The Bolt Report

[Calliope]

Some people are concerned that this ruling will harm healthy debate in this country:

I don't have much time for extreme right Andrew Bolt or extreme left David Marr, but in this instance I think Marr is right. Bolt shot his mouth off without checking the facts.

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".
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.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...h-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html#ixzz1ZI0F4aRx

 

[sails]

Ironically, the same day that Bolt is pulled up for his comments, WA MP Carol Martin, first indigenous woman is to announce her resignation after being vilified as a "toxic coconut".

The dispute over the gas hub has created ugly tensions in a community that prides itself on being laid-back. Ms Martin was named last week in an anonymous 10-page newsletter as "brown on the outside and full of the milk of white man's money" on the inside for not opposing the proposed gas hub.

Her name appeared on a list of nine Kimberley Aborigines, including former Australian of the year Patrick Dodson, under the heading "toxic coconuts".

Ms Martin said it was the worst slur against her in public life, and she would sue the authors if they could be identified.

From the Australian by Paige Taylor: Coconut slur the last straw for WA MP Carol Martin

And more today: MP Carol Martin's serve for 'a mob of bludgers and liars'

 

[sails]

I don't have much time for extreme right Andrew Bolt or extreme left David Marr, but in this instance I think Marr is right. Bolt shot his mouth off without checking the facts...[/url]

I'm not so sure about Bolt's "extreme right" label. I understand he worked for the Hawke Government for two election campaigns and also understand he was behind Gillard when she first became PM. I think Bolt's seemingly right leaning is more a leaning away from the debacles in this government than him being fully right wing in his beliefs.

And the Murdoch media were fully behind ditching Howard and going to Rudd in 2007 and yet they are now labelled a right leaning media. I think the Australian Murdoch media leans with the opinion polls.

Anyway, this is from Bolt's blog today: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/column_why_cant_i_be_free_to_speak/

 

[Calliope]

Anyway, this is from Bolt's blog today: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/column_why_cant_i_be_free_to_speak/

Poor old Andrew now feels that he is a martyr to the lost cause of freedom of speech. I don't think he would have lost the case except for his scrappy journalism. His research was flawed, and easily discredited.

 

[Julia]

I don't think he would have lost the case except for his scrappy journalism. His research was flawed, and easily discredited.

This point was made on "7.30" last night which also reported that the judge said his verdict should not be interpreted as a veto against discussion of the topic, but rather a reflection of Andrew Bolt's article containing misinformation and 'inflammatory' language.

 

[basilio]

This point was made on "7.30" last night which also reported that the judge said his verdict should not be interpreted as a veto against discussion of the topic, but rather a reflection of Andrew Bolt's article containing misinformation and 'inflammatory' language.

Which is the key criticism of the overwhelming majority of Andrew Bolts writings.

It is also why people who continue to quote Andrew Bolts columns should consider whether they are just supporting 'misinformation and inflammatory language' versus evidence based research and a considered approach to the story.

 

[noco]

I believe a lot of this has been taken out of context as to what Bolt may or may not have referred.

I have a niece who has a Filipino mother and an Australian father. If and when she marries perhaps an Australian white man, is she still regarded as a Filipino or a quarter cast Filipino?

Surely when one passes the 50/50 mark, they must become the predominant race one way or the other.

So the point is if a person is 1/10 th Aboriginal, are they Aboriginal or white Australian?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Which is the key criticism of the overwhelming majority of Andrew Bolts writings.

It is also why people who continue to quote Andrew Bolts columns should consider whether they are just supporting 'misinformation and inflammatory language' versus evidence based research and a considered approach to the story.

So questions and quotes like:

• By how much will the carbon tax forestall the worlds temperature?
• Are man's CO2 emissions driving global temperatures? if so, by how much?
• Carbon dioxide is not pollution

you of course would consider this as misinformation since you cannot answer them as it would show how the AGW alarmist have been using misinformation for years.

Your post is incredibly hypocritical.

 

[Calliope]

Your post is incredibly hypocritical.

Indeed it is. Misinformation, inflammatory language and outright lying are the preferred tools of the alarmists and environmental protesters.

 

[drsmith]

you of course would consider this as misinformation since you cannot answer them as it would show how the AGW alarmist have been using misinformation for years.

The simple responses to those questions don't tell the whole story, but they do offer more insight than stuff such as this,

 

[basilio]

Your quite right folks I was targeting Andrew Bolts contributions to the climate change conversations. They are basically misinformation and inflammatory. But he is an absolute master at his work which is reflected in it's impact on many people including a lot of forum members.

