The Bolt Report

[Julia]

My thanks to gg for sending me the article in question.

Couldn't Andrew Bolt have equally made his point in principle without specifically naming any of the individuals, thus drawing attention to what's surely a genuine concern, but without putting himself in such a vulnerable position?

 

[LifeChoices]

My thanks to gg for sending me the article in question.

Couldn't Andrew Bolt have equally made his point in principle without specifically naming any of the individuals, thus drawing attention to what's surely a genuine concern, but without putting himself in such a vulnerable position?

I'm not answering your question, just going to vent a little:

I don't like Andrew Bolt. I've listened to him over the years and some of the things he says are quite entertaining. I think he's only good for those cameos on talk shows like Rove, where he says "something outrageous"

He's rabid, on a mission and predictable. I don't think his radio personality is real an he doesn't deserve all the attention he gets in the social media.

I love listening to local social commentators on am radio and I'm a big big fan of Tom Elliot

 

[McLovin]

My thanks to gg for sending me the article in question.

Couldn't Andrew Bolt have equally made his point in principle without specifically naming any of the individuals, thus drawing attention to what's surely a genuine concern, but without putting himself in such a vulnerable position?

It wouldn't really change much. Sort of like saying "Muslims are terrorists" instead of "Joe is a terrorist because he is Muslims are terrorists".

 

[basilio]

My thanks to gg for sending me the article in question.

Couldn't Andrew Bolt have equally made his point in principle without specifically naming any of the individuals, thus drawing attention to what's surely a genuine concern, but without putting himself in such a vulnerable position?

There would be a case for discussing whether some people were claiming to be aboriginal to gain some extra advantage because of particular laws or benefits that were given to aborigines rather than the fact that they had always been raised as such .

Andrew Bolt decided to prosecute his argument by identifying particular aboriginal people to make the point. The trouble was two fold.

1) He made a series of either deliberate or incompetent errors in his journalism to paint the people in a particular light to suit his argument.

2) He used his particular skills of mockery, sarcasm and belittlement to ensure everyone who read the story as presented would believe the people were pretty low opportunists.

These 2 points were at the heart of Judge Bromberg decision and he did make it clear that people do have a right to discuss racial questions - they just can't use distortions or lies and inflammatory language as part of a "hand on heart " free speech excuse. (And that is written into the Racial Discrimination act as well)

Freedom of speech is not at stake here. Judge Mordecai Bromberg is not telling the media what we can say or where we can poke our noses. He's attacking lousy journalism. He's saying that if Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun wants to accuse people of appalling motives, he should start by getting his facts right.

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.

So as we say in the trade: no story. Yet Bolt went at it with mockery, derision and sarcasm. They are Judge Bromberg's words. He added: "I accept that the language utilised in the newspaper articles was inflammatory and provocative."

Here's Bolt on Larissa Behrendt: "She's won many positions and honours as an Aborigine, including the David Unaipon Award for Indigenous Writers, and is often interviewed demanding special rights for 'my people'. But which people are 'yours', exactly, mein liebchen? And isn't it bizarre to demand laws to give you more rights as a white Aborigine than your own white dad?"

Among the problems here are that Behrendt's father was a black Australian, not a white German. And like all the others, Behrendt was raised black. Judge Bromberg wrote: "She denies Mr Bolt's suggestion that she chose to be Aboriginal and says that she never had a choice, she has always been Aboriginal and has 'identified as Aboriginal since before I can remember'." Bolt didn't contest her evidence.

The nine chose not to sue. They did not want damages but a public correction and a promise not to print such stuff again. So they brought an action under the Racial Discrimination Act, which has embedded in it a strong freedom-of-speech defence: insulting or humiliating people because of their race or colour is not unlawful when it is done "reasonably and in good faith" in pursuit of a matter of public interest.

The act left Bolt with the task of making a list of convincing denials to explain his mistakes, language and motives. Denials are one of Bolt's great talents: with a smile on his face and his hand on his heart he is happy to claim the purest motives even in the unhappiest circumstances. Usually it works like a charm. Not with Judge Bromberg.

Brushed aside was Bolt's claim that he was not writing about race at all. The judge found: "Race, colour and ethnicity were vital elements of the message and therefore a motivating reason for conveying the message, even if the message is to be characterised as ultimately about choice of racial identity."

