Andrew Bolt - is he a credible journalist?

[redandblack]

st, you have got to be kidding.

The PM makes herself available for questioning constantly. Mr Abbott sticks to 2GB and people who he knows will give him an easy ride. He walks out of press conferences when the going gets hard. He opens for questions from carefully selected 'forums'.

Who are the journalists she won't talk to?

[JohnnyG]

you prove to me he wasnt correct !!

you prove to me that the earth is flat!!

[straight talker]

she wont go on bolts show! Also see after JULIAR stood up and told the world that sea levels were rising an expert on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed pape concluding that rises in sea levels are "DECELERATING". Written in the Australian jul 22. Author Phil Watson. JULIAR says we will be under water by the year 2100?? The present trend would only produce sea level rise of around 15cm for the 21st century!!

[redandblack]

st, just think about what you're saying.

Every thing is related to what you hear Andrew Bolt say. You believe everything he says.

The reason the Prime Minister (you don't like calling her by her proper title, do you?) doesn't go on his show is that he is a well-known joke, except among those who don't bother to check what he says. It would be a waste of time and why should the PM do it anyway.

Once again, you approvingly quote one person (who I presume was on the Bolt show), but ignore the vast majority of scientists.

Don't you ever wonder why Bolt only has people who agree with him on his show?

perhaps read a bit more widely.

[straight talker]

hang on a minute i think you will find bolts ratings are a little higher than our PRIME MINISTER!!! The leading scientist that i have spoken about are you not giving him any credit? even your friend mr Flannery says he is credible! Why dont you have a read of the article in the Australian about the sea levels and i will see if you say all the people who have had there say in that are not credible instead of you just listening to Al Gore and Tim Flannery.

[redandblack]

st, The Australian has been running an anti-climate change agenda for ages now.

They only highlight any stories that suit their agenda, regardless of how factual they are.

These are the same people who pay Andrew Bolt.

Mate, please read a bit more widely.

I'll read up about your scientist, but I'll make a deal with you. Perhaps you can read some climate change scientists who have had peer-reviewed papers published?

[redandblack]

This is one of my favourite Bolt pieces.

He went on "Insiders' when the Japanese tsunami happened and berated Kevin Rudd for daring to ask the Japanese if ther nuclear reactors were safe.

"He should resign!

"He's a disgrace"!!!

Well, of course, Rudd was very prescient and proved 100% correct to ask.

[i][b]"As I said on Insiders yesterday, to the fury of the Twitterverse, Kevin Rudd is a disgrace, demanding answers from stricken Japan, still trying to find thousands of its citizens, about something that poses zero danger to Australians:

Mr Rudd plunged into fresh controversy yesterday over what was seen as an insensitive demand for ‘’urgent’’ information from Japan about its nuclear reactor crisis.

Mr Rudd revealed that in a telephone conversation he told the Japanese Foreign Minister, Takeaki Matsumoto, on Saturday night ‘’that we and the rest of the international community need urgent briefings on the precise status of these reactors’’.

‘’We are seeking further corroboration of the technical and safety impacts of this from the Japanese government. That’s what I raised with him (on Saturday) night.’’

Oh, you shameful, shameful man. How grotesquely self-centred.

Gillard should have disowned him:



Asked whether it was appropriate to be demanding an urgent briefing from a country dealing with devastation], Ms Gillard said the two countries were exchanging information and collaborating. ‘’That’s perfectly proper, perfectly appropriate,’’ she said.

Ms Gillard said she had spoken to Mr Rudd yesterday and he had said he had had ‘’a positive conversation’’ with his Japanese counterpart.

UPDATE

Yeah, right:

FOREIGN Minister Rudd has justified his stern call for briefings from the Japanese government on the unfolding nuclear crisis in the earthquake-struck nation, saying he was concerned for Australians in the region.

None of those Australians could have got their information from the local officials and media?

Two things, st.

First, note how he says "what was seen as an insensitive demand".

No, he was the only one saying it. Pompous git.

Secondly, after he's been proved wrong, he feels the need to go back and 'UPDATE" it with the weakest comment possible.

He could (and should) have said he apologised, but he never does that when he's so often proved wrong.


Hopeless.

[cripple]

no i say he is a lot lot better than JULIAR she is pathetic. bolt produces facts she delivers spin and lies.

I really should come in here more often but you cannot be serious. andrew bolt gets outsmarted by dave hughes on the 7PM project. What are these facts you speak of.

[cripple]

i see RnB has already taken up the case. Bolt takes what is convenient to him and dismisses anything that he doesn't like. His record on indigenous affairs is evidence of this.

[Q.]

no i say he is a lot lot better than JULIAR she is pathetic. bolt produces facts she delivers spin and lies.

I really should come in here more often but you cannot be serious. andrew bolt gets outsmarted by dave hughes on the 7PM project. What are these facts you speak of.

st can't discern fact from fiction, or just doesn't want to.

[straight talker]

i guess i am basing my thoughts on the majority of scientists who say all this carbon tax is a load of rubbish.

[dedja]

[Q.]

i guess i am basing my thoughts on the majority of scientists who say all this carbon tax is a load of rubbish.

Fiction.

[cripple]

i guess i am basing my thoughts on the majority of scientists who say all this carbon tax is a load of rubbish.

Whats that got to do with Bolt using facts when he tries to win an argument or belittle an opponent???

[straight talker]

id say he would be listening to leading scientists who provide information that they dedicate their life too doing unlike people like Al Gore and Tim Flannery. Al Gore i think you will find he is mixed up with certain companies that would stand to make billions of dollars if and when this ridiculous tax comes in.

[straight talker]

i noticed on the news tonight the transport union says there will most certainly be job losses in the industry!! JULIAR and SWAN say there will be no job losses because of the carbon tax. Now this is coming from Labor supporters in the union.

[cripple]

In the one sentence you talk about listening to scientists whose lifes work has been to do something then accuse Tim Flannery of not doing this. People like Flannery and Garnaut have just done as much work/ research as the climate/ carbon skeptics you so often talk about, yet because you dont agree with them, you discredit their work. The key to winning any argument is having a balanced viewpoint able to take in both sides of an argument and you have proven you simply cant do that. Maybe I should start typing STRAIGHTLIAR in all my posts where i disagree with you.

[dedja]

If we were playing "celebrity heads" my guess would be that st is Cory Bernardi ...

[straight talker]

thats fine ripple well if Mr Garnaut was that clever and the one the government looks to why didnt they do what he said needs to be done to make a difference?,instead of a little bit here and there???

[Q.]

If we were playing "celebrity heads" my guess would be that st is Cory Bernardi ...

My guess is he's a leftist plant to make the neo-cons look even more stupid.