3
   

The Andrew Bolt Thread

 
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2011 08:51 pm
@msolga,
I actually watch the Bolt Report last Sunday. Freaking hilarious. Bolt with a rictus smile talking over the top of interviewees whether he agreed with them or not. Appalling car crash television. Made notes of who advertised during it to make sure I never buy any of their products. Fortunately a rather short list.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2011 09:04 pm
@hingehead,
Interesting, hinge.
I haven't been able to bring myself to watch.
I'm just not up to it!
I like enjoying my Sundays. Wink

Still, I'm sure Gina R is very thrilled by his performance & that's what matters, yes?

Who are the advertisers?
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Sep, 2011 11:14 pm
@msolga,
Apparently Bolt's been railing about Milne being dropped from the Insiders panel - as one wag on Twitter noted sarcastically 'What a pity doesn't have his own show that he could put Milne on'
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 05:03 am
Well, well ....
I'm sure you well aware of this by now, hinge.:

Bolt found guilty of breaching discrimination act:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-
discrimination-act/3025918

Saturation coverage on local ABC radio here in Melbourne today,
He says it's a freedom of speech issue!
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 05:38 am
@msolga,
Ooops!

Try this link instead:

Bolt fallout: race reporting 'not a no-go area':

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/press-council-on-bolt-case/3026502

This is how "the Hun" (Herald Sun - Murdoch press) is reporting it:

Class action against columnist Andrew Bolt succeeds in Federal Court:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/andrew-bolt-racial-vilification-court-case/story-fn7x8me2-1226148959221
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 05:52 am
@msolga,
I thought I posted the Bolt racist story here? Maybe in Aus Pol? Maybe I have dementia. On twitter Todd Sampson from Gruen said he'd been bagged by Bolt for wearing a T shirt that said 'White people make me nervous' - Bolt's line being imagine if it said 'Black people make me nervous'. Right Dolt, a black guy wearing a T that said 'Black people make me nervous' would be completely different.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 06:31 am
@hingehead,
Quote:
I thought I posted the Bolt racist story here? Maybe in Aus Pol? Maybe I have dementia.

That's OK.
Maybe I do, too? Smile
Or maybe you posted it & I missed it?
In any case, the Hun & other News Ltd papers cannot publish that article again, following the court ruling ...

Anyway, Mr Blot seems to be milking the story for all it's worth now. He's the heroic champion of free speech!

About the offending article itself, the judge declared that it was "poorly researched" (apparently he hadn't spoken to one "pale" aboriginal person before he wrote & published it .... just a bit of Googling. Are you surprised by that? I'm not. Neutral )
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 06:45 am
@msolga,
Bolt is such a twat. Fancy saying 'how you identify as aboriginal if you're skin isn't dark enough'. Because being aboriginal is all about your skin colour, and nothing else. And what a fine thing it is to be aboriginal. You get to die earlier, have more chance of being in prison, have poor health, lower wages, be less educated and have less access to services.

Maybe if Hugh Jackman identified....
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 06:58 am
@hingehead,
Quote:
Bolt is such a twat. Fancy saying 'how you identify as aboriginal if you're skin isn't dark enough'.

But not only that, hinge.
You're pretending to be an aboriginal for financial gain!
And he came to that conclusion without speaking to any of the people he was condemning.
How ignorant is that?

Yeah, Hugh Jackman ... & maybe Cate Blanchett? (Can't get much paler than that! Wink )

It really annoys me that it appears he's now casting himself in the role of some sort of martyr for free speech ... the right to publish ignorant, poorly researched & biased garbage?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2011 12:07 am
@msolga,
Gina is leading the anti minerals boom tax group also. I think they ARE aping the hysterical right wing in the US. I know some gross mob or other have hired a tea bagger.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2011 12:08 am
@msolga,
I only found out who Bolt was and about the court case today!

Interesting result and rationale.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2011 01:44 am
@dlowan,
Andrew Bolt declared yesterday's Supreme Court hearing "a terrible day for free speech''.

But I doubt Media Watch will see things in quite the same way!
More fodder here for analysis than MW ever dreamed would come its way! Wink

Here's Bolt's response to yesterday's ruling .
I can't bring myself to give space or any credibility to his suddenly discovered reasonableness. What a change in tone! What a refreshing change! Smile
But you can read his words in this link from the Hun, if you like:

Silencing me impedes unity, says Andrew Bolt :
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/silencing-me-impedes-unity/story-e6frfifx-1226150249249

Today's article from David Marr, in the SMH & the Age:

Quote:

In black and white, Andrew Bolt trifled with the facts

David Marr
September 29, 2011/SMH/the AGE

Opinion

Comments 479

http://images.smh.com.au/2011/09/28/2655741/vd-bolt-408x264.jpg

Freedom of speech is not at stake here. Judge Mordecai Bromberg is not telling the media what we can say or where we can poke our noses. He's attacking lousy journalism. He's saying that if Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun wants to accuse people of appalling motives, he should start by getting his facts right.

Bolt was wrong. Spectacularly wrong. In two famous columns in 2009 he took a swipe at "political" or "professional" or "official" Aborigines who could pass for white but chose to identify as black for personal or political gain, to win prizes and places reserved for real, black Aborigines and to borrow "other people's glories".

http://images.smh.com.au/2011/09/29/2656353/art-353-290911-aragon-200x0.jpg
Illustration: Edd Aragon

But Bolt's lawyers had to concede even before this case began in the Federal Court that nine of these named "white Aborigines" had identified as black from childhood. All nine came to court to say they didn't choose this down the track but were raised as Aborigines. Their evidence was not contested by Bolt or his paper.

So as we say in the trade: no story. Yet Bolt went at it with mockery, derision and sarcasm. They are Judge Bromberg's words. He added: "I accept that the language utilised in the newspaper articles was inflammatory and provocative."

