Andrew Bolt - is he a credible journalist?

[dedja]

Take his latest article in the Advertiser ... http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opin ... 6010356421

He makes some reasonable points about Gaddafi but then blows his credibility out of the water with remarks such as ...



US sanctions - and its toppling of Iraq's Saddam Hussein - so terrified Gaddafi in 2003 that he surrendered his secret nuclear weapons program to avoid being America's next target.

You mean an illegal war based on false evidence that killed thousands of innocent victims Andrew? So it's OK for the US to act unilaterally and in it's own interests but no-one else can?



It voted this month on just one resolution damning just one Middle Eastern government. No, not Gaddafi's Libya, but democratic Israel, censured by 14 votes to just the United States' veto against for building apartment blocks in East Jerusalem. On Arab autocracies it said zero.

Good work Andrew. Destroy a valid argument up until that point by trivialising Israel settlements on disputed land. Where are the borders of Israel by the way?




Bolt sometimes gets close to outlining a reasonable argument, other times its all just small minded drivel to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

My point in starting this thread was not necessarily whether people agreed or disagreed with his comments, but whether he displays any credible journalism qualities.

For mine, he's not a journlist but just a plain shock jock.

[Gozu]

For mine, he's not a journlist but just a plain shock jock.

"Let’s just assume “cultural influences” had something to do with it until it’s proved otherwise":

I’m not saying that this child’s cultural background has anything to do with the terrible thing he allegedly did, but ISN’T IT INTERESTING TO WONDER in the sense of isn’t it interesting what I can clearly suggest whilst having no evidence whatsoever for it and whilst disingenuously pretending I’m not alleging anything in particular.

Don’t worry about me, though, if my repulsive first guess is wrong – if the kid turns out to be of the same cultural group as me (or a group with which I’ve got no problem), there are plenty of other ways I can blame this tragedy on people I don’t like.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... al-issues/

[fish]

The truth is out there.

Doo-dee-doo-dee-doo-doo. Doo-deeeee-doo.

I've tryed every way of humming this out loud and I'm not sure where you were going with your doo-dee-doo.

Is this the X-Files tune when weird stuff happens?

I originally thought it was the Twilight Zone theme but the doo's and the dee's are all wrong.

[Q.]

The truth is out there.

Doo-dee-doo-dee-doo-doo. Doo-deeeee-doo.

I've tryed every way of humming this out loud and I'm not sure where you were going with your doo-dee-doo.

Is this the X-Files tune when weird stuff happens?

I originally thought it was the Twilight Zone theme but the doo's and the dee's are all wrong.

X-Files.

[dedja]

Does the Mad Monk write Bolt's articles these days?

[redandblack]

Bolt dominated today's Insiders program, as usual.

Apart from being forced to admit Abbott's climate change policy was token nonsense, he claimed there were only 800 people at the pro-Gillard rally yesterday.

His blog now 'apologises' that he 'misremembered' that it was 8,000, not 800.

Yeah, sure

The facts are always only something for when you're found out, Andrew, aren't they.

[Gozu]

I doubt you will hear too much from the right-wingers on here about Bolt lying on TV about this R&B. Thankfully no one watches Insiders.

“The numbers lie” or, “I don’t like these numbers”:

Faced with the news that the conservative anti-carbon-tax rally yesterday had 400 participants, and Get Up’s pro-carbon-tax rally organised in response had 8,000, Andrew Bolt concludes that maybe the “public revolt” he’s been hyping has been somewhat exaggerated. Maybe it was merely wishful thinking on the part of partisans who really wanted it to be true, and spent little time outside their own echo-chambers.

No, just kidding. He makes excuses:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... e-numbers/

[Gozu]

Sounds likes the far-right CEC nutters were out in force at that 400 strong anti-carbon tax rally according to this commenter on Bolt's blog who attended:

There were a whole heap of them at the rally at Gillard’s office yesterday. They had a few posters of the Queen and were handing out pamphlets suggesting that the “carbon” tax was a conspiracy by some sort of global group her were using the Queen as some sort of puppet to promote this.

