Can somebody tell me what that woman just said about me on Q&A?
She called you a misogynist and objectionable Bob. I’d get a transcript and seek legal advice to sue her. It’s gone nationwide and will harm your reputation.
Don’t sue Bob!
That would open the door for Tony Abbott to sue for being called a misogynist too.
“That woman” said you are a misogynist. “That woman” has a name, Bob…..Sarrah La Marquand.
Noticed a smirk on Turnbull’s face too.
I think the blond Sara from The Telegraph said that she will stop reading you because you are such a misogynist, or something on those lines.
There was also a tweet: now Bob Ellis will not be able to go to work in the morning.
This means that Sara has been reading BE in the past….
GO asked me has Bob really been that bad.
I said, no, I’m keeping him on straight and narrow.
( only kidding )
It was pretty strange but seemed to be implying bigoted commentary (that was the discussion context) but she used the term ‘misogyny’ I think… something like that. Bizarre.
(I hope [Sarra] hasn’t paid a year’s subscription in advance)
Above comments are accurate, Bob – try iView for the episode. It’s in the last 5 minutes.
It was good advertisement for Bob, what do they say about any publicity about being good….
Truly hilarious. But you should still sue her arse off.
QANDA was a tory show tonight. Doug Cameron squeezed out.
The Young Liberals seem to infest the audience.
Meh. No more than the Greenies usually seem to.
The ABC is supposed to be balanced….
Are you a young liberal Mr.Lee? ABC Qanda should not be a forum for insulting others. A transcript would be the way to go.
You mean like how Van usually addresses people with the utmost respect? LOL.
She was surprisingly well behaved tonight…
I thought that Van Badham, Doug and Andrew were all good tonight, the blond girl was irritating and even Malcolm is not the worst Liberal.
Agree, Helvi, those three were the best.
Did you see how Malcolm Turnbull did his best to play down and white-ant Murdoch’s influence during the election? As if it never happened or not worth remembering.
Didn’t watch the program, but partner was gobsmacked by it.
Le Marquand isn’t any old garden-variety rogue journo, but in raising in the power elite of Murdocracy:
“Associate Editor and columnist at The Daily Telegraph.”
She’s also been won of “Kochie’s Angels”, whatever on earth they’re supposed to be.
She’s a murdoch puppet. She pulled out the ‘misogynist’ card on Doug Cameron, when it was totally irrelevant to the discussion.
She seems a misandrist who I would call a borderline straw feminist.
It was said in the context of repealing the anti discrimination laws. She said you were a misogynist but that she would never take legal action against you because it would make you a martyr and give you more publicity.
She also that she has now stopped reading you and that she feels a lot better.
But to read you in the first place she would have had to actively seek you out. It suggests that reading you must have been some sort of habit or addiction.
Doug Cameron said it was all ‘bullshit’ about Bob Ellis and if she wanted to know about bigotry she should have grown up with him and his wife in Glasgow in the days of the Catholic/Protestant sectarianism.
As I recall, she called you a misogynist, and said you were one of most offensive writers in Australia. She also said she would never read anything you ever wrote, again. Check it out on i-view.
It was a dreadful performance by Turnbull as well, who calmly stated that Murdoch had no more influence on politics in Australia today, than he had when he had just a couple of newspapers.
True. The man is an underbite idiot!
Just a common or garden liar.
…but not as bad as Abbott.
Yes I dont Turnbull either. Just the money jamging in his pocket, that guy.
As the opinion editor for the Telegraph I think she would have had a lot of spare time in which to read Table Talk. She is obviously some kind of inverted admirer.
I don’t know why she should mentioned you during the bigotry issue on ‘Q and A’. I think she’s implanting pessimism to the public on national TV. She doesn’t know anything about you. Now, the whole nation might consider that you are a nasty bigot or something. I reckon she should apologise to you.
It was a free ad for Bob…
She has probably just quadrupled Bob’s readership.
Her name was Sarrah La Marquand,
Opinion Editor at the Daily Telegraph.
Her comments throughout were ‘mainstream Murdoch-ian’ , and in the context of discussion about the George Brandis bigotry debate, she provided an illustration, using your good self, and her comments which were very pointed.
She be put on national TV to get u bob who is that chick never heard of her before ????
Great compliment Bob. What I would not give for a mention on Q&A. I am still glowing with pride, walking tall, in the aftermath of last weeks F.I Kendall’s remark about being your ‘arse licker’.
