Pollyannomymous
In a post today on CommentisFree, Polly writes of people who criticise her anonymously:
Tell me something else, how many of you bother to buy the Guardian? Here we are, the only non-profit paper with no megalomaniac owner, like all newspapers in need of paying readers at a time when the press is in decline.Given that the paper loses money and the website makes money, I would be positively encouraging the bloggers and discouraging people from buying the paper. But then I am a sucker for what Polly calls "Adam Smith's hidden hand of profit" and the rest of us call the invisible hand.
Incidentally, I think the broad swipe of today's article, lumping together people who quibble with Polly's gift for inaccurate precis with people who bombard her with ad hominem abuse quite an underhand attempt to deflect criticism.
10 comments:
Where can I read in Adam Smith's writings about the 'hidden' or 'invisible' hand?
Could it be the work of misogynists? Polly doesn't definitely say it is, but drops in a mention, just to plant the thought in our minds.
Whatever the motivation, it certainly ain't justified.
Clever Polly.
Keep up the excellent work here.
Well said, check out Devils Kitchen
http://devilskitchen.blogspot.com/2006/05/poor-polly-snaps.html
He has done a wonderfull bit on Polly.
Anonymous -- er, his books. Try the Wealth of Nations, though myself I prefer the Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Really enjoying this new blog - whether it'll puncture her massive ego or drill any sense into her fucking stupid head is anyone's guess, but it's a terrific idea and I wish you good luck sir.
Polly put the kettle on, the night is young and this brilliant blogger ain't half done with you yet.
Even the quote is a classic Pollyism - what about the Observer?
Roll on the next set of inane whitterings by Polly about the evils of the Tories and how spiffingly good the Zanu New Labour party are.
She almost makes it to easy to abuse the poor woman.
"Given that the paper loses money and the website makes money, I would be positively encouraging the bloggers and discouraging people from buying the paper."
What an idiotic comment! Without the paper there would be no website.
How would discouraging people from buying the paper help them make money? Your logic is weird - Adam Smith my ar**! You should start checking YOUR facts.
Apart from the Daily Telegraph all the quality press lose money, the Times loses £47m a year.
Neil --
It would be interesting to see if the website could exist without the paper. I'm not sure it would be wholly impossible. There are some interesting internet-only publications which could serve as models.
Clearly the website would struggle without the newspaper's content, but that is a different point.
And where has Adam Smith been putting his invisible hand now?
Post a Comment