It was offensive to a number of people in the crowd and I saw a number of altercations between members who had simply turned up to protest the carbon tax and these people who were using the event to promote their own ends.

I really think that the organisers of any future rallies really need to say to the CEC not to use it as a platform to distribute their own material. It will lead to upsets and its an unwelcome diversion. One old lady I saw yesterday was about to attack one of the idiots who was wandering around with a caricature of the Queen on a placard. It was unseemly and it was clearly offensive to this old lady, who had clearly attended to protest a carbon tax, not to involve herself in some anti-monarchical conspiracy theory.

[fish]

Sounds likes the far-right CEC nutters were out in force at that 400 strong anti-carbon tax rally according to this commenter on Bolt's blog who attended:

There were a whole heap of them at the rally at Gillard’s office yesterday. They had a few posters of the Queen and were handing out pamphlets suggesting that the “carbon” tax was a conspiracy by some sort of global group her were using the Queen as some sort of puppet to promote this.

It was offensive to a number of people in the crowd and I saw a number of altercations between members who had simply turned up to protest the carbon tax and these people who were using the event to promote their own ends.

I really think that the organisers of any future rallies really need to say to the CEC not to use it as a platform to distribute their own material. It will lead to upsets and its an unwelcome diversion. One old lady I saw yesterday was about to attack one of the idiots who was wandering around with a caricature of the Queen on a placard. It was unseemly and it was clearly offensive to this old lady, who had clearly attended to protest a carbon tax, not to involve herself in some anti-monarchical conspiracy theory.

I've somehow ended up on the CEC email list - no idea how.

Their emails often disparage the British and Prince Charles but I've never quite found out why. I've checked the links they provide to back up their statements and they are usually links to articles on their own website.

I've considered unsubscribing but it would mean I miss out on a bit of a giggle from time to time.

[Gozu]

I've somehow ended up on the CEC email list - no idea how.

Their emails often disparage the British and Prince Charles but I've never quite found out why. I've checked the links they provide to back up their statements and they are usually links to articles on their own website.

I've considered unsubscribing but it would mean I miss out on a bit of a giggle from time to time.

Barnaby Joyce is on their mailing list too, you're in good company

They think the Queen is a drug dealer, the leader of some sort of one world government and she was behind the Port Arthur massacre.

Here is a bit more about the CEC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Electoral_Council

LaRouchites are notorious for abusing people and getting right up in their faces until they're physically attacked and then they sue their 'attackers'.

[redandblack]

Andrew hasn't had a good week.

1 On Sunday he said Kevin Rudd was a disgrace and should be sacked immediately. Why? Rudd had the temerity to ask the Japanese to give information about their nuclear reactors.

2 He told everyone the Japanese nuclear reactors were totally safe and it was all a storm in a teacup.

I am totally bemused that 22 posters think he has even a shred of credibility.

He's an out of control nutter.

[Gozu]

"Picking sides in the middle of a disaster":

On Insiders on Sunday, Andrew Bolt warned that the green movement would try to ‘beat up’ the unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan and declared it a ‘political symbol’. As the news from the Fukushima nuclear complex has continued to worsen, Bolt has continued to run with the line that people’s fears are overblown:

This scaremongering over the crippled Fukushima nuclear complex is extraordinary. Already anti-nuclear activists, rebadged as nuclear “experts”, are out spreading terror.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... -disaster/

[mick]

Andrew hasn't had a good week.

1 On Sunday he said Kevin Rudd was a disgrace and should be sacked immediately. Why? Rudd had the temerity to ask the Japanese to give information about their nuclear reactors.

2 He told everyone the Japanese nuclear reactors were totally safe and it was all a storm in a teacup.

I am totally bemused that 22 posters think he has even a shred of credibility.

He's an out of control nutter.

He is entertaining earning a shitload of bucks and gets you blokes to "bite" on a regular basis. If he is that bad just ignore him.

[Q.]

He'd be fairly easy to ignore if his misinformation wasn't taken as gospel. His propaganda is dangerous.