She is probably angry that you have such a short, precise name Bob Ellis. She has to carry the name Sarrah La Marquand. Imagine all the incorrect variations on THAT name all the time.(In these comments tonight for example)
And she works for Murdoch.
And she was at the end of the table.
And she was desperate to be heard.
And (snigger) she was a very blonde blonde.
And her comments were so ‘personal’ she didn’t cover herself in glory.
She deserves the best of your writing in reply Bob, and I bet she will read it, even though she said she doesn’t read you any more.
Watch it and laugh. She deserves your best ridicule.
Tonight Turnbull said, calmly and with great deliberation, with his best statesman-like voice, that Murdoch had no more power or influence today in Australian politics than when he owned just a couple of newspapers.
Deluded? Abbott’s puppet? Dill? Alternative PM?
If you want have a Liberal PM, then of course Mal would be much better than the existing dill, Abbott. Seeing his Minister for Immigration makes grown up army blokes cry…
I could hardly watch the Four Corners tonight, Q&A was a bit of light relief…especially after the child abuse story on 7.30.
So you believe what he says about Murdoch’s influence? Interesting …
No, no, just that he would be better than Abbott, but then looking at the talent on offer, almost anyone would do… (but not Morrison or Brandis or Abetz.).
‘Why’for whom, ABbott, Abetz ,Morrison or Brandis ?
All unsuitable, surely you can come up with many ‘why nots’ as well yourself. you are not expecting me to do any lists…
I’m interested in why you think Turnbull would be better.
Just asking for a cogent argument, that’s all.
I find this this questioning totally silly, ask Meg, she might be a Liberal, I can hardly bear to talk about them after tonight’s Four Corners.
What did you think about it all? Pretty heartless…if you ask me.
Turdball is the least objectionable Liberal because he accepts the science of climate change, but that’s about it.
Her comment was out of context with the topic of the conversation. The topic was George Brandis and the “entitled to be a bigot” comment. Sarah La Marquand with what seemed like a pre- meditated speech described you as a misogynist and finished with how happy she was that she was never going to read your blog again, it was insulting and personal without justification and quality of argument. Poor form for a journo I thought, it was odd.
Yes La Marquand just used the program. to get her slag off at Bob in. She’s obviously caught the Brandis bigotry disease. It was like the right taking all opportunities, according to the fascist how-to book.
Last time I looked misogyny is hatred of women, and showing all the signs endlessly. Misandry for mail gender. Both are prejudices.
Abbott likes his type of women and openly hates others. Don’t know whether he can be classed as a misogynist. However, he kind of plays the sexual objectification game, by posing like he does. And he treats women rather leerily.
Last effort was at Duchess of Cambridge before she left. Baby Prince George’s body language and turn away, said it all.
It must mean you’re a threat to the filthy Liberals and Murdoch scum. Obviously a planted question from someone higher in authority. The Liberals and Murdoch are in free fall collapse, so they’ ll resort to any of their disgusting right wing tactics to stay in power.
She was using Bob as an example of someone whose views offend her personally. The point being that Bob’s views (however objectionable they may or may not be to some) should not necessarily be silenced by legislation.
What one person thinks “crosses the line” may not be anywhere near for others.
In reply to Dickers…
See my reply above.
Bulldust … she could have mentioned Alan Jones – he’s form with his personal anti- Gillard commentary provides a far more obvious and widely known example…
That she’s plucked Ellis’ name out of the blue points is clearly a tactic of premeditated character assassination …
Read the play buddy … its clearly there is an agenda to neutralise highly influential anti-tory opinion channels now that mainstream is under control.
Any newcomers to Ellis blog having watched the show now have preconceived negative opinions of Bob … in other words she’s deliberately poisoned the well.
Well, I should sue her then.
So if someone with opposing views said the same thing about Alan Jones then you would also encourage him to sue? I’m fairly certain plenty of people have said “don’t listen to him” about AJ and it only gave him free publicity, if anything. Was that character assassination or pushing an agenda? Or does that only apply to one side of the argument? I just want to know if your view on this is as one-sided as it seems or not.
I’m not a Jones fan but I respect his right to his opinions, as I do Bob.
She picked an example that was personal to her- it happened to be Bob. I don’t have the same view as she does but hey……
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if her remark causes some increased traffic to Bob’s blog. People who might not otherwise visit will be curious now. No?