Here's Bolt on Larissa Behrendt: "She's won many positions and honours as an Aborigine, including the David Unaipon Award for Indigenous Writers, and is often interviewed demanding special rights for 'my people'. But which people are 'yours', exactly, mein liebchen? And isn't it bizarre to demand laws to give you more rights as a white Aborigine than your own white dad?"

Among the problems here are that Behrendt's father was a black Australian, not a white German. And like all the others, Behrendt was raised black. Judge Bromberg wrote: "She denies Mr Bolt's suggestion that she chose to be Aboriginal and says that she never had a choice, she has always been Aboriginal and has 'identified as Aboriginal since before I can remember'." Bolt didn't contest her evidence.

The nine chose not to sue. They did not want damages but a public correction and a promise not to print such stuff again. So they brought an action under the Racial Discrimination Act, which has embedded in it a strong freedom-of-speech defence: insulting or humiliating people because of their race or colour is not unlawful when it is done "reasonably and in good faith" in pursuit of a matter of public interest.

The act left Bolt with the task of making a list of convincing denials to explain his mistakes, language and motives. Denials are one of Bolt's great talents: with a smile on his face and his hand on his heart he is happy to claim the purest motives even in the unhappiest circumstances. Usually it works like a charm. Not with Judge Bromberg.

Brushed aside was Bolt's claim that he was not writing about race at all. The judge found: "Race, colour and ethnicity were vital elements of the message and therefore a motivating reason for conveying the message, even if the message is to be characterised as ultimately about choice of racial identity."

Also brushed aside was the claim that any offence was unintended. "Mr Bolt is an experienced journalist," said Judge Bromberg. "He has high-level communication skills. His writing displays a capacity to cleverly craft language to intimate a message. I consider it highly unlikely that in carefully crafting the words utilised by him in the newspaper articles, he did not have an understanding of the meaning likely to be conveyed by those words to the ordinary, reasonable reader."

Rather tartly, the judge said the more reliable guide to Bolt's motives came not from his evidence but his writings. The judge seemed not too impressed. "Having observed Mr Bolt, I formed the view that he was prone to after-the-fact rationalisations of his conduct."

Nor was the judge bowled over by Bolt's efforts as a reporter. He taxed Bolt with errors in the genealogy of the nine - some of them "gross errors" - and in describing their upbringing always at white hands. "Mr Bolt presented evidence of having undertaken some online research about the individuals," he said. "But it was not evidence upon which I could be satisfied that a diligent attempt had been made to make reasonable inquiries."

But Judge Bromberg was perhaps most scathing about Bolt's failure to acknowledge that any of the nine had been raised black. "In my view, Mr Bolt was intent on arguing a case," said the judge. "He sought to do so persuasively. It would have been highly inconvenient to the case for which Mr Bolt was arguing for him to have set out facts demonstrating that the individuals whom he wrote about had been raised with an Aboriginal identity and enculturated as Aboriginal people.

"Those facts would have substantially undermined both the assertion that the individuals had made a choice to identify as Aboriginal and that they were not sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely so identifying. The way in which the newspaper articles emphasised the non-Aboriginal ancestry of each person serves to confirm my view. That view is further confirmed by factual errors made which served to belittle the Aboriginal connection of a number of the individuals dealt with, in circumstances where Mr Bolt failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the error in question."

So Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times went down. Outside the court, Bolt declared this "a terrible day for free speech''. Not according to the judge: "The intrusion into freedom of expression is of no greater magnitude than that which would have been imposed by the law of defamation if the conduct in question and its impact upon the reputations of many of the identified individuals had been tested against its compliance with that law." Perhaps the Herald Sun and its star journalist should be thankful they're not facing nine separate defamation trials. An appeal is expected - so is some spectacular rhetoric from the now martyred Andrew Bolt.


In black and white, Andrew Bolt trifled with the facts:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/in-black-and-white-andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html?comments=75#comments
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2011 02:54 am
@msolga,
Coalition signals bid to change race laws breached by columnist Andrew Bolt:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/coalition-signals-bid-to-change-race-laws-breached-by-columnist-andrew-bolt/story-e6frg996-1226151936970
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2011 03:23 am
@msolga,
Very interesting.

I see he's going to play the martyr for free speech.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2011 06:31 am
@dlowan,
Oh yes.
He's playing for all it's worth!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2011 06:28 pm
@msolga,
http://images.theage.com.au/2011/09/29/2658299/art-tandberg-toon-30-9-200x0.jpg
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2011 07:14 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

http://images.theage.com.au/2011/09/29/2658299/art-tandberg-toon-30-9-200x0.jpg


Very Happy Confused Evil or Very Mad

Too true.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2011 07:46 pm
@hingehead,
Quote:
Anyway Bolt completely cheesed me yesterday by agreeing with, and trying to justify, Bush's recent assertion that the american withdrawal from Vietnam caused the rise of Pol Pot in Cambodia. The current US administration has been fabricating (sorry 'making' reality) for 7 years so that wasn't surprising but Bolt's defence of that line strikes me as an unforgivable lie. Therefore I dedicate this thread to collecting his diktats and exposing them for the lies, falsehoods and fabrications they are.


The Bush lies sure got short shrift, Hinge.

Quote:


Cambodia
Noam Chomsky
The New York Review of Books, June 4, 1970


http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19700604.htm
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2011 04:50 am
Great piece from Robert Manne on Bolt's part in the right wing push to discredit the 'stolen generations' 'myth'.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog-name-ten-journalism-andrew-bolt-robert-manne-4088

Bolt is scum.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2011 05:34 am
@hingehead,
Thanks for that Hinge......there's a lot of interest via that site.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 04:22:39