Also brushed aside was the claim that any offence was unintended. "Mr Bolt is an experienced journalist," said Judge Bromberg. "He has high-level communication skills. His writing displays a capacity to cleverly craft language to intimate a message. I consider it highly unlikely that in carefully crafting the words utilised by him in the newspaper articles, he did not have an understanding of the meaning likely to be conveyed by those words to the ordinary, reasonable reader."

Rather tartly, the judge said the more reliable guide to Bolt's motives came not from his evidence but his writings. The judge seemed not too impressed. "Having observed Mr Bolt, I formed the view that he was prone to after-the-fact rationalisations of his conduct."

Nor was the judge bowled over by Bolt's efforts as a reporter. He taxed Bolt with errors in the genealogy of the nine - some of them "gross errors" - and in describing their upbringing always at white hands. "Mr Bolt presented evidence of having undertaken some online research about the individuals," he said. "But it was not evidence upon which I could be satisfied that a diligent attempt had been made to make reasonable inquiries."

But Judge Bromberg was perhaps most scathing about Bolt's failure to acknowledge that any of the nine had been raised black. "In my view, Mr Bolt was intent on arguing a case," said the judge. "He sought to do so persuasively. It would have been highly inconvenient to the case for which Mr Bolt was arguing for him to have set out facts demonstrating that the individuals whom he wrote about had been raised with an Aboriginal identity and enculturated as Aboriginal people.

"Those facts would have substantially undermined both the assertion that the individuals had made a choice to identify as Aboriginal and that they were not sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely so identifying. The way in which the newspaper articles emphasised the non-Aboriginal ancestry of each person serves to confirm my view. That view is further confirmed by factual errors made which served to belittle the Aboriginal connection of a number of the individuals dealt with, in circumstances where Mr Bolt failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the error in question."

So Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times went down. Outside the court, Bolt declared this "a terrible day for free speech''. Not according to the judge: "The intrusion into freedom of expression is of no greater magnitude than that which would have been imposed by the law of defamation if the conduct in question and its impact upon the reputations of many of the identified individuals had been tested against its compliance with that law." Perhaps the Herald Sun and its star journalist should be thankful they're not facing nine separate defamation trials. An appeal is expected - so is some spectacular rhetoric from the now martyred Andrew Bolt.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...h-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html#ixzz1ZRY137W2

In the end Judge Bromberg has basically said Andrew Bolt was lucky he wasn't facing 9 defamation cases because essentially his misrepresentations and journalist style laid him open to that possibility.

 

[tothemax6]

So using your logic, if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes you can't be Swedish?

Freedom of speech implies a freedom for honest and factual statements not a "protection" for loud mouthed lying bullsh*t artists like Andrew Bolt to mouth off with no consequence.

1) non sequitur.
2) doublethink and outright insanity. read it again and self-medicate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).

Here, I can jibber with the best of them:
"Freedom in general implies a freedom to perform actions which I like. Freedom is not a 'protection' for people I don't like to do things that I disagree with. In fact, in reality, 'freedom' means that if you don't do what I want, I can set a lion on you'.

Just remember everyone, when you are struggling to comprehend the insanity of the world, just remind yourself that 2+2=5, and everything becomes clear and obvious .

 

[sails]

It seems that some from the left who would like to be rid of Murdoch media are the ones crowing the loudest about the Bolt judgement.

Is this really about Bolt or is this being used in a further attempt to silence any dissenting media?

There seems to be more personal attacks on Abbott and now Bolt rather than discussing their respective politics or opinions. It is much the same on forums where those on the seeming greenie left will discredit anyone who disagrees with them on carbon tax rather than discuss said tax.

This seems to be another attack on the messenger rather than the message. They give reason to think this is a concerted effort from the likes of GetUp.

Are you from GetUp, Basilio?

 

[basilio]

Sails et al. Don't worry about what I and other "watermelons" / "warmists" might be saying.

Just focus on Judge Brombergs statements about Andrew Bolts many gross inaccuracies/lies in his work and the language he used to try and blacken the people he was talking about.,

That is the issue isn't it ?

