Andrew Bolt - is he a credible journalist?

[straight talker]

look if you guys think JULIAR and the Labor party are best for Australia well thats fine and your opinion but im with 85%-90% of most Australians and disagree,thats why the PM should let the people of oz decide but she knows that if she does that she and the greens and the two independants will be in government no more and so do you.

[straight talker]

id say you two are as silly as Kevin 07 or maybe the Labor backer unionist Paul Howes!!

[Q.]

I don't care about Labor. I care about the carbon tax and CO2e abatement.

[cripple]

you seem to be getting confused about the topic of this thread, it is Bolt's credibility as a journo. You think he has some and i think he has none. nothing to do with the govt taking on all of Garnaut's recommendations, at least we know they are real and not make believe.

[redandblack]

st, I'm on your side, keep posting.

The more you post, the bigger the hole you dig for your argument.

You'll note that the non-Labor supporters on here have stopped posting since you appeared and none of them have backed up even one of your arguments. All of us except you know why that is.

You've already passed Gullible 101, Selective Belief 101 and Vitriol 101 with flying colours, perhaps try a course in Reason and Logic.

[dedja]

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

next guess ... Tony Abbott

[redandblack]

I don't care about Labor. I care about the carbon tax and CO2e abatement.

Good to see Malcolm Turnbull's passionate defence of climate science, Q.

I wish him well with this.

[Q.]

I don't care about Labor. I care about the carbon tax and CO2e abatement.

Good to see Malcolm Turnbull's passionate defence of climate science, Q.

I wish him well with this.

A ray of hope in an otherwise bleak landscape.

[Gozu]

Andrew Bolt makes an arse of himself (again) while proving no level is too low for him:

The tragedy in Norway has shocked the world. Sadly, some elements of the media were quick to use it as an opportunity to push their own ideological barrows.

Andrew Bolt:

Once the identity of the attackers becomes known, the consequences for Norway’s immigration policies could be profound.

When details were made available “a man detained by police was aged 32 and ”ethnic Norwegian.”” the tune changed slightly.

Even so, the history of Islamic violence in Scandinavia suggests Muslim immigration there has been a bad deal for the locals:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... 23/norway/

[redandblack]

Disgraceful, as usual.

Some people actually believe him

Just another pathetic attempt to push his own nasty agenda before finding out the facts.

[Sky Pilot]

Go Boltmeister - expose your worst.

[redandblack]

SP, 90 people were killed yesterday, presumably by an extreme right-wing Norwegian.

Andrew Bolt wrote that it was the work of Muslim terrorists.

Your post cheering him on is totally insensitive in the circumstances.

[dedja]

no R&B, the comments are disgraceful ...

[Sky Pilot]

Im not cheering him on at all over this dastardly tragedy. I feel awful that this happened but Bolt has a right to free speech surely. I resent being accused of this....

[cripple]

There is a difference between free speech and trying to link some social group into something that they have no involvement with. Its all just part of his ploy to keep his minions happy. imagine the problems this causes amongst those who take his word as gospel and will blame muslims for this as well. creating an uninformed and uneducated society.

[redandblack]

I get really worried when I read some of the comments following his articles.

I can't believe that some of them are sympathising with this killer because he's anti-Muslim and excusing his behaviour as being justified.

I can't believe that a major newspaper would allow such comments without moderation.

We all have different opinions about people such as Andrew Bolt. Many decent people agree with him and I think many decent people support his side of politics but don't agree with his commentary, but I think all of us would deplore some of the blind hate I've referred to.

[dedja]

Agreed, Bolt's article in today's Advertiser is the most disgraceful piece of journalism I have ever read in a mainstream paper.

How a complete and utter tragedy in Norway by a madman can be twisted into an anti-islamic diatribe is unbelievable.

I have always believed in free speech but News Ltd has got it completely wrong in employing this religious and racial supremacist.

It is the same as his article in The Herald Sun ... http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... _the_dead/


HEAR that gloating sound, among the sobs for the 76 people murdered last week by Anders Behring Breivik?

Hear that cackling among the moans?

It’s Leftist polemicists, gleeful that the Norwegian murderer was a “far-Right Christian”.

How often you’ve been reminded.

One ABC news story filed on Sunday mentioned three times that Breivik was a “Christian”.

Yet when Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot dead 13 soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009 while screaming “God is great”, the first substantial report filed by the ABC’s Washington reporter failed to note even once that he was a Muslim.

But this time - at last - the media feels free to mention the faith of the killer again and again. And again and again they stress he’s “anti-Muslim”.

A USA Today report is typical: “Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe.”

But two things immediately didn’t fit this narrative.

A true Christian does not live out his faith by shooting dozens of young people on an island. An ethnic Norwegian killing other ethnic Norwegians is not an obvious expression of Islamophobia.

Yet who cared? Here was a chance for the Left to pay back the “Right” for having worried about Islamist terrorism and Muslim integration in the West.

Some used this tragedy simply to smear their political enemies ...

[Q.]

Oh. My. God.

[dedja]

This is the section that is utterly deplorable ... remember the context which is the Norwegian tragedy.

But while every society produces its sociopaths and psychopaths, they differ in how they legitimise, suggest or reward acts of extreme violence.

And here is where the attempt to equate Breivik’s “Christian jihad” with the Islamist jihad truly breaks down.

The Christian New Testament explicitly forbids violence, but jihadists quote Koranic verses they say justify murder, and worship a warrior Prophet who slaughtered a Jewish tribe.

No wonder, perhaps, that more than a quarter of the Muslims in the Palestinian territory and half those in Nigeria still say they have confidence in al-Qaida, according to a Pew survey.

But how many Christians would endorse what Breivik has done? How many Christian leaders would say of his murders what our then Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj El-Din Hilali, said of the September 11 attacks, that this was “God’s work against oppressors”?

And where is the network of financiers and propagandists to support Breivik, as there is to support jihadists?

Such differences explain why the West lives in far greater fear of Islamist terror than Muslims live in fear of a Breivik, and why everyone, on first hearing of the attacks in Norway, instantly suspected yet another Islamist attack.

But they also explain why attempts to now smear into silence those who note those differences must not succeed.

There is little virtue in a wilful blindness, and less still in one so dangerous.

[wycbloods]

Oh. My. God.

X2