No, she was essentially telling people not to read Bob’s work. It was a clear attempt to undermine his capacity to earn a living.
@ BL, I’m not encouraging anyone to sue anyone, just putting a point of view forward.
I think this is more than advocating avoiding a talkback personality’s station on the matter of different political views … the misogynist card has been played, and to a broad TV audience, that is so over the top that her motives have to be called into question.
There might be nothing in it, could just be random comment in the heat of a panel show moment … but if she reads the blog she’ll know Bob’s just launched a paid subscriber service, so is her ad hominem attack denigrating a leading left-wing opinion maker a co-incidence?
Maybe I’m over reading this … but certainly questions that need asking IMO … kind of like and why the f*ck is she bringing meaningless stuff like this up, when if she’s genuinely for her cause needs to be asking how it is that we’re stripping indexing off pensioners and consigning female pensioners to the poverty line only days after announcing $24Bn fighter spend?
That is an interesting point about the coincident timing and the imminent launch of subscription services.
These greedy swine regard any expenditure on content cutting into their ownership of remunerated content since they cannot but see the premium content platform as anything but competition for their own subscription services.
I subscribed after last night’s Q and A. I am a long time reader of Bob Ellis and have dithered about when I would subscribe (would always have got around to it), and last night I subscribed straight after the show to show support for him. It is a vote of confidence.
I just posted a comment on her site. Let’s see if she allows it.
Would love to read it, Dali, but the post comes up on my screen the size of a postage stamp.
I was quite startled by her outburst – it seemed out of keeping with the rest of the general dialogue. She called his writing offensive, and him a misogynist. And said she would never read anything he wrote again.
Well, we’ll see.
Press the Ctrl key and simultaneously roll the scroll wheel of the mouse. Magic happens.
Bingo! Still fuzzy, but big enough for me to decipher. Ta, Canguro.
The switchboard at the ABC might run hotter that usual tomorrow?
Glow, that is strange! Has the mandrax maybe restricted your pupils?
I wrote “What wild side were you walking on when you accused Bob Ellis a misogynist? Do you have evidence I missed.
Do you apologise when you stuff things up?”
(the Lou Reed reference was the title of her piece, a riveting discourse on the dangers of jaywalking.)
Oh, Lordy! Perhaps I should give up on the nightcaps. Thanks, Dali.
Good night, wherever you are.
Glowworm – go to view and zoom in a few times. I brought it up large enough to make it out. Anybody know another way? Bob, I’m not overly keen on the language you occasionally use but ‘misogynist’ ‘bigot’ – don’t think so. Perhaps Sarrah objects to you referring to Hockey as the Palestinian! Ha Ha.
The opposite can also be true, Rodman. I’m a newcomer to Ellis blog because I thought that if she’s got a negative opinion of his writing, I’ll probably agree with what he says, or at least find it interesting. So far, so good.
You too GW.
She thinks you’re “the most offensive writer in Australia”…. and “just when your misogyny hits an all time low, you manage to out do yourself”,
Gee – Just because a woman finds you ‘most offensive’, doesn’t mean you’re a misogynist.
That woman is a typical Murdoch assassin…Bob, you must be on Murdoch’s hit-list
wear it like badge of honour
I enjoy your writing very much Bob. Thank you.
I think she was trying to comment fora short while. She seemed quite lost. Around the time the quiz questions started. I remember a Sarah commenting on the James vi and Macbeth question.
I think she was trying to comment for a short while. She seemed quite lost. Around the time the quiz questions started. I remember a Sarah commenting on the James vi and Macbeth question.
She later went on to justify the PPL scheme and dismissed those in receipt of $75k payouts as a mere “1% of the total”, as if that somehow made it all fair and reasonable.
The acerbic harridan is a mouthpiece for the opinions of others and was probably just trying to appear contoversial.
Yes, my thoughts too – she is either one of the banned for life, or found it all too hard battling her puny skills against we Knights of the Table.
Let’s guess, by what name was she disguised when she joined the Knights of the Table?
NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
$1 per week
$4 per month
3:30pm, Sunday 12th October at Gleebooks, Sydney
Enter your email address to subscribe to Ellis Table Talk.
Join 437 other subscribers
Copyright © 2015 Boban Services Pty Ltd ACN: 001516945
| Theme zBench
| Powered by WordPress