 

[breaker]

blacken the people he was talking about.,

Racist

 

[IFocus]

Mike Calton

"Nuts come out after the truth has bolted"

The usual reactionaries have risen as one in defence of Andrew Bolt, the Melbourne columnist and village idiot, convicted on Wednesday for breaching the Racial Discrimination Act. An attack on freedom of speech, they howled. A dark day for democracy.

Since the verdict, Bolt himself has played the martyred victim, drenched in self-pity, a sickening spectacle.

This is the point

The judge did not smother free speech. He skewered dud journalism.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...-has-bolted-20110930-1l1al.html#ixzz1ZTxip0k8

 

[basilio]

Came across a short, excellent video story which explores the issue of what it means to be an Aboriginal and offers 3 perspectives

Worth a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFtpybqBK0c&feature=player_embedded

(Actually sourced from Andrew Bolt's blog site....)

 

[breaker]

So why do people with a splash of coulour choose to be part of that heritage and not the majority of their blood

 

[Julia]

There would be a case for discussing whether some people were claiming to be aboriginal to gain some extra advantage because of particular laws or benefits that were given to aborigines rather than the fact that they had always been raised as such .

Andrew Bolt decided to prosecute his argument by identifying particular aboriginal people to make the point. The trouble was two fold.

1) He made a series of either deliberate or incompetent errors in his journalism to paint the people in a particular light to suit his argument.

2) He used his particular skills of mockery, sarcasm and belittlement to ensure everyone who read the story as presented would believe the people were pretty low opportunists.

Having now read Bolt's article, I don't disagree with your comment above, basilio.

I think bellenuit has summarised the situation best in her post below:

Being aboriginal Australian is a matter of DNA, not citizenship. If both parents are aborigines, then you are 100% aboriginal Australian, if one is an aborigine and the other is 100% a non-aborigine, then you are 50% aboriginal Australian, if three of your grandparents are 100% non-aboriginal and the fourth is 100% aboriginal Australian, then you are 25% etc.

If you are 1% aboriginal Australian and want to identify yourself as being culturally aboriginal Australian, then that normally is a personal choice and not an issue to anyone else. The problem is when the government positively discriminates in favour of aboriginal Australians. If aboriginal Australians become entitled to some benefit or other purely because they are aboriginal Australians and that benefit is paid by the tax payer, then surely the tax payer is entitled to know whether that person is genuinely an aborigine. So where does one draw the line. 100%, 50%, 25%, 10%?

I don't know the full details of the Bolt case, but I cannot see how questioning a person's ethnicity should be regarded as racial vilification, when that person appears to be not really a member of that ethic group. Government largesse isn't infinite, so someone must draw the line somewhere.

 

[Calliope]

2) He used his particular skills of mockery, sarcasm and belittlement to ensure everyone who read the story as presented would believe the people were pretty low opportunists.

Whereas they were high-minded citizens.:dunno: We all know about Clark, and as for Larissa Behrend, well she made a very nasty gutter remark about "fellow" aborigine Bess Price.

LARISSA Behrendt was appointed to head the Gillard government's review of indigenous higher education on the same day it was revealed she used her Twitter account to describe watching bestiality on television as "less offensive" than Aboriginal leader Bess Price.

The high-profile indigenous lawyer was yesterday forced into a humiliating apology to Ms Price, an Aboriginal woman who supports the federal intervention in Northern Territory communities, after indigenous leaders expressed outrage at the comment.

After watching Ms Price appear on the ABC's Q&A program on Monday night, Professor Behrendt tweeted: "I watched a show where a guy had sex with a horse and I'm sure it was less offensive than Bess Price."

Professor Behrendt initially defended her comment on Twitter and on Wednesday told The Australian it had been taken out of context, saying she had been watching the profane television series Deadwood.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-on-black-leader/story-fn59niix-1226039396368

 

[Roberto]

There has been nothing better over the last few years than watching David Marr comprehensively demolish Bolt's dim bigotries face to face on Insiders.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

There has been nothing better over the last few years than watching David Marr comprehensively demolish Bolt's dim bigotries face to face on Insiders.

Equalled over the last few years by watching Andrew Bolt comprehensively demolish Marr's dim bigotries face to face on Insiders.