For anyone interested in the dissection of Andrew Bolts climate change misinformation check out
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

 

[nomore4s]

I have a niece who has a Filipino mother and an Australian father. If and when she marries perhaps an Australian white man, is she still regarded as a Filipino or a quarter cast Filipino?

How is she any less Filipino because she marries someone of a different race?

 

[drsmith]

But he is an absolute master at his work which is reflected in it's impact on many people including a lot of forum members.

Bolt's arguments are simplistic and as a consequence can be in part misleading. He takes advantage of that, but at the same time, I hope you didn't close your eyes when you saw the image above.

 

[basilio]

Bolt's arguments are simplistic and as a consequence can be in part misleading. He takes advantage of that, but at the same time, I hope you didn't close your eyes when you saw the image above.

The government runs an advertisement to get across some simpler big pictures issues of how man produced CO2 is creating climate change that needs to be addressed. One of the suggested solutions is the development of non carbon based renewable energy supplies. This is done in a short ad. where you have to simplify a message without destroying the main idea.

There is an abundance of evidence, analysis and detail in climate change research. That is the place to look for making sure CO2 is not shown as grey when it's colourless or other such distractions.

___________________________________________________________________

Regarding Andrew Bolts capacity to be honest. Somehow a few readers in this forum have accepted the judges finding that Andrew basically lied through his teeth when trying to create a case against Aboriginals who chose to be seen as aboriginals. David Marr did an excellent job of dissecting just how dishonest Andrew Bolt was. (Even Andrews lawyers had to start by agreeing the basic assertions Andrew made were just untrue.)

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...lt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

It beggars belief that they would now like to defend to the death Andrews capacity for fair and accurate research on climate change issues. And this is in the face of almost all the scientific community that studies this issue .

But no; Andrews nonsense and clever verbal deceptions are accepted as Gods word against the alarmists and anti Galilieo scientists. Perhaps we need a court case to actually investigate Andrews dribble, compare it to evidence and come out with a similar finding ? ( I would really like to see this happen...)

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Bolt was convicted yesterday of racial discrimination, as you're all aware.

I know of people with red hair who regularly get ribbed for an aspect of their appearance that is outside of their control. They get called 'Bluey' or 'red nuts' or 'fanta pants'. This is the same process. Why is it ok? They are regulary discrimintaed against in the dating scene. Is this ok also?

disclosure: I do not have red hair. Only my avatar.

 

[drsmith]

The government runs an advertisement to get across some simpler big pictures issues of how man produced CO2 is creating climate change that needs to be addressed. One of the suggested solutions is the development of non carbon based renewable energy supplies. This is done in a short ad. where you have to simplify a message without destroying the main idea.

There is an abundance of evidence, analysis and detail in climate change research. That is the place to look for making sure CO2 is not shown as grey when it's colourless or other such distractions.

I see.

It's OK for one side of the debate to mislead.

 

[IFocus]

Which is the key criticism of the overwhelming majority of Andrew Bolts writings.

Yep and he profits from it as well, he is a class 1 tosser.

We will get to see what a peoples champion he is once Abbott becomes PM.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I can feel another Basilio book post about to be published.

It's interesting that Basilio pontificates on the asserted wrongs of others but laps up and regurgitates the propaganda of "dirty carbon" scare campaigns and claims it's perfectly all right.

I'm just amazed at how you contiune to post here with a straight face - your own posts have zeroed your credibility and with a hypocritical position you wave the finger at others. This is why the left has sunk into such a unrecoverable position.

 

[IFocus]

Bolt was convicted yesterday of racial discrimination, as you're all aware.

I know of people with red hair who regularly get ribbed for an aspect of their appearance that is outside of their control. They get called 'Bluey' or 'red nuts' or 'fanta pants'. This is the same process. Why is it ok? They are regulary discrimintaed against in the dating scene. Is this ok also?

disclosure: I do not have red hair. Only my avatar.

As Calliope and Julia have pointed out it was really shockingly badly researched journalism.

I followed the trial and was surprised like everyone else that Bolt didn't even know that some of the people he accused had full blood parents etc.

He hadn't even met or interviewed people he made attacks on.

He looked like a complete dick.

Remember he wrote articles in the public domain saying nasty things about people or as a judge put it containing misinformation and 'inflammatory' language.

 

[basilio]

I can feel another Basilio book post about to be published.

It's interesting that Basilio pontificates on the asserted wrongs of others but laps up and regurgitates the propaganda of "dirty carbon" scare campaigns and claims it's perfectly all right.

I'm just amazed at how you contiune to post here with a straight face - your own posts have zeroed your credibility and with a hypocritical position you wave the finger at others. This is why the left has sunk into such a unrecoverable position.

Lay off the abuse Ozzie. It's offensive and down right nasty.

It also poisons this forum for any constructive discussions.