaningfully by the media or the readers.

      All you tend to get are those who are already sold out on the worldview of those propagating and publishing (e.g. the Greens) or those who are sold out on some other view of reality who are frustrated by whatever line is being pushed.

      Speaking of Bob Brown, classic example of this in a recent Greens media release on the issue of same sex marriage. All you get is the Greens talking about how ‘draconian’ and unthinkable it is to deny same sex marriage without even considering that there are other perspectives on the issue (thereby dismissing them) - all the while arguing on the assumption that their subjective perspective on events is the only legit version. And they don’t even attempt to justify their reasoning.

      Be nice if there was meaningful engagement on issues in the media.

      Anyways, rant over.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:12am | 10/08/10

      @ the apologist

      “All you get is the Greens talking about how ‘draconian’ and unthinkable it is to deny same sex marriage without even considering that there are other perspectives on the issue (thereby dismissing them)”
      Of course they know there are other perspectives - and they don’t agree with them. 

      “.... And they don’t even attempt to justify their reasoning.”
      They do justify their reasoning.  All Australians are considered equal with respect to the law until somebody can prove an exception.

    • the apologist says:

      01:07pm | 10/08/10

      @Dan: is their perspective on same sex marriage facts based, carefully reasoned out? they tout it like it is…  some believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, what makes their opinion any more wrong than the Greens? how can you discriminate between which opinion is right and which is wrong?

      What exactly do you mean by all Australians being considered equal by the law? It seems to be a sweeping statement that doesn’t actually say anything much.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:58pm | 10/08/10

      @ the apologist

      “is their perspective on same sex marriage facts based, carefully reasoned out? they tout it like it is…” 
      Yes.  If you disagree, the onus is on you to show that it isn’t.

      “some believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, what makes their opinion any more wrong than the Greens? how can you discriminate between which opinion is right and which is wrong?”
      The belief that something is morally wrong is insufficient to outlaw it.  People who believe that gay marriage is immoral have the right not to get married to someone of the opposite sex.  You have to demonstrate that there is some practical reason to discriminate before you do it.

      “What exactly do you mean by all Australians being considered equal by the law? It seems to be a sweeping statement that doesn’t actually say anything much. “
      I think it says a heck of a lot!  The state should not discriminate between people for their race, sex, religion, sexual preference, age, choice of footwear etc.  Exceptions and qualifications exist of course, but the assumption is that each person is equal to another until a reason for an exception is accepted (eg. toddlers shouldn’t get drivers’ licences).

      Bans on gay marriage should (and will, in time) go the same way as bans on indigenous voting.  Churches can keep all the marriage bans they want, but this is the government we’re talking about.

    • the apologist says:

      02:42pm | 10/08/10

      Hmmmm. So if their perspective on marriage (and presumably yours) is facts based, you won’t mind telling me what facts such a position is based on?
      Re equality: plenty of people are discriminated for their sexual preferences. Necrophiliacs for instance. Beastiality is outlawed. Why shouldn’t they have the right to equal treatment and opportunity to express their sexuality? Who’s to decide what get’s discriminated and what doesn’t? (whether it’s sexuality, religion, or any other lifestyle or action) and on what grounds? (factual or otherwise)

    • the apologist says:

      03:38pm | 10/08/10

      Dan, can you please tell me what facts the Greens position is based on?

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:29pm | 10/08/10

      @ the apologist

      “Hmmmm. So if their perspective on marriage (and presumably yours) is facts based, you won’t mind telling me what facts such a position is based on?”
      Gay Australians are people who are not given the same rights as others.  Fact.  If you want to say they’re discriminated against for good reason, you can try and present your case.

      “plenty of people are discriminated for their sexual preferences… Why shouldn’t they have the right to equal treatment and opportunity to express their sexuality?”
      I already addressed this when I spoke about exceptions existing.  Lawmakers have to demonstrate the negative impacts of an action before they outlaw it.  Who is harmed by a gay couple getting married?
      “Who’s to decide what get’s discriminated and what doesn’t?”
      The government.  They make the laws, apologist.

    • Jazz says:

      10:36pm | 10/08/10

      Dan, what about the rights of heterosexuals for whom marriage is very important?  Why should they have to watch it be re-shaped and manipulated by the those who only want it because they never lost the childish drive to make a scene every time they were told they couldn’t have something?  Gays have fought persecution and descrimination for decades.  Now they suddenly find a whole new wave of what they call “homophobia”, not because they’re gay, but because they’re pissing us off.  My message to gays is, live and let live.  I don’t care what you do.  But marriage isn’t yours and it never will be.  It’s between a man and a woman.  I’m part of that contract and this time, what you do does affect me.  It affects the definition of a major institution in my life.  In the name of peace, leave it alone, stop whinging, and seek an alternative.

