Andrew Bolt - is he a credible journalist?

[Gozu]

Yep, I think Bolt's finally lost it. After how much he's already embarrassed himself at the start of this he's now digging his heels in. I mean the terrorist says himself he's a Christian and that his goal was to try and destroy their Labour Party due to being pro-immigration, FFS.

Only someone as extreme and depraved as Bolt could try and spin this.

[straight talker]

most of our journos,politicians,opinionists and bloggers have lost it!! we are all human and believe in what we think is correct and no matter what there are people who will disagree the same as people disagree with our current PM,Abbott our climate change sceptics and our believers people will always have a belief that they are correct.

[Q.]

The problem is Bolt promotes racism and hatred and people lap it up. The scope of his rhetoric is as dangerous as the content.

[straight talker]

and what about some of our politicians?? They can lie and tell the public a whole lot of rubbish and not get punished or ridiculed? I mean if you all think he is that way and keep saying he is wrong about climate change why do you believers keep reading his articles?

[dedja]

Not discussing politicians here ... only a journalist who is paid for his opinions pieces in the public domain.

Do you think today's effort from Bolt was sensible (forget about credible) journalism?

Do you think that politicising such a tragic event to support his viewpoint on different matters is fair and reasonable? (forget for a minute whether the viewpoint is reasonable or valid)

Do you think that the timing of such an article may be a tad insensitive?

Do you think that what he has written today is within the bounds of common decency?

I'm not speculating on the answers ... interested in your opinion.

[straight talker]

yes i agree the article was printed at the wrong time and would of been a tad insensitive. But again the majority of our journos,opinionists unfortunately they get payed to write articles that mighten please everyone.

[dedja]

thanks ...

That's my biggest gripe about Bolt ... it's not so much what he do or doesn't believe in, it's the way he tries to construct his arguments.

my comments from about 18 months ago ...

That all could very well be true ... it's just that Bolt doesn't apply the expected journalistic skills required to debate such issues. He has a position and will selectively utilise facts to back up his argument, which ironically is what he accuses his opponents of doing.

So the issue is therefore not his views as such, it's the way he conducts the so called debate.

I still stand by this.

[straight talker]

yes thats fine but the majority are like it..

[redandblack]

I just looked back on the first few pages of this topic:

fish's comment about Andrew Bolt is eerie, given recent events:

Just another troglodyte right wing nutter.

I hope he hasn't got a gun!

[Q.]

That all could very well be true ... it's just that Bolt doesn't apply the expected journalistic skills required to debate such issues. He has a position and will selectively utilise facts to back up his argument, which ironically is what he accuses his opponents of doing.

So the issue is therefore not his views as such, it's the way he conducts the so called debate.

A polemicist doesn't debate.

[Q.]

yes thats fine but the majority are like it..

That's one helluva sweeping statement

[straight talker]

funny that neither does juliar!

[dedja]

That all could very well be true ... it's just that Bolt doesn't apply the expected journalistic skills required to debate such issues. He has a position and will selectively utilise facts to back up his argument, which ironically is what he accuses his opponents of doing.

So the issue is therefore not his views as such, it's the way he conducts the so called debate.

A polemicist doesn't debate.

that's why it was preceded by the words 'so called'

[straight talker]

yes i suppose your correct! He reminds me a bit like old Laurie Oaks and Mark Kenny dont you reckon?

[fish]

Professor Richard Lindzen has said since 1995 there had been no global warming that could be distinguished from natural variability.

I have discussed this issue of the climate since 1995 here

[Q.]

Professor Richard Lindzen has said since 1995 there had been no global warming that could be distinguished from natural variability.

I have discussed this issue of the climate since 1995 here

Lindzen has little credibility. Has extensive links with and has received a lot of money from OPEC and Exxon Mobil.

[redandblack]

And surprisingly appeared on the Bolt Report two weeks ago.

Haven't you worked out a pattern here yet, st

[straight talker]

thats funny but fielding and family first are as silly as the greens and the other nutty two! i think i would be more inclined to listen to prof Lindzen who like i have said previously even the alarmist Tim Flannery says he is credible. Well Well how bout the credibility of Gore and Garnaut? Why dont you research there history of being involved with certain industries and who they are involved with now? You wish to say they are credible?

[Q.]

I'd say what's credible is the scientific consensus on global warming. Consensus being the enormous collective of evidence and opinion.

[straight talker]

there is plenty who are believers and plenty who are not and both parties have ample evidence to back their argument just up to the individual to go with who they think is correct.