[mick]

He'd be fairly easy to ignore if his misinformation wasn't taken as gospel. His propaganda is dangerous.

I would suggest that the people who read Mr Bolt and agree with his views are already converted to that way of thinking, so I don't think he is dangerous, he is merely confirming the views held by the majority of his readership and thats why he is popular. If Mr Bolt were to be silenced these people would still hold the same views.

[Gozu]

He'd be fairly easy to ignore if his misinformation wasn't taken as gospel. His propaganda is dangerous.

I would suggest that the people who read Mr Bolt and agree with his views are already converted to that way of thinking, so I don't think he is dangerous, he is merely confirming the views held by the majority of his readership and thats why he is popular. If Mr Bolt were to be silenced these people would still hold the same views.

That's true Mick but look at how big a platform he gets to push his garbage. A weekly full page column in all the News Ltd papers nationwide. It's one thing for Bolt to have the far-right views he holds but the real problem is how much opportunity he is given to spread his "global cooling", "the Greens hate people" type of rubbish.

He's certainly not the only extremist News Ltd hire to push Rupert's worldview but aside from his column and News Ltd blog he also makes regular TV & radio appearances. That's one thing but I don't think the ABC should be giving him a semi-regular platform on Insiders to push his misinformation.

[Ronnie]

He'd be fairly easy to ignore if his misinformation wasn't taken as gospel. His propaganda is dangerous.

I would suggest that the people who read Mr Bolt and agree with his views are already converted to that way of thinking, so I don't think he is dangerous, he is merely confirming the views held by the majority of his readership and thats why he is popular. If Mr Bolt were to be silenced these people would still hold the same views.

That's true Mick but look at how big a platform he gets to push his garbage. A weekly full page column in all the News Ltd papers nationwide. It's one thing for Bolt to have the far-right views he holds but the real problem is how much opportunity he is given to spread his "global cooling", "the Greens hate people" type of rubbish.

He's certainly not the only extremist News Ltd hire to push Rupert's worldview but aside from his column and News Ltd blog he also makes regular TV & radio appearances. That's one thing but I don't think the ABC should be giving him a semi-regular platform on Insiders to push his misinformation.

He does get a pretty big platform that's true and i understand your feelings about him.
I just sees it as revenge for the ABC employing Phillip Adams for what, 20 odd years to sprout his bile

[redandblack]

Ah, Ronnie, good old Phillip Adams

In a media with wall-to-wall right-wing commentators, shock-jocks, columnists and assorted nutters, the best the conservatives can do is to bring up Phillip Adams.

Didn't he used to write one column a week and have a program on Radio National.

PS: I wouldn't personally bother with Bolt, except for that it's very hard to avoid him with the full-scale exposure he gets.

He sees himself as a 'dissenting voice'.

He's just not very bright.

[dedja]

He's just not very bright.

Remarkably like his demographic.

Can't count very well either ...

There is no stolen generation ... name 10 he says, can't be done apparently.

Only 65 deaths from Chenobyl apparently.


I actually think it's a smart move to have him on Insiders ... again blows his credibility regarding the so-called left bais of the ABC. If it was so politically one-sided then why would they bother having Piers Akerman or Andrew Bolt as regular guests on one of their landmark political programs?

[Ronnie]

Ah, Ronnie, good old Phillip Adams

In a media with wall-to-wall right-wing commentators, shock-jocks, columnists and assorted nutters, the best the conservatives can do is to bring up Phillip Adams.

Didn't he used to write one column a week and have a program on Radio National.

PS: I wouldn't personally bother with Bolt, except for that it's very hard to avoid him with the full-scale exposure he gets.

He sees himself as a 'dissenting voice'.

He's just not very bright.

No R&B, Phillip Adams is just an example i used, nothing more. Naming the 'best' one would be interesting though in a media chock full of them, though most aren't as egregious as old Phillip.
Wasn't it that noted journalist David Marr would said that all journalists should come from a 'soft left' background? He truly can't see the problem in making a statement like that.