Jeff Corbett is a journalist in our (relatively) local newspaper, the Newcastle Herald.

He has somewhat of a reputation as a rather non-PC, provocative columnist. We read the paper daily over lunch, and I've recently noticed a certain pattern to his writings (and other columnists around his area of the paper). I believe there's a certain pressure, a certain impetus for him to write on topics that have the capacity to become controversial, in a manner designed to elicit strong reader response.

Many of his silliest articles, where it seems he just pushing a ridiculous opinion to get a raise out of people, actually seem to work. He takes a stance which seems obviously fake and prejudiced, and a great many people seem to take the bait and send in replies railing against his opinion. I don't think many of them stop to consider that he may not strongly hold the opinion he's espousing, that he may in fact be simply trying to drum up comments for the paper.

In contrast some of what we feel are his better articles (like the recent ones on his son Scott's dramas with the RTA) often don't elicit such response from his readers, which is sad.

However in a possible statement on the intelligence of netizens versus newspaper traditional readers, the trend seems to be reversed on the blog version of his column.