They are of a kind, by pure chance on opposite sides of a debate.

gg

 

[basilio]

Interesting to see other examples surfacing of Andrew Bolt's misrepresentation of peoples views.

Martin Flanagan posted a story of how Andrew tried to give him a bad look.

Bolt's barks of discontent lack bite
Martin Flanagan


THREE years ago, Andrew Bolt wrote a blog post attacking my views on the origins of Australian football that began: ''Another Noble Savage myth pushed by journalists is disclosed.'' The problem was I did not hold the views Bolt attributed to me.

When a woman called Janine posted a quote from an article from the Victoria University magazine Sport and Culture, in which my views were accurately described, Bolt reacted angrily, telling Janine he would ban her from his blog if she kept making mischievous posts. He then attributed a second position to me - again one I did not hold - and bounded off like a kangaroo caught in the headlights to his next subject.

......I met Anita Heiss, one of the litigants in the Bolt case, seven years ago. She has a generous spirit and is frank and forthright. Coming from Tasmania, I am aware of the extent to which definitions of Aboriginality can become ultra-defensive and ossify. Here was a young woman who was proudly Aboriginal but totally open about her Austrian father's side of her family. To me, she represented a way forward, so I wrote about her.

Bolt used the article. Other than her name, he got virtually everything about her wrong, including her skin colour and academic achievements, but no less important was the tone of the article, which opened her to ridicule and contempt.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...t-lack-bite-20110930-1l1bg.html#ixzz1ZUe82m7H

 

[Calliope]

Interesting to see other examples surfacing of Andrew Bolt's misrepresentation of peoples views.

And it's not only Bolt. Another icon of the left, who has been rubbishing Bolt, has put his foot in it. Burnside's credibility is now down there with Bolt's.

PROMINENT Queen's Counsel Julian Burnside has issued an apology to Tony Abbott after tweeting "Paedos in speedos" during a stream of critical remarks about the Opposition Leader on Twitter.

He said;

"I really am genuinely sorry. I am critical of Mr Abbott on a number of grounds and I wouldn't want those criticisms to be diminished because people think I throw around utterly baseless, careless allegations."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-on-twitter-slur/story-fn59niix-1226154571680

 

[sails]

Basilio, your postings and articles require some balance, imo. Not everyone agrees with everything you say no matter how much you use enlarged fonts...

Is this being used to further the attack on free speech in this country? Below are the viewpoints of other people:

Mark Steyn: Free Speech Disaster in Australia

Miranda Divine: Bolt case has ominous echo

George Brandis: Section 18C has no place in a society that values freedom of expression

From the Australian: Assault on free speech should be offensive to all

Chris Merritt Legal affairs editor: The Andrew Bolt decision means all of us have a problem

Former Labor Minister Gary Johns:Cultural identity open for discussion

Michael Connor: Where is justice?

Jason Morrison: You can't say certain things anymore

James Delingpole: Freedom of speech is dead in Australia

Christopher Pearson: Repeal dusty sections of Racial Discrimination Act

that will do for now...

 

[McLovin]

Basilio, your postings and articles require some balance, imo. Not everyone agrees with everything you say no matter how much you use enlarged fonts...

Is this being used to further the attack on free speech in this country? Below are the viewpoints of other people:

Mark Steyn: Free Speech Disaster in Australia

Miranda Divine: Bolt case has ominous echo

George Brandis: Section 18C has no place in a society that values freedom of expression

From the Australian: Assault on free speech should be offensive to all

Chris Merritt Legal affairs editor: The Andrew Bolt decision means all of us have a problem

Former Labor Minister Gary Johns:Cultural identity open for discussion

Michael Connor: Where is justice?

Jason Morrison: You can't say certain things anymore

James Delingpole: Freedom of speech is dead in Australia

Christopher Pearson: Repeal dusty sections of Racial Discrimination Act

that will do for now...

Does anyone really take Miranda Devine or Jason Morrison seriously?

I see that George Brandis is pretty much saying what I was up thread, that s18C is too broad.

 

[sails]

Does anyone really take Miranda Devine or Jason Morrison seriously?

I see that George Brandis is pretty much saying what I was up thread, that s18C is too broad.

And why does Murdoch have such a wide circulation? Hmmm - that usually means people are buying it. People choose what they buy to read. Obviously you are reading with the minority...