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:10am | 12/08/10

      @ Jazz

      “Dan, what about the rights of heterosexuals for whom marriage is very important?”
      You’re kidding, right?  How does somebody else’s marriage affect yours or mine?  When a legally married person kills their spouse, it’s terrible, but my marriage is completely unaffected by that tragic news.  If the ultimate betrayal of that contract doesn’t affect you or I, how will gay marriage affect us?

      “Why should they have to watch it be re-shaped and manipulated by the those who only want it because they never lost the childish drive to make a scene every time they were told they couldn’t have something?”
      Wow.  Who needs arguments when there’s stereotypes?

      “My message to gays is, live and let live.  I don’t care what you do.  But marriage isn’t yours and it never will be.  It’s between a man and a woman.”
      That’s not an argument either.  That’s stating a current legal definition.  If you actually wanted to ‘live and let live’, you’d let people change the legal definition so they can be treated as regular citizens.

      “I’m part of that contract and this time, what you do does affect me.”
      Wrong.  Your legal marriage contract is between you and your partner.  That won’t change with a change of the law.  You won’t be forced to marry somebody else.  You won’t be forced to do anything.  This doesn’t affect you at all.

      Gays want to have their marriages recognised as such, and you fall to the floor kicking and screaming that it hurts your marriage?  And you have the gall to say that gays have a persecution complex?

    • Rod says:

      09:10am | 10/08/10

      He is out at La Trobe Uni tomorrow (11th August at 12 noon, Union Hall) if you want to hear him, Sophie.

      Pretty hard to get “visibility” when three quarters of Australia’s political journos are running around like chooks with their heads cut off trying to “catch out” Gillard with vacuous questions about Rudd!  Thoughtful responses of the type that Brown tends to trade in just don’t fit with the capabilities of most of the current media scrum.

      Reply

    • Foodie says:

      09:13am | 10/08/10

      If the Greens are the Watermelons, the Liberals are the Fruitcake and Labor is now the Fruit Salad.  An interesting mixture if thee is a hung parliament.

      Reply

    • Denny Crane says:

      09:44am | 10/08/10

      Why the greens like social media, is because then they dont have to answer questions re the policy they have.

      The greens believe in climate change - fiction
      They want know coal - country broke
      The alternate to coal is nuclear - they dont want this

      Vote for greens and see prices rise, that why they are not a real party and see thre chances in the senate, heaven help Australia should greens get balance of power

      Reply

    • DocBud says:

      10:37am | 10/08/10

      When I hear people say they have half-a-mind (you wouldn’t think it if you had a full mind) to vote Green, I ask them if they have read their manifesto. Every time the answer is no. The Greens have a massive spending programme but will destroy the industry needed to pay for it. So-called green jobs cost taxpayer money, they don’t add to the kitty. Want to see the consequences of a green economy, look at California:

      http://www.newgeography.com/content/001712-the-golden-state’s-war-itself

      “It’s sad to consider the greens such an impediment to social and economic health. Historically, California did an enviable job in traditional approaches to conservation—protecting its coastline, preserving water and air resources, and turning large tracts of land into state parks. But much like the public-sector unions, California’s environmental movement has become so powerful that it feels free to push its agenda without regard for collateral damage done to the state’s economy and people.”

      “Blessed with resources of topography, climate, and human skill, California does not need to continue its trajectory from global paragon to planetary laughingstock.” You could substitute Australia for California if the Greens got power.

      “The state’s once-vaunted power system routinely experiences summer brownouts; water supplies remain uncertain, thanks to environmental legislation and a reluctance to make new investments.”

      There are those who would like to take Australia along such a path, but I’m sure the majority of Australians have no wish to see soaring electricity and commodity prices, and massive job losses in the name of the green ideology. For the sake of Green preferences, Labor will concede some jobs and accept some price rises. We little people will pay a price for Julia’s re-election.

      Reply

    • joshgtv says:

      01:01pm | 10/08/10

      Bud, how many ALP or Coalition voters do you think have read their party’s manifesto?

    • The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

      10:55am | 10/08/10

      @ Paddy

      the Greens population policy includes massive immigration based on climate change - an as yet unproved, unmeasured amorphous concept that they happen to accept as gospel. So you will excuse me if I don’t appear to get too excited at the prospect of filling the place with yet more welfare cases.

      Reply

    • Duff says:

      11:00am | 10/08/10

      The print media in Australia is dominated by the Murdoch press who are pro-Liberal.  From their perspective, the better the Greens do, the better it is for the Libs because the Greens shift votes away from Labor.  That’s why the Murdoch press hasn’t been attacking them very much (as they surely will after the election if the Libs get up).  I also think that Bob Brown is aware of this and is happy to keep a low profile rather than risk putting people off by spruiking some of his more radical policies.  This time it is all about gaining seats in the Senate for the Greens.  Environmental issues and the like are taking a backseat to pure politics (which is why we don’t have an ETS and likely never will).

      Reply

    • Bruce says:

      11:15am | 10/08/10

      I suggest no one vote for the greens. A one agenda party with no substance, and would be happy to see us all back in the 1890’s warming our hands around a candle and knitting jumpers while dad chops fire wood. Your vote is better off with the Liberals or ALP.  If your not happy get stuck into your local member.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:23am | 10/08/10

      @ Bruce

      ” A one agenda party”
      Like the ALP, whose one agenda is IR reform?  Come on, Bruce.  You’ve got to try harder than that.

      “Your vote is better off with the Liberals or ALP”
      Ever heard of the term ‘preferences’, Bruce?

    • stephen says:

      06:48pm | 10/08/10

      Agreed. They are a ‘vision’ party. One vision. Children only play cartwheels (windmills ?) at school and their parents are infantile sitting cross-legged on grass tugging on fairy-wings ‘she loves me she loves me not, she loves me she loves me not…’
      They have no plans to assist developing nations, nor any ideas on settling of the economic difficulties of those nations. No ideas, say, on re-settling many Palestinians to, possibly, Jordan. (No etceteras’ either).
      Greens don’t dirty their hands. The suspect a utopia is just around the corner, and they ignore that there are too many serious things goin on in the world, for us to return to amphibianism. Any vote for them is a vote for a fool’s paradise.

    • E says:

      12:48pm | 10/08/10

      I used to be a member of the greens, and I can tell you, they are emotionally driven, holier than thou, cryptofacists. The ‘deep green’ faction want everyone to live like cavement (i.e. ferals but wihtout the dole) and dont seem to realise that their policies would lead to massive starvation globally.
      The ‘blue greens’ are ok, they seek a balance between industry and protection of the environment, but really they would do better joinng one of the majors.
      An example is the inherent conflict between ‘no dams’ and ‘unlimited immigration’, the combination of which leads to ‘lower standards of living’. But tell this to them and they scream racist.
      The Deep Greens are dangerous crypto facists who think they know better than everyone, and that people should be forced to a lower standard of living, by violent means if required.
      Like all left parties, many of their ideas are somewhat emotionally satisfying at face value, but deeper analysis unearths huge unintended consequences and lack of practicality. Luckily for them most Greenies are not deep thinkers.

      Reply

    • It's easy being green says:

      02:41pm | 10/08/10

      All the parties have factions, who’d have thunk it?

    • Cry Freedom says:

      02:05pm | 11/08/10

      “Most Greenies are not deep thinker”
      I would say most Greenies have probably thought deeper that the shallow puddle that you mind can think.
      It was just a passing thought just a thought.

    • Jim says:

      12:33am | 11/08/10

      Bruce, Dad won’t be chopping firewood because log fires create far too much in the way of carbon emissions. I have no idea what they intend us to use to keep warm in the winter especially out in areas where there is no gas or electricity.  Of course the prices of those two commodities will skyrocket so we shall all leave NSW, Vic and Tassie for warmer regions. In the meantime say goodbye to your wood fired pizza and charcoal chicken.

      Reply

    • P. Darvio says:

      01:10pm | 11/08/10

      The only genuine policy the Greens have is that people (men and women) should be allowed to take their babies into parliament on sitting days becaue that’s the only policy they have actually tried to put into practice.

      Reply

    • Cry Freedom says:

      02:21pm | 11/08/10

      Has anyone considered that the MSM was bought to secure more favorable coverage without actually being an outright bribe?

      http://www.itnews.com.au/News/166670,govt-offers-220m-in-tv-rebates.aspx

      Due to the Greens not having the pool of funds that the Labor Party splash around not the backing that the Liberals have they have embarked on a low cost and effective campaign using social media and other internet resources, and I would say setting the standard of an approachable political party.

      Oh and if your going to bag the Greens on policy, I would suggest you visit their home page before typing the crud I have read in this forum.

      Become informed, not just a parrot.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 28 May 12 12:01AM

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 27 May 12 10:49PM

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:12PM

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